Hmm that's Public Relations - I think Oliver Cromwell would turn in his grave.
How thick are some kids these days?
- Thread starter RetiredGreyFox
- Start date
Hmm that's Public Relations - I think Oliver Cromwell would turn in his grave.
If your going to point out mistakes then at least correct them so he knows where he has gone wrong
I did correct him by saying that you can't say "an amount of people". It's up to him to decide whether he wants to speak and write English correctly and find out what his mistake is. That way he'll actually learn, rather than being force-fed knowledge.
Edit: Oh, and it's "you are" or "you're" not "your".
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Darwin denied. Actually if she's already had kids he would have been denied twice.
What can possibly possess anyone to think that cutting through a live cable with a pair of pliers is a plan worth continuing with?
I was referring to the use of "amount" with a countable noun.
I have faith in our youth.
I don't see any differences in the youth of today when compared to the youth of 20 years ago when I was at school.
There are smart children
There are dumb children
There are smart children who are lazy
There are dumb children who will do their very best
I would say that not knowing certain facts about the world is more down to the touchy-feely way of teching concepts today rather than the methods of the past which focussed on giving children the facts and encouraging them to form their own opinions.
Every day my daughter comes home from school with stuff about global warming, climate change, carbon footprints etc. but it's taught as fact. I was most upset when she told me that I should use public transport to get to work as my car/motorcycle was destroying the planet. Unfortunately she's too young to have a reasoned conversation with about such subjects and so she just absorbs what the school tells her. The school effectively teaching her that her daddy is a bad person is not good in my opinion.
My father gave up teaching Physics when the national curriculem forced him to teach that nuclear power was bad in principle rather than giving the children the facts and letting them make their own minds up.
Teaching today is about bypassing moral, physical and philosophical problems and jumping straight to the "answers".
I teach my daughter extra things at home, about the world. All parents need to do this.
I think in the past this used to happen more frequently but in today's society of both parents working and having crazy commutes, it's just not possible.
I don't see any differences in the youth of today when compared to the youth of 20 years ago when I was at school.
There are smart children
There are dumb children
There are smart children who are lazy
There are dumb children who will do their very best
I would say that not knowing certain facts about the world is more down to the touchy-feely way of teching concepts today rather than the methods of the past which focussed on giving children the facts and encouraging them to form their own opinions.
Every day my daughter comes home from school with stuff about global warming, climate change, carbon footprints etc. but it's taught as fact. I was most upset when she told me that I should use public transport to get to work as my car/motorcycle was destroying the planet. Unfortunately she's too young to have a reasoned conversation with about such subjects and so she just absorbs what the school tells her. The school effectively teaching her that her daddy is a bad person is not good in my opinion.
My father gave up teaching Physics when the national curriculem forced him to teach that nuclear power was bad in principle rather than giving the children the facts and letting them make their own minds up.
Teaching today is about bypassing moral, physical and philosophical problems and jumping straight to the "answers".
I teach my daughter extra things at home, about the world. All parents need to do this.
I think in the past this used to happen more frequently but in today's society of both parents working and having crazy commutes, it's just not possible.
Last edited:
I'm glad they don't know who Pete Doherty is, why would you need to know this? Pub quiz? Oh damn, there goes my free five pints!
Also, very few people care enough about the Queen, her messed up family and the dramas which they go through to know the details. Again, why is it important? I think the majority of the Monarchy are an embarassment, who make ignorant (and sometimes racist) remarks because they have lost touch with society and the country - especially the youth.
I plain don't believe you about the news thing, too.
Also, very few people care enough about the Queen, her messed up family and the dramas which they go through to know the details. Again, why is it important? I think the majority of the Monarchy are an embarassment, who make ignorant (and sometimes racist) remarks because they have lost touch with society and the country - especially the youth.
I plain don't believe you about the news thing, too.
If you are going to engage in pedantry, at least be thorough
OK then, going back to your previous post "clause" has a "u" in it
On a serious note, however, I don't feel that expecting people to be able to communicate properly in their native language is pedantic. In my view, the attitude towards the importance of language is no different to one's attitude towards the importance of knowledge.
The people who have posted in this thread seem to be in two camps: the relativist camp ("these kids are just as knowledgeable, they just know different things") and the absolutist camp ("there are certain facts that one ought to know, and it is sad/scary/depressing that many children don't").
In my view, these approaches can, and should, also be applied to numeracy, literacy and the attitude towards these very basic skills. Needless to say, I consider the relativist approach to be somewhat misguided, and the consequences of the next generation growing up without an understanding of how the world they live in actually works is as scary thought as any.
I'd disagree there. I'd say Prince Charles is far more in touch with the people than some people give him credit for. Certainly FAR more in touch than most of our *civillian* politicans.
EDIT : I'd say Prince William and Harry are as well.
Last edited:
OK then, going back to your previous post "clause" has a "u" in it
Filthy typo. Thank you for the correction
More in touch than the Reptillian Overlords? I think not!
Sorry; you probably have a point but I can't take you seriously. I also did say the 'majority'; PC may be an exception.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,783
- Location
- My fabulous ship
Is this a "Special college"? because I know if these comments were given in my college you'd get a book to the face from our lecturers...
He even mentions Icke, too. Go on son, fill your boots!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article4547325.ece
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,713
Isn't the Queen (and so presumably also Charles) supposed to be a reptilian?