Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State
- From: "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Oct 2005 08:14:47 -0700
Scout wrote:
> "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>
> >> So university education isn't really education, but something else?????
> >> Education isn't what you are suppose to get from a university education?
> >
> > I NEVER said "university education isn't really education", that's your
> > invention.
>
> Well, it seemed like you were trying to say so when you claimed you didn't
> say it depends whether it is better for someone to be educated. Since
> university education is, as you now admit, a part of education, then it
> follows that you feel that education isn't necessarily a good thing for
> people.
It only follows in your warped mind. My statement was crystal clear,
though you seem to have trouble accepting it as it was written and
prefer to argue about things NOT said. Why, only you would know.
>
> > Does education = university education?
>
> No, but university education = education. Seems that you feel education can
> be a bad thing.
University education is a PART of education, and that was the PART I
specifically mentioned. I know that destroys your whole charade here,
but that's the fact.
>
> > Do you get
> > "university education" from "education"?
>
> It is a part of it, the same as any other subgroup of education.
We agree. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
>
> > You are tying yourself in
> > knots here rather than simply admitting you and Glennaccused me of
> > saying something I NEVER said.
>
> So are you now asserting you
>
> 1) didn't make your remarks about a university education
WRONG
> 2) education doesn't include a university education
WRONG
Slipped back into your bad old ways it seems.
>
> Feel free to point out which alternative you feel is what you are trying to
> say.
NEITHER, both are your inventions. My statement stands as written.
>
>
> >> However, let's see what your current assertion is. Some types of
> >> education
> >> are bad for you.
> >
> > LIE! NEVER said any such thing.
>
> BS. Let me remind you of your own words:
>
> ""A bit like asking "Is it better to have a university education or not, yes
> or no?".
> The correct answer to that would clearly be "It depends".
> Depends on a myriad of factors."
>
> Seems you do oppose education, specifically that portion of education called
> a "university education", or are you going to assert that a university
> education isn't a type of education?
I don't oppose education. Even if I did oppose university education
that doesn't mean I oppose education per se, just the unviversity part.
A university education is a type of education, that is WHY I
SPECIFICALLY DID NOT say just "education".
>
>
>
> >> So tell us, why is such education bad for you? Does it make the peasants
> >> disgruntled?
> >
> > See above, no such statement made.
>
> Sorry, but your own words state otherwise.
Sorry, but they DID NOT. Please reread my EXACT words and have a
rethink. I wrote posing a question about whether something was "better
or not", yes or no. Clearly if the answer was no then that equates to
"not better". And "not better" is NOT bad, it is simply "not better".
You seem to suffer from some sort of affliction which forces you to
ignore what is actually written and start making all sorts of fanciful
claims about what you think was written. Sounds disturbingly
psychological to me.
>
> >>
> >> >> I fail to see the difference in there, or do you feel a university
> >> >> education
> >> >> isn't education?
> >> >
> >> > That you fail to see the difference doesn't surprise me. Maybe you
> >> > applied for a job requiring a university education and when asked to
> >> > elaborate on that university education replied, "Well I've got an
> >> > education, I fail to see the difference between that and a university
> >> > education." I like to se you "dig your way out of that hole".
> >>
> >> Why should I? It's your strawman. I'm not the one suggesting that a
> >> university education is bad for people.
> >
> > LIE! NEVER said any such thing.
>
> "A bit like asking "Is it better to have a university education or not, yes
> or no?".
> The correct answer to that would clearly be "It depends".
> Depends on a myriad of factors."
>
> Your own words state otherwise.
See above where a no answer does NOT mean bad, it CLEARLY means (based
on the structure of the question) not better.
>
>
> >> > You appear to think "university education" is interchangeable with
> >> > "education". It ISN'T! In the US in 2000 76% of those 25+ did not have
> >> > a bachelor's degree or higher. Yet you fail to see the difference
> >> > between education and a university education.
> >>
> >> So education is good, but university education is "it depends"?
> >
> > Now you finally seem to understand. What took so long?
>
> Because education includes education learned in a university.
That's what's generally known as a "university education" in case you
were unaware. And can't simply swap them around with gay abandon. They
mean different things.
>
> > Oh, that's
> > right, you finally decided to use some of my actual words rather than
> > substituting your version.
>
> Don't blame me because you feel education isn't what one gets during a
> "university education"
I blame someone in your past that let you get to this stage where you
feel totally at ease making claims about what I am supposed to have
said when the record clearly shows otherwise. Your whole argument is
based on telling me that what I wrote means something different to what
was written.
>
> Tell me did you skip school when they explained groups and subgroups?
Not at all. Uinversity education is a sub group of education. What
applies to "university education" does not necissarily apply to
education as a whole. If it did then university education would not be
a subgroup.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> What is it about learning at a university that makes your education a
> >> matter
> >> of indecision?
> >>
> >> However, rather than teasing you let me put it to you simply. You have a
> >> group, called education, which is made up of the subgroups called
> >> "kindergarden", "grade school" "junior high school", "high school",
> >> "community college", "college", "university", etc. Within the group of
> >> education is the subgroup of "university education". A subgroup you feel
> >> may
> >> not be better for some people to have. Hence within the group of
> >> education
> >> exists portions which you consider detramental to people, and hence the
> >> group called education can be detremental to people, since the group
> >> shares
> >> the characteristics of ALL subgroups, even those you consider detrimental
> >> to
> >> people to have.
> >
> > What a load of old codswallop! You prattle on about sub groups and
> > somehow come to the mystical conclusion that the characteristics of the
> > sub group must apply to the group.
>
> By definition they must if they are to be within the larger group.
HORRIBLY WRONG!! IMBECILLICLY WRONG!!
Let's expose you for the hopeless charlatan you are.
You state "that the characteristics of the sub group must apply to the
group". Pretty definitive stuff, and easily disproven.
First I will disprove it on a general level. Modern humans are a
subgroup of the family Hominidae or hominids. The hominid subgroups are
humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. If, as you claim, "the
characteristics of the sub group must apply to the group" then all the
characteristics of humans must apply to hominids. Therefore, under your
scenario, if humans have large brains capable of complex speech
patterns and writing then that same characteristic must apply to
hominids. Reality is hominids have relatively large brains with varying
degrees of sophistication. One subgroup, humans, has the characteristic
mentioned, the other subgroups don't.
Are you getting the picture?
Now I'll show you why you CANNOT claim "that the characteristics of the
sub group (university education) must apply to the group (education)".
One of the most important characteristics of university education is
that it is not compulsory whereas in most western countries primary and
lower secondary education is compulsory. Under your scenario both those
characteristics must apply to education. That education must be both
compulsory and non-compulsory. Do you see the problem?
I'll put it as plainly as I can for you. Subgroups differ from each
other but share CERTAIN characteristics that enable them to be grouped.
Those similar characteristics are shared by all, BUT the different ones
are not. Therefore it is FALSE to claim "that the characteristics of
the sub group must apply to the group" because, by definition, if they
all did then it would not be a subgroup, it would be indistinguishable
from the group.
>
> > If that were true how would you
> > define the sub group Einstein?
>
> That subgroup of humans named Einstein.
Back to class Einstein.
>
> > That's right, by its DIFFERENCES!
>
> So Einstein wasn't human? A university education isn't education? Sorry, but
> those differences exist only to differentiate items within the overall
> group. Thus you have a high school education and a university education, but
> they both are education.
Nothing to be sorry about, I NEVER said that university education isn't
education.
>
> >> Hence your statement directly extends to education because education
> >> includes that learned at a university which you consider may not be
> >> better
> >> for people to have. Hence you feel that education may not be better for
> >> people to have because of your statements concerning it's part(s).
> >
> > Horse shit. Only a complete fool thinks "university education" and
> > "education" are interchangeable. You doing a good imitation of one in
> > this debate.
>
> Never said they were interchangable, a subgroup of the other that's another
> story.
Still sticking to this limp excuse? Give it a rest.
>
> <snip>
>
> So tell me if education isn't what you get with a university education, what
> exactly is it then?
Exactly? Are you sure you're ready for this? Here goes. What you get
EXACTLY is, wait for it, a university education.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- Next by Date: Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State
- Previous by thread: Re: EDUCATION SECRETARY OVER WHOLE COUNTRY FOR (not one but) TWO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS SAYS RACE (Not lack of Education) IS CAUSE OF CRIME (he needs to be educated)
- Next by thread: Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
