People love to bash Americans for lack of geography and science knowledge, but this smart British fellow just said "Hurricane" with reference to Oklahoma and nobody bats an eye?

can't wait to hear a professor of geography and anthropology explain why capitalism has failed in a video posted on a commercial site paid for by advertisers ... I'm sure his insights into economics are stunning ... I'm certain he'll explain why socialism is better and also explain why Stalin and Mao had to starve millions for "the greater good" ...

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Of what you said above in the first two paragraphs about the consequences of accepting meaninglessness as reality, just about all of it I fully agree with. For clarity, I’ll mark the exceptions:

the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become
and
Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Further, you comment that, "people become depressed because of a lack of hope."

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

All that is to say I pretty much agree with your view of what meaninglessness implies, and if there’s any bits that you want to explore more, I’m all for it.

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Lots of people do bad things to others and themselves, and later on, some may consider what they did was bad, or they might not. If they still think it was OK, it’s because they’ve used some kind of justification, like, "She did it to me first," "She was teasing me. What did she think would happen?" or, "He had it coming," or "I had no choice," And so forth. These are all rationalizations after the fact, justifications that allow them to still consider themselves as good people rather than change their behaviour or take responsibility for having done something wrong. These don’t address the real reason these people did these things. In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion.

I believe that the natural and best state for a human being to be is happy (and here again, I mean blissfully happy). Every bit of programming we have nudges us towards certain actions by rewarding us with feelings of happiness, or reduced misery. We only live once, so I would modify your description only slightly to, “taking what bliss you can when you can”.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too. Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.

What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.

Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?


Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

Because the critical consensus is that it's an instant classic.

Because it's breaking through into the mainstream more than any martial arts film I can think of since Ong Bak.

Because it is awesome.

Some quotes from reviews:

David Fear -- Time Out: And in terms of beautifully coordinated film violence—the kind involving flying fists and feet, whizzing blades and ballistic superbattles—Gareth Evans’s insta-classic Indonesian crime flick is leagues above every kinetic bullet-ballet and martial arts epic of the past decade. Whether this 31-year-old Welsh director will eventually be mentioned in the same breath as legendary chaos orchestrators like Sam Peckinpah or John Woo remains to be seen. For now, Evans can take pride in the fact that he’s set the bar for cinemayhem impossibly high.

Andrew O'Hehir -- Salon: “The Raid” is a witty, pulse-pounding instant midnight classic, an immediate sensation at the Sundance and Toronto festivals that should appeal to cinema buffs, action freaks and a pretty large mainstream audience besides. It offers some of the best Asian martial-arts choreography of recent years and an electric, claustrophobic puzzle-palace atmosphere that’ll leave you wrung out and buzzed.

Ty Burr -- Boston Globe: Not yet 30, Evans is a master of visceral tension and release. “The Raid’’ repeatedly slows down, gathers force, and rushes forward using all the elements of filmmaking at a director’s disposal: editing’s ability to expand and contract time; the camera’s gift for revealing information through motion and light; a good musical score (by Joseph Trapanese and Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda) that can cue audiences to respond or just play with their heads. At times, “The Raid’’ feels like pure cinema.

Nordling -- Ain't it Cool: Then, there are the action sequences, which are so exquisitely orchestrated that they build like a symphonic suite of pain and kickassocity. This movie builds and builds, each fight even bigger than the one before it. I can't imagine an audience that won't be on their feet for some of them - and the action choreography is damn near perfect, with cinematography to match. Sure, there's some shakycam, but it's only to build the intensity because Uwais and director Gareth Evans have planned each fight so well that it's never confusing, not once. The geography is flawless. The film wisely lays out the building early on, so that you unconsciously understand where everyone is in the building and even in the same room. I haven't seen such confident action direction since John Woo unleashed the doves in THE KILLER and, yeah, HARD BOILED.

Thanks for the insight in your replies.

It's kinda nitpicky, but in all the stuff I've read about the Finnish system (including the article in The Atlantic), the director of public schools describes the system as equity, not equality. There is the big difference between them and the US system. The US system is totally based on equality, i.e. No Child Left Behind. It's a huge cultural difference to support equity, not equality.
>> ^CreamK:

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.
For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.
As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.
Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.

For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.

As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.

Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

It's not that hard actually. You just need to realize that the very human behavior of faith is not intrinsically bad, and that the atrocities committed in the name of one religious doctrine or another are ultimately not caused by religion but tribalism. Humans are tribal by nature, and whether they segregate based on geography, ideology, religion, skin color, hair color, or nail color, it's all the same thing in the end - us against them. Millions of years of evolution bred that instinct deep into our DNA. A few hundred thousand years of evolution has given us brains capable of self examination. Give the species a little time to catch up. Sooner or later we'll realize that not only are we all part of a singular species, we're part of a singular universe.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Her belief in God and Jesus forms the core of her being and I must say that I personally would be more tolerant of the sins of the Christian faith, both past and present, if there were more like her in the world, rather than those who use their Christian faith as a platform and excuse to project their hate and judgement.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, republicans, division, geography' to 'bill maher, republicans, division, geography, new rules' - edited by xxovercastxx

Oh yeah a basic knowledge of geography is so boring! one country, two countries, two countries and a made up region, whatever. The north of Ireland is donegal although who says 'the north of ireland'??? Derry is in northern ireland.

Agree with the general sentiment about Irish women, they are all kinds of awesome. Theyll eat you up but youll love it.

>> ^papple:

>> ^Quboid:
Not to get political, but she (and I) are actually from Londonderry, not Derry, and it's in Northern Ireland, not the north of Ireland. If you mean Ireland in the geographical sense, as in the island of Ireland this is correct but this typically refers to the country, the Republic of Ireland.
It's a touchy subject and this topic has a little bit if history; where Graham Norton was brought up the city would have been referred to as Derry and places in Northern Ireland as being "in the north" without acknowledging the whole "terrorism" "one of the longest armed conflicts in recent history" "British occupation" can of worms.

If she says she's from Derry, she's from Derry. Also, I can't say that I've ever heard anyone use the phrase "North of Ireland" referring to the northern area of the Republic. The North/Northern Ireland/North of Ireland. I was typing out "she's from the North", as that would suffice locally, but this is the internet, so I just added the "of Ireland", thinking that nobody would be anal enough to correct me!