Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 30
The Greatest World ProblemsPage 2 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

One thing that seems to be very clear is that sometimes there is a rather large divide between those that learn a concept on school, from reading about it, and from others, and those that actually put said concepts into play.

I own a small business. I think I qualify on both counts.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/3/2011 6:18:17 AM
Plursty brings in, rather indirectly, an important consideration in discussions like this. That is, whether or not a concern is feasibly ACTIONABLE. I believe that IDEAS are actionable, because we can work to improve education (and in my own case, work to improve the quality of the discussions about them), and communication. Many of the things on Plursty's list are actually LESS actionable, because they are too often the RESULT of other choices and actions, or of circumstances that we aren't empowered to address. Yes, a given situation of each here and there are certainly easily fixed, but over all, it isn't possible to fix a SYMPTOM when one is prevented from addressing the CAUSE .
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 32
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/3/2011 12:08:21 PM
I subscribe to the 'Wall Street' mantra that greed is good, greed is right, and greed works. I think greed is about the only reason mankind ever advances. So, I would't say that it is the root of so much evil.
IMHO, the greatest world problem is, and probably has been ever since, blame. Too many people blame each other, the weather, the gods, or any other metaphysical entity. If each one of us would blame only ourselves, we would have full control of our lives, because we would recognize that we and noone else are fully responsible for whatever we do. In that regard, religion is the worst, and the archenemy of progress and self-awareness.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 33
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/3/2011 12:59:57 PM

...but across the board...people often indulge in "greed," for the payoff of admiration, and the sexual recognition that follows... often without realizing that THAT is what they are really doing it for


Igor captures the essence of why we are doing things. Yes, to get laid. That is also the very reason why most Arabs are so angry, because they have such a screwed up relationship with sexuality. I often cannot believe the answers I get when I ask grown up Arab men I know simple questions like 'what do you prefer - blonde or brunette ?' While my American friends say stuff like 'doesn't matter to me, they are all pink inside', these guys...blush ! They get REALLY uncomfortable, like teenagers who see a naked women in front of them for the first time. Next time we plan on any activity in that part of the world, we should load those B-52s with porn, not bombs. That will contribute a hell of a lot more to world peace than anything else...
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 38
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/6/2011 5:47:37 AM

Maybe thats our problem as adults; we forget how to be young.

Truer words were never spoken.
 shakeitupbaby2012
Joined: 8/12/2010
Msg: 40
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/6/2011 6:24:39 AM
^^^Very true- that many forget how to stay young at heart and that many are not simply kind to one another. This is why I listed indifference as one of my thoughts on a world problem.
When we have a thread running on what's happened to common courtesy ( paraphrased),
that's very telling of our current society.
The world simply needs more love. Love one another ( no, I don't mean 'free' love).
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 41
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/10/2011 4:25:59 PM

And who has to take care of them for the rest of their pitiful lives if they have a very bad trip?

The same is true for people who eat unhealthy food. Let's make potato chips and other fatty foods illegal. Oh, I almost forgot, people who don't exercise also cost everyone lots of money due to cronary disease and other consequences of being a couch potato. Let's make it illegal to not run 5 miles every day. For a conservative who's supposed to be all about freedom, you sure like government control when the government is controlling something you dislike and for that reason, want it to be controlled.


The problem is that when something happens to the person who is doing nothing more than "excersizing their freedoms", it that OPM, (Other Peoples Money), has to be used to take care of them.

So, are you advocating that we should take away the freedoms of those who are responsible because a few people aren't? That sounds a little socialist to me. I would think a conservative ideology would force one to advocate not paying for those who are irresponsible, instead of taking away the freedom of many for the behaviour of a few.

Although it is not anything I have any proof of, I am willing to bet blindfolded that anyone irresponsible enough to do as you suggested, has no insurance plan to cover them in case of a bad trip.......... Any takers?

I'll bet no insurance plan would take a lot of people if insurance companies had free reign over setting their own restrictions. For example, according to your profile, you are 58, you are overweight, you like hamburgers and prime rib, you like drinking beer and wine, so if the insurances companies were smart and were allowed to, they'd cancel your coverage. You've already paid for years, and at this point in your life, you're more likely to require medical care, especially given the previously mentioned lifestyle choices you've made.Oh yeah - fishing on your boat is risky too - at least relative to not going out on the water.

Face it, you are cherry picking what you think ought and ought not be regulated based on what you want to do and not do. There's no ideology whatsover in your argument. The ideology is just an excuse which doen't hold up.
 karma1160
Joined: 6/10/2008
Msg: 42
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/10/2011 6:44:26 PM
Priorities!
How can people lay down and let their government cut funding for Schools and Health care?
Is your child not the most important person in your life?
Can you really deal with not having health care for your family and parents?
Do you really want one person doing the job of 3 in a medical setting?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 43
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/10/2011 10:59:52 PM


How can people lay down and let their government cut funding for Schools and Health care?


The US pays more money on education per student than any other country in the world and we have one of the worst systems in the civilized world. We've been throwing money at the system for decades without improving outcomes. Education spending should be cut and the remaining money used more wisely.

The federal government shouldn't be spending a penny on health care or education since neither of these are legal expenses under the Constitution.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/11/2011 5:03:46 AM
Nonsense. The Constitution doesn't directly include 75% or more of what the government does, or how they do it. Arguing that something ought not be done because it "isn't in he Constitution" is specious.

The claim that "we have one of the worst systems in the civilized world" is based on political hyperbole, since there IS no international system of rating educational systems. As to how much is spent per student, that's one of those highly debatable claims as well: how much something costs in a HIGH COST OF LIVING area, can't be compared dollar for dollar with the same thing in a LOW cost of living area. In Saudi Arabia, I understand that everything costs twice or more as it does here; that doesn't mean they are more than twice as bad as we are at spending wisely.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 45
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/11/2011 1:27:27 PM

There are places where relatively very little is spent on education, and the results are excellent........... Example? Look up Slovenia................

What do teachers get paid relative to the average income in Slovenia?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 46
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/11/2011 1:33:07 PM
I believe what they should be teaching in school is Financial literacy , Capitalism and how it really works, not this watered down Wall street version crap.

You can teach about history of your nation, but what about history of money, how it works, they teach kids how to re hash crap of yesteryear but how many of them can survive in the real world with a dead end job, lots of " educated" people out there in dead end jobs, being forced to join the Union that lies to them and tells them that " we represent you" and will give you a good life.

Instead of showing the child how to use his or her mind and create things we tell them to get a education about what ever, spend another 4 years in university or college, get a job, work for them for 40 years , retire ...only to find out they will retire poor and get a job at walmart, Home depot or some coffee joint with students.

And you wonder what the world greatest problems are? its the lack of financial training is one of the greatest problems IMO.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/11/2011 2:03:00 PM
At least in my area, educational content has improved a lot since I went through public school. But there's still plenty of room for improvement. Iceman's suggestions are good, along with a batch of basic practical stuff, that most schools apparently STILL don't teach, like:
How to write a resume;
How to dress for a job;
How to get a checking account, and how to write a check (I know, these are going away, but still);

And thanks, Abelian, that was one of the points I was trying to make: you can't compare the success of education between places, while ignoring relative costs of all the OTHER things that go along with it. Not to mention that HOW you decide if education is successful isn't generally agreed upon. Should you decide it based on standardized tests? Designed by whom? With what GOAL?
Just because the kids from UglyBuglystan can rattle off a list of all the capitols of the top hundred nations of the world, doesn't mean they are any better educated than kids who know how to easily look the same thing up if they ever need to know.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 48
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/11/2011 2:14:39 PM

How to write a resume;
How to dress for a job;
How to get a checking account, and how to write a check (I know, these are going away, but still);
exactly, how to balance a cheque book, heck teach them what is a cheque book, balance sheet ...taxes.

One of my friends taught his kids early about taxes and finances, at 12 years old they understand more about money then most grown ups, he started by giving them allowance but withholding taxes (25%) he put it in a special account for them and gives the rest, he started doing that at 7 , when ever they want to buy something they figure in the cost and the tax associated with that the product and decides if its worth to purchase or not.

Simple little things prepares the kids for the real world, he teaching his kids to " think" un tapping their potential instead of oh lets go to school and hope to get a job they are figuring out ways to do what they want as they create jobs, they are thinking of ways and things that will or may benefit society or the community and not be dependent on others, and these are kids 12 and 14 years old, they are still acting like kids but they understand that life is what you make it out to be.

My two oldest Goddaughters have figured out that owning a business is the way to prosperity they are doing things that will make the succeed in business, my 17 year old goddaughter is starting to learn how to read balance sheets, how to operate a business, she now knows that job security is a joke and by creating a company as a woman there tax breaks out there and, she can get a person to run it and she does what she like in the business which creates jobs and she's 17 , Im corrupting the kid in lessons in capitalism

She knows capitalism isn't about Wall street/Bay street in Canada, she knows its about private enterprise and using the mind to create things and prosper from it.

Sorry to embarrass U make it entertaining but her son at 19, understands more about capitalism and money then the average adult and this kid as ADD, and he learned nothing can stop him if he applies his mind and learns and not follow the crowd.


 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/12/2011 7:32:16 PM
Okay, so when I need to learn math, I should first learn Slovenian.
My frustration with all the times I've heard and read people decrying how some other country is doing a better job teaching their children than we are, is that they have never YET found out anything actually USEFUL that we can borrow and do here. It's ESPECIALLY annoying that so often, the people doing the comparison have as their PRIMARY goal, to see to it that how much we SPEND on education here, is reduced (the rest of the time, they seem to want to return to the days of corporal punishment).
Now, I am all for efficiency, but when someone chirps about how country X manages to have students scoring consistently higher in subject area Y, than we do, and that said country spends less on education, I find it just plain annoying... because the implication is always that the solution to improving education here, is to cut teacher pay, or reduce spending on schools.
Telling me that another country spends less and gets more, doesn't help me do better by my kids. Telling me HOW they spend less and get more MIGHT help.
One thing that MIGHT help improve education? Every time some wooden-headed person says something like "those who can't do, teach", punch their lights out. Trying to develop better teachers, and teaching methods, while putting down the teaching profession, and working hard to keep those in it, paid as little as possible, is a fundamental contradiction in effort.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 50
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/12/2011 10:39:30 PM


Nonsense. The Constitution doesn't directly include 75% or more of what the government does, or how they do it. Arguing that something ought not be done because it "isn't in he Constitution" is specious.


75% is a conservative estimate. It's hardly specious either. The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. When we look the other way when the government ignores the Constitution on things we favor we can hardly complain when it ignores the Constitution on things we oppose.
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 51
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/12/2011 11:51:23 PM

You guys seem to forget that there are many legal designer drugs on the market made with synthetic compounds that mimic the same results as the real thing in your brain.


Not so much, I lived with a guy not long ago that purchased a lot of those type of things. Tried a bunch of marijuana alternative ones with him, not one of them got it right. A few of them did more harm than good, leaving behind ill effects that had I been operating heavy machinery I'm sure some damage would have resulted. The 'high' effect on almost every one of them lasted maybe 2 or 3 minutes, but the ill effects on those few that had them lasted several hours.

I really can't see anyone smoking marijuana turning to those alternatives just because they are legal. With marijuana you go into it knowing what to expect, and it takes a relatively short amount of time to kick in so you know when to stop if your planning on doing anything that requires a good deal of lucidity.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 5:51:53 AM
Ibli: "The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. "

My point is, that the Constitution IS the basis of our whole system of government. "BASIS" is the operative word here. Most of the things that the people who claim this or that thing the government does aren't in the Constitution fuss about, are DERIVED from things that ARE in the Constitution.
The Constitution was never intended to be a be-all end-all handbook of detailed instructions about how to do EVERYTHING. So any argument that relies simply on the fact that something isn't mentioned there, is a specious argument that actually IGNORES the intent of the founding fathers' document.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 54
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 10:16:29 AM


Ibli: "The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. "

My point is, that the Constitution IS the basis of our whole system of government. "BASIS" is the operative word here. Most of the things that the people who claim this or that thing the government does aren't in the Constitution fuss about, are DERIVED from things that ARE in the Constitution.
The Constitution was never intended to be a be-all end-all handbook of detailed instructions about how to do EVERYTHING. So any argument that relies simply on the fact that something isn't mentioned there, is a specious argument that actually IGNORES the intent of the founding fathers' document.


The Constitution was intended to put strict limits on the federal government and, to a much lesser extent, the state governments. The Constitution grants the federal government very specific powers and anything it wasn't given the power to do it doesn't have (see the 10th Amendment). It didn't need to give detailed instructions for everything because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's Congresses job to make legislation that is necessary and proper to execute the powers given to the federal government. Most federal spending goes to things that aren't in the Constitution and can't be derived from the Constitution (at least not without mangling the English language beyond recognition).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 55
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 5:46:35 PM
If that were true, count, why have none of these expenditures been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court? I suggest it is because some HAVE been taken there, and were found to be WITHIN Constitutional bounds. I understand that YOU don't like the interpretation that led them to be found so, but neither your opinion or mine about whether something is or isn't Constitutional matters or has any validity at all. Only the Supreme Court can decide that, and thus far, they've solidly said you are wrong.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:02:54 PM
The problem with education is NOT the teacher; it is the "No Child Left Behind Act" that has left the children behind. They no longer can teach as they are required to make sure these children pass tests to prove that they have taught them something. My adult children have told me repeatedly that they were taught to memorize what would be on those tests and that they did not learn anything. The only children who may actually be learning anything useful are those who are in the gifted and talented programs.

There has to be a point when we quit putting pressure on the teacher to make sure every child passes and start letting them actually teach again. It is affecting our children and grandchildren. It is affecting the workforce of tomorrow and actually the workforce of today is already affected.

There is only one useful method of teaching and that is to teach. There will always be children who do not grasp one concept or another concept. There will always be children who do not speak the necessary language to learn in a given school and those children should be taught by someone who speaks there main language. Teachers should not be expected to learn those languages to teach those children.

There will always be people who excel in one subject or another. It is actually beneficial that this is so as a workforce is made up of many requirements and needs the necessary people to fulfill those requirements.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 57
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:05:24 PM


If that were true, count, why have none of these expenditures been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court? I suggest it is because some HAVE been taken there, and were found to be WITHIN Constitutional bounds. I understand that YOU don't like the interpretation that led them to be found so, but neither your opinion or mine about whether something is or isn't Constitutional matters or has any validity at all. Only the Supreme Court can decide that, and thus far, they've solidly said you are wrong.


Keep in mind that Supreme Court justices are appointed for their political stances. Both Democrats and Republicans like big government so they appoint justices that will support big government, regardless of what the Constitution says. Prior to 1937 the Supreme Court and lower courts were dismantling New Deal legislation due to its unconstitutionality. That changed when FDR threatened to introduce legislation increasing the number of SC judges, which he would pack with people supportive of his political agenda. Afterwards the SC suddenly accepted his New Deal. The challenges to Social Security started at this time and the sufficiently cowed SC ruled that they were constitutional. The basis was the General Welfare Clause, but their interpretation of the clause is grammatically unacceptable. But who cares about how the English language works when it stands in the way of politics?

It is true that it doesn't matter what I think and that the SC has generally ruled against what I think. But that doesn't mean that they are correct, just that sophistry is alive and well in the court system.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 7:43:22 AM
"It is true that it doesn't matter what I think and that the SC has generally ruled against what I think. But that doesn't mean that they are correct, just that sophistry is alive and well in the court system."
I'll go along with that. From a pure logical standpoint, all we can say right now is that anything the SC has said is Constitutional, IS Constitutional, since that is the definition of what "Constitutional" means. Theres plenty of things I disagree with them about too, most notably, their recent decision that a Corporation is the same as a human individual, when it comes to rights of privacy and political expression. I think THAT is insanity, brought on by the court being stocked with pro-business Republicans, and it will cause a lot of damage to our country going forward. But I have to accept that for now, it IS Constitutional for big corporations to use their wealth, not to expand their businesses, and not to hire more Americans, and not to make themselves better...but to try to secretly try to buy government favors at my expense. I'll just have to wait for death and retirement of this bunch of guys, and another case against it, and enough voters putting different Presidents and Senators into office, to see things changed the way I want. Oh well.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:28:22 PM

all we can say right now is that anything the SC has said is Constitutional, IS Constitutional, since that is the definition of what "Constitutional" means.


That is highly debatable, at best. The Court never claimed that much authority until Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. In that case, Arkansas claimed it was not bound by an earlier decision that states could not segregate public schools by race. The Court rejected that, and citing Marbury v. Madison as authority, it said this: "The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution."

It's true the Court said in Marbury that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But Chief Justice Marshall never said as much as what the 1958 Court was claiming he had--i.e. that that was ONLY the Court's "province and duty," and no one else's. And if it really is, what gives our current president authority to refuse--as he does--to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, on the ground that Section 3 of it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex marriage?

Most legal scholars consider the Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford one of its worst ever (right down there with Roe v. Wade, decided on similar "substantive due process" grounds.) In Dred Scott, the Court held unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise, which had granted slaves freedom in some territories. Historians agree this decision helped pave the way to the Civil War.

Would it really not have been proper to attack Dred Scott in 1858, or to try to nullify it? Or were the Congress and the President helpless to do anything but meekly comply, because the word of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Southerner who wrote Dred Scott, was law--period?


their recent decision that a Corporation is the same as a human individual, when it comes to rights of privacy and political expression. I think THAT is insanity, brought on by the court being stocked with pro-business Republicans


You of course have the right to think whatever you like about this. And people who know the facts and understand the constitutional issues may decide how much the opinion you stated is worth. Last year, in Citizens United, the Court reiterated that it had

"recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech . . . [this] does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. [We have] rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons...."

So the Court made very clear in Citizens United that it wasn't announcing some radical new principle. That had been the law since at least it decided Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
It was in 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that the Court announced the radical new principle--that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. In Citizens United, the Court overruled Austin and returned to the principle it had declared more than 30 years earlier:

"Less than two years after Buckley, Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. Bellotti could not have been clearer . . . 'We thus find no support in the First . . . Amendment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation . . . .'"

The Court went on:

"Austin should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 60
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 6:08:13 PM


"Austin should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."


While I agree with the Court's decision I think the above line of argumentation is actually kind of dumb. Corporations don't have freedom of speech because they don't have mouths. They don't have hands to speak in sign-language. They don't have fingers with which they can type. It's like saying that rocks have freedom of speech.

What they really should be saying is that people have freedom of speech, even and especially political speech, regardless of whether they are somehow connected to a corporation or not. Think of it this way, if the government has the power to censor "corporate" speech, then they have the power to censor the press because all, or effectively all, press outlets are corporations. John Stewart could be censored because he's paid by a corporation and his TV show is financially dependent upon a corporation. All of Michael Moore's movies could be censored because they are funded and otherwise supported by corporations. PoF forums could be censored because PoF is a corporation. Most citizens could have their speech censored because most people work for corporations (the word "most" is not intended to be factually accurate; I have no idea what percentage of the population works for corporations, but you get my point).
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >