In the case of the Beatles, who's to say the school McCartney and Harrison went to didn't foster their musical creativity? This guy has unrealistic expectations of a school's goals and what it should accomplish with its education. I'd go as far as to say they're elitist at best.

I can tell you from my own experience working at schools that the myth of "troublemakers get all the attention" is flat out wrong. Again from my experience. The same goes for "those who could be great" being consistently missed, what does that even mean? There's nothing speaking for that statement being in the least true, but even if a teacher doesn't abandon his class to go foster a child prodigy's ego, it won't mean that the child prodigy would suddenly lose its gift. There's this little thing called parents who also have a responsibility to help raise and educate their children. But then again I don't really understand what the whole "those who could be great" thing means, or why that should be the case.
Try giving the teachers classes of fewer than 30 students and fewer classes each semester aswell as the time and funding they desperately need, and you'll see the level of educational standards raised significantly. Because most teacher working full-time have over a hundred different students to teach each semester, all with different levels of knowledge and various abilities to learn. That means it's simply impossible to give every child full attention all the time. It would be wonderful if each student could get all the help they wanted at every moment of the day, but for a democracy to actually function properly you need citizens who can make informed decisions and not just decisions, which is why you can't just discard the numbskulls and focus on the gifted ones.
The guy in the video kept whining over that McCartney wasn't "discovered" in school as if the school itself should've somehow made sure he went and became a Beetle. That shows he fundamentally misunderstood what the goals of the school were. It also shows he was completely oblivious to the fact that McCartney went into music in a community which at the time was heavily biased against the arts, which very well could be attributed to him being subjected to music in school.

Also, there are more than one method used in schools, not only between countries but also between educational systems. But none of them ignores gifted students in favour of troubled ones. Generally, they all subscribe to the idea that we shouldn't actively work to create an educational class system but instead give all children the opportunity for an equal education. That does not mean they're in any way inhibited to go beyond the basic education, in school or after, but instead of ignoring the struggling children there's this crazy idea of leveling the playing field and raising the bar not for a select few but for everyone.
One of the most successful educational forms shown in preschool and gradeschool is with mixed classes of grades 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9, where the students aid the teacher by helping out in teaching each other.

>> ^Yehoshua:
Ok, so you added some good details to this unilateral plan for peace; the UN comes in and enforces it, the US and EU broker the agreements. At what point would Israel be justified in ending a peace in response to an attack?

This is a wrong way of looking at the situation as you are searching for some kind of allowance to when Israel can use it's military power in response to an attack when we are discussing a peace deal. Such terms can never be defined and have never formed any part of a peace deal. Cessation of terrorist activity yes but not a stipulation of when retaliation can occur. Its unrealistic.

I find it best to look at parallels in other conflicts and how the peace treaty was worked out, in Northern Ireland you had a concrete disengagement from both sides, an agreement to end hostilities, a firm declaration of no favored status from the UK which ultimately lead to peace. This is now the kind of situation we require in the Middle East peace process.

Previous peace engagements have failed due to forced concessionary actions by Israel towards Palestine. In the 2003 Road map for peace article 1 stipulated an end to settler expansions in the West Bank, this was refused by Sharon who claimed that settlements cannot stop in the West bank. Then we had numerous 'reservations' put in place by Israel towards the peace plan - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297230

One of which was a complete dismantlement of terrorist organizations before the implementation of the rest of the articles of the Road map to peace, something I always found an unrealistic expectation as its impossible to control the numerous groups that hold extremist views against Israel ranging from pure jihad against Jews to complete annihilation of the State of Israel. The Palestinian people do not have the refined policing force that could prevent and guarantee such action.

Furthermore it stipulated the complete need to disarm the Palestinian people, which is a completely unrealistic thing to ask towards a people that have been fighting a war against occupation. You cannot expect them to suddenly trust your 'word' that you will remain committed to the articles that relate Israeli concessions to Palestinian. All of which were laced with phrases like "Subject to security conditions, Israel will work to restore Palestinian life to normal: promote the economic situation, cultivation of commercial connections, encouragement and assistance for the activities of recognized humanitarian agencies."

This is not a peace process, this is forced concessions on the Palestinians. Bush left the region, the IDF entered Gaza and killed a Palestinian and the cycle of violence escalated again.

Suicide bombing or a rocket barrage, which has been accepted as a valid tactic by the vast majority of the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately the Palestinian people do not have the military assistance and help of the US to allow them to purchase F-16s, Apache attack helicopters, M-16s and other weapons. Israel launched countless rocket attacks over the areas designed to essentially assassinate leaders. What kind of impression does this create in the Palestinian people?

The Palestinians have, in my experience, more often had leadership interested in pursuing military action.

The Palestinians support these attacks because they exist under Israeli occupation, I find it fascinating that you do not look into the sheer conditions that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people which to me explain their armed resistance, from the separation wall, to check points, to arbitrary incursions, to open air prison, to blockades, to home bulldozing, to large scale bombings and destruction that we have witness over the last few weeks.

As I said again terrorist action is a symptom not a disease in Palestine, the Israelis gave no other option to many Palestinians who resist the occupational actions. To us this may seem like lunacy but then again we haven't lived most our lives under occupation.

I don't condone alot of their actions, I believe alot of it is counter productive, but am not living in those conditions and I cannot simply brush aside these attacks and claim that they are simply being stubborn, that they are all extremist or all are seeking martyrdom. Because we have seen such sacrifices and terrorist actions in previous conflicts.

>> ^Crosswords:
Depending on who you talk to it last happened during the Clinton administration where a surplus was reported for several years.


Ah, the Clinton surplus myth rears its ugly head again. The "surplus" was merely a projection based on the unrealistic expectation of continued illusory tech stock bubble growth that occurred in the 90s which finally crashed and filtered into real estate (thanks, Greenspan) to delay a smaller recession then. The CPI calculations on inflation were changed during the Clinton years to understate real inflation. As a result, a greater excess of Social Security funds were freed up to be raided by congress (invested in itself, roundabout theft). Public debt went down by borrowing from government holdings, but total debt continued to increase. This site does a pretty good job of explaining it. He has a good section on the Social Security ponzi scheme, too.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

While they're a good place to find a sex partner or dance/drink yourself into oblivion, bars are not usually where you're going to connect with someone in a meaningful way, so you could say these women have unrealistic expectations of their encounters there.

On the other hand, I wonder why we've lost the art of conversation. Why are people so afraid to be themselves, to show some vulnerability by admitting that they're looking for someone to connect with, that they're in need of some company or affection, or whatever it is that drives them out seeking?

Women crave emotional connections. There's nothing to warm to, with a line like "hey baby, you look so hot". Something real, on the other hand, could work wonders.

This is not going to be an easy post for me to make, because I have never really talked about this stuff with anyone before ever.
Like Thylan, I am a survivor of cancer, although I was much younger (three years old) when I had it. Possibly as a result, it was never conclusive, I also suffered from Kidney failure. As a result I will never be 100% healthy again in my life. Overall this has made me a fairly bitter and unhappy individual, which is when I watched the video KP posted I reacted negatively. I do consider the problems those in the video experienced to be rather insignificant in the scheme of things. It's very easy to say suffering is subjective, but my knee-jerk reaction is not sympathy it's apathy, and it's not a reaction I reject. It's hard for me to feel sympathy for the occasional negative experience in an overall happy life when my life is in such contrast.
However I would never use my life experience to be an arsehole to anyone. If anything it's taught me to be tolerant and understanding of suffering. Empathy is an extremely important quality to me. And I do find the negative experiences of women upsetting. I have two younger sisters, both of whom are gorgeous, and both have experiences negative attention from men. The worst of which was when a man once approached my sister at a bus stop and tried to get her to go home with him, when she was 15. She ran home in tears and stayed home from school. So I have seen first had the affect of negative attention.
Both of them are very academically gifted and are looking forward to University, but I've never heard either describe their good looks as a hindrance to any kind of academic success, in fact thy both have the same self-esteem and body issues ALL teenagers have.
As a older university student I am surrounded by younger better looking individuals, in fact in most of my classes the women outnumber the men now, so it certainly isn't as big a problem as it used to be.

If this has seemed muddled I apologise. This is a difficult issue for me to discuss. But my overall feeling is that everyone has negative experiences to varying degrees and everyone has a right to complain about them. But by the same token I reserve the right to feel those complaints are trivial.
I am definitely not saying that the experiences in this thread are trivial, quite the opposite. But I don't think a persons looks should be held responsible. Standards of beauty change over time and society (in particular the media) puts unrealistic expectations on how we are supposed to react to it. Because of the way women are portrayed many men feel it's ok to act like a total prick and ALL women will get attention from these men at some time or another.
Watching the video again, the people in it don't complain about any problem coming close to what has been described in this topic and by Persephone in her entry. So they're worried that some people may have negative opinions of them based on a first impression of them being attractive? Something makes me think they haven't given a lot of thought to the alternative. Empathy again being the key issue. The Buddha taught that life is suffereing, and suffering is caused by desire. What do the people in the video desire? to have people treat them with respect and friendship regardless of their physical appearance?
This is something we all want, I don't see what makes them so special.

Yeah, i was wondering about that aspect of the bad sex. Guys get "unrealistic expectations and a warped idea about what constitutes a relationship" from things in our culture too but probably less often from the mills and boon. Our initial sources can be more visual than literary but no less warped.

Good idea. They don't seem to include any Mills and Boon titles in their nominations. I suppose they don't consider any of those novels as otherwise excellent books. You'll find loads of bad sex in them, though, for sure.

It's kinda sad to think that all that bad sex was almost the extent of my sexual education, before I actually started having sex. Kind of sets a girl up for unrealistic expectations and a warped idea about what constitutes a relationship.

We used to love reading out the steamy scenes to each other at lunch time, at the all girls Catholic high school I attended.

Lots of that is interesting, but the students seem to have unrealistic expectations about some things - like "When I graduate I will probably have a job that doesn't exist today". I doubt this is true even for someone just born, and seems extremely unlikely for someone already in college. I know a lot of people who have graduated in the last 10 years, and only a handful work doing things that didn't exist when they were in college. The majority are doctors, lawyers, teachers, civil engineers, computer programmers, writers, journalists, and mid-level managers.

I expect this trend to continue. Sure there will be new fields, but for most intents and purposes they will require the same sorts of basic skills as current ones.

Now what would really make this video fly would be if she did some ventriloquism.
"What's that you say Mikey? Your wife has unrealistic expectations of you? You don't say!"