Canadian politics thread

[westopher]

I was not impressed with Singh condemning Trudeau in the house of commons, making demands for Trudeau to make policy changes, then immediately back tracking and just saying "I don't have all the answers" and literally not making one suggestion. That's a cop out. You tell someone they need to make a change, make demands, but then basically say I'm not telling you what you should do though. That's just lip service as well.

[underscore]

"Conservative MPP @randy.hillier posted this and deleted it on Twitter, refused to apologize or answer questions from reporters about it and wants to sweep it under the rug."

[mikemhg]

You know speaking about the Trudeau pause.

One has to wonder how Harper would speak on this topic, I guarantee you it wouldn't be pretty, in fact I doubt he'd comment at all.

One a side note, speaking about black-face and Trudeau, including him dressing up in Indian garb a few years back, anyone recall this gem?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...face-1.5294119

Let's move on, politicians all do it, who cares, it's about the actual character of the person and their practices while in power.

[Manic!]

Good old dinosaur hunting stockwell day was been fired from 2 jobs.

Stockwell Day Steps Down From Jobs After Asinine Comments On Racism
He equated racism to his experience of being called “four-eyes” at school.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...b61583150bb40e

[westopher]

Lol I was watching that live on power and politics and I was literally laughing and yelled "oh fuck this guy has fucking lost his marbles" and had to get my wife to come watch it with me.

[Manic!]

Just when you though the cons could not get any stupider.

https://pressprogress.ca/united-cons...ely-backwards/

MLA for Jason Kenney's party suggests Alberta schools should be run like ‘privatized liquor stores’
June 3, 2020 Share Tweet

Should Alberta’s elementary schools be run like private liquor stores?

According to United Conservative Party MLA Dan Williams, that’s the Alberta way — and besides, public education “makes no sense.”

Speaking in the Alberta Legislature this week, Williams urged the province to further privatize education in Alberta because he thinks sending children to public schools means the same thing as “nationalizing the family.”

During a lengthy speech over education funding, Williams pointed to Alberta’s private “liquor stores” as a workable model for the province’s schools and described public education itself as “insanity.”

“It makes no sense,” Williams said. “It’s absolutely backwards.”

“This is a province that has privatized, you know, liquor stores, and government telephone communications because we believe we’re not as good at running those as individuals are, as businesses are, as people can make their own choices, but somehow we think the state should be nationalizing the family and education? And the relationship between parents and children? It’s inanity. It makes no sense. It’s absolutely backwards.”

The speech came shortly after Education Minister Adrianna LaGrange expanded the abilities for private charter schools to operate in the province, through the “Choice in Education Act” unveiled Thursday.

The act also reduces school board authority over home education programs in the province.

Williams’ UCP nomination bid was endorsed by a number of social conservative MPs and MLAs, including Garnett Genuis, Arnold Viersen and Nathan Cooper.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has previously headlined obscure conferences organized by far-right homeschooling groups.

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Just when you though the cons could not get any stupider.

https://pressprogress.ca/united-cons...ely-backwards/

What about this:

Say I open a school for engineers. I have an entrance exam that takes in a certain number 10 year olds every year, maybe the kids who are naturally good at math. I teach them the necessary skills to become good engineers and don't teach them unnecessary things. What's unnecessary? History. Social studies. Those 2 subjects in particular should not be taught by public institutions because there is a conflict of interest there. Maybe my school is partnered with an engineering company and at the age of 16, you can get a job straight out of school. You;ll have all the necessary skills to be successful at that job because that's what you're taught. Maybe the education is continuously updated as technology improves.

Maybe I'll open a school for the trades and start teaching kids who are 10 years old how to build an entire house. Maybe it'll be a 7 year path and among the things you learn is how to write business emails rather than learn Shakespeare. There's no reason a kid who might be interested in the trades has to sit and read Shakespeare. It's a waste of time.

Compare this to our current system. Everyone learns the same exact thing from Kindergarten to Grade 12, with some exceptions of course. We all sit in a desk and watch the teacher speak and relay the same information. Our different strengths and weaknesses and interests don't matter. The purpose of today's public schools is to be obedient. Listen to what the teacher is teaching and get that diploma.

We live in a time where we have the internet. If we change the way schools are done, we have a way to radically change society for the better. I know intelligent people who dropped out because they wanted to work or because it was boring. There's no reason for a student who's interested in playing with legos and building things to be forced to take ADD medication because he can't sit still and watch the teacher talk about Canadian history.

[westopher]

Well, you need a baseline. You act like private schools and trade programs in public schools don't already exist. Public schools still need to be there for, you know, the general public. Totally agree that schools need to refine the curriculum, what we don't need is the Enron school of oil to be seen as legitimate education for the average albertan child.

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by westopher

Well, you need a baseline. You act like private schools and trade programs in public schools don't already exist. Public schools still need to be there for, you know, the general public. Totally agree that schools need to refine the curriculum, what we don't need is the Enron school of oil to be seen as legitimate education for the average albertan child.

The thing about refining the curriculum is that you can't change things on the fly as easily as you can with private businesses. If a private business makes a mistake, they're at risk of closing. When a government body makes a mistake they claim to be underfunded and are given more money. There are also extra rules, many of which don't make any sense and a ton more administrators making sure those rules are being followed.

I don't see any problem with the Enron school because there's going to be a Shell school and a TD Bank school and a Starbucks school. There might also be a general business school and maybe some schools that mirror what we have today because maybe that's the best system.

As these schools compete for talent, the best schools are going to be open at the end. If a particular school provides free lunch to get talent, maybe another school will provide a free gym and personal trainer. As these schools compete for talent, the general public will win. Parents have the best interests of their children in mind and will send them to the best schools. Because we're all connected with the internet, people are going to be talking about their school experience.

If there's a worry about schools becoming too expensive, the government could offer a voucher. For example maybe each child under the age of 18 is given a $1000 voucher than could be put towards any school.

There are basically 0 examples throughout history of a government providing a better experience for a cheaper cost compared to a private company.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

What about this:

Say I open a school for engineers. I have an entrance exam that takes in a certain number 10 year olds every year, maybe the kids who are naturally good at math. I teach them the necessary skills to become good engineers and don't teach them unnecessary things. What's unnecessary? History. Social studies. Those 2 subjects in particular should not be taught by public institutions because there is a conflict of interest there. Maybe my school is partnered with an engineering company and at the age of 16, you can get a job straight out of school. You;ll have all the necessary skills to be successful at that job because that's what you're taught. Maybe the education is continuously updated as technology improves.

Maybe I'll open a school for the trades and start teaching kids who are 10 years old how to build an entire house. Maybe it'll be a 7 year path and among the things you learn is how to write business emails rather than learn Shakespeare. There's no reason a kid who might be interested in the trades has to sit and read Shakespeare. It's a waste of time.

Compare this to our current system. Everyone learns the same exact thing from Kindergarten to Grade 12, with some exceptions of course. We all sit in a desk and watch the teacher speak and relay the same information. Our different strengths and weaknesses and interests don't matter. The purpose of today's public schools is to be obedient. Listen to what the teacher is teaching and get that diploma.

We live in a time where we have the internet. If we change the way schools are done, we have a way to radically change society for the better. I know intelligent people who dropped out because they wanted to work or because it was boring. There's no reason for a student who's interested in playing with legos and building things to be forced to take ADD medication because he can't sit still and watch the teacher talk about Canadian history.

You really think a 10-year-old really knows what he wants to do with his/her life. My nephew wanted to play in the NHL. Should she have taken him out of school so he could focus 24/7 on hockey?

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by Manic!

You really think a 10-year-old really knows what he wants to do with his/her life. My nephew wanted to play in the NHL. Should she have taken him out of school so he could focus 24/7 on hockey?

Maybe there will be a hockey school - I would seriously doubt this because of the small % of people playing professional hockey but maybe they start up and get no students and have to close. Maybe it'll be popular.

And no I don't think a 10 year old knows what exactly they want to do - so maybe there's a school that's similar to schools today where they teach certain general courses.

The point is, if there's a way to improve teaching and therefore learning, this is the best way. Let the people figure it out. The private sector is full of parents who want what's best for their kids.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

There are basically 0 examples throughout history of a government providing a better experience for a cheaper cost compared to a private company.

Healthcare -- game, set, and match.

The problem with your approach is, you're turning kids into one trick ponies, and that is superbly problematic. If that trick you taught the kid doesn't pan out for one reason or another, then the kid becomes totally screwed. Case in point -- what if a kid gets sent to this engineering school because he was good at math, but then it turned out that he hates match / applied science?

And then kids all growth, mature, and bloom in their own ways, and on their own time. If you don't even expose them to the different subjects, they wouldn't even have a chance to explore it. What if a kid was supposed to be a late bloomer in arts and music, but he didn't show that talent when he was a young child? And because you sent him to trade school instead of music school since he was good with crafts, the world would have lost this arts and music prospect. And then if it turned out that the kid was only mediocre in trades, then again, the kid is fxxked.

[whitev70r]

WTF is wrong with you? You intentionally use this photo of Harper in Indigenous dress as the article suggested ... out of context ??!! Harper was not making fun of Indigenous people (as Trudeau was in his blackface), the Indigenous tribe chiefs put that on him in a cultural ceremony. You tell people to move on and you pull this shit. You just discredited yourself completely.

From the CBC article that you linked:
"The chiefs chose to put a headdress on Harper and they brought in people from their faith and they coloured his face. It was all part of a cultural and religious ceremony," said Robert Jago a Montreal-based writer and a member of the Kwantlen First Nation.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

You know speaking about the Trudeau pause.

One has to wonder how Harper would speak on this topic, I guarantee you it wouldn't be pretty, in fact I doubt he'd comment at all.

One a side note, speaking about black-face and Trudeau, including him dressing up in Indian garb a few years back, anyone recall this gem?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...face-1.5294119

Let's move on, politicians all do it, who cares, it's about the actual character of the person and their practices while in power.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

WTF is wrong with you? You intentionally use this photo of Harper in Indigenous dress as the article suggested ... out of context ??!! Harper was not making fun of Indigenous people (as Trudeau was in his blackface), the Indigenous tribe chiefs put that on him in a cultural ceremony. You tell people to move on and you pull this shit. You just discredited yourself completely.

From the CBC article that you linked:
"The chiefs chose to put a headdress on Harper and they brought in people from their faith and they coloured his face. It was all part of a cultural and religious ceremony," said Robert Jago a Montreal-based writer and a member of the Kwantlen First Nation.

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of Harper but I remember this, and it's not racist if the indigenous people dress you themselves.

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by Traum

Healthcare -- game, set, and match.

The problem with your approach is, you're turning kids into one trick ponies, and that is superbly problematic. If that trick you taught the kid doesn't pan out for one reason or another, then the kid becomes totally screwed. Case in point -- what if a kid gets sent to this engineering school because he was good at math, but then it turned out that he hates match / applied science?

And then kids all growth, mature, and bloom in their own ways, and on their own time. If you don't even expose them to the different subjects, they wouldn't even have a chance to explore it. What if a kid was supposed to be a late bloomer in arts and music, but he didn't show that talent when he was a young child? And because you sent him to trade school instead of music school since he was good with crafts, the world would have lost this arts and music prospect. And then if it turned out that the kid was only mediocre in trades, then again, the kid is fxxked.

I'm just spitballing examples of things that can happen. Maybe everyone realizes that specification as a kid is risky and decides to send their kid to a general school where they're taught language, logic, match, I don't know, I don't have the answers and that's the beauty of it. Everyone will have what they think will work and then they have to put it into practice and if it works then it works. The best schools will stay afloat. We'll be able to see which skills and subjects are useful and which are not.

And re: healthcare, it's far cheaper right now, that's undeniable, but the long-term effects on Canada are going to hurt unless there are radical changes. It's not sustainable at all. It's going to lead to higer taxes, an increase in MSP, and an increase in debt for the entire country. It has to because the financial burden is insanely high and it's getting worse.

We are already starting to see the cracks in the walls with things like people being unable to find a family doctor and this is because because you can't regulate entire industries.

However, you might be right and healthcare might somehow be better under a government though. Good point.

[whitev70r]

Twitter

[MarkyMark]

Yeah let's completely ignore teaching history so going forward the same mistakes can happen over and over. How can we progress when we don't know where we've been? Let's let an 8 year old decide whether they want to learn math or open an ice cream parlor. When I was 10 I thought it was amazing my dad let me mow the lawn it doesn't mean I wanted to be a landscaper as a career. Shit by the end of highschool I was still confused what I wanted to do.

Your way sounds like the parents choose what they want their kids to do before they have the chance to decide for themselves. Can't say shit when you're in a trade at 10 years old, pretty pot committed after that, it's all you know.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Traum

Healthcare -- game, set, and match.

The problem with your approach is, you're turning kids into one trick ponies, and that is superbly problematic. If that trick you taught the kid doesn't pan out for one reason or another, then the kid becomes totally screwed. Case in point -- what if a kid gets sent to this engineering school because he was good at math, but then it turned out that he hates match / applied science?

And then kids all growth, mature, and bloom in their own ways, and on their own time. If you don't even expose them to the different subjects, they wouldn't even have a chance to explore it. What if a kid was supposed to be a late bloomer in arts and music, but he didn't show that talent when he was a young child? And because you sent him to trade school instead of music school since he was good with crafts, the world would have lost this arts and music prospect. And then if it turned out that the kid was only mediocre in trades, then again, the kid is fxxked.

Yeah, education needs to be well rounded. Humanities courses are not useless, they teach all sort of skills like critical thinking, how to be a functional member of society etc.

What's a tragedy though is the lack of financial education in school. It's clear parents are not teaching this stuff, probably because they aren't good at it themselves.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

The thing about refining the curriculum is that you can't change things on the fly as easily as you can with private businesses. If a private business makes a mistake, they're at risk of closing. When a government body makes a mistake they claim to be underfunded and are given more money. There are also extra rules, many of which don't make any sense and a ton more administrators making sure those rules are being followed.

I don't see any problem with the Enron school because there's going to be a Shell school and a TD Bank school and a Starbucks school. There might also be a general business school and maybe some schools that mirror what we have today because maybe that's the best system.

As these schools compete for talent, the best schools are going to be open at the end. If a particular school provides free lunch to get talent, maybe another school will provide a free gym and personal trainer. As these schools compete for talent, the general public will win. Parents have the best interests of their children in mind and will send them to the best schools. Because we're all connected with the internet, people are going to be talking about their school experience.

If there's a worry about schools becoming too expensive, the government could offer a voucher. For example maybe each child under the age of 18 is given a $1000 voucher than could be put towards any school.

There are basically 0 examples throughout history of a government providing a better experience for a cheaper cost compared to a private company.

You have 40 posts and are already regurgitating shit that has already been disproven in a previous conversation.

Congratulations.

[SkinnyPupp]

Why did Welfare start posting under a dupe account anyway? Is it because people stopped responding to the first one, knowing the kind of bad faith arguments that are constantly made?

[birddog3k]

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim a, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument a is wrong".

[MarkyMark]

People just made legit arguments about your ideas so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You responded with "I'm just spitballin'" which is code for "I'm talking out of my ass, unless you agree with me".

[underscore]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

Parents have the best interests of their children in mind and will send them to the best schools.

Hahahahahahaha no. You don't think a bunch of parents are going to stick their kids into schools based on what they want their kid to become and not what the kid wants to do? Look at all the psychotic parents in the US putting their kids into beauty pageants.

Not to mention all the people who completely change their minds about what they want to do along the way. My wife hated math until she got to college, now she's an accountant. A friend of mine was 1 semester away from his Engineering degree, but he hated it and is now a truck driver. Loads of kids that love hockey and dream of being in the NHL get burned out and quit playing entirely.

The whole idea sounds like taking the worst parts of communist and capitalist education systems and combining them into some horrendous abomination designed to make everyone hate their job.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

Why did Welfare start posting under a dupe account anyway? Is it because people stopped responding to the first one, knowing the kind of bad faith arguments that are constantly made?

As a mod, i must say I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised coming from you) that you'd float false statements like this knowing full well how easily you could disprove it.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by welfare

As a mod, i must say I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised coming from you) that you'd float false statements like this knowing full well how easily you could disprove it.

Sorry if I'm mistaken

But it's not that easy to prove it anyway, since most of the people here use the same ISP with non static IPs... Like RS could be one person trolling me and I wouldn't know it (though sometimes I wonder)