Rod Speed wrote:
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote
We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.
There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.
Yeah, because we want to eat them.
Stupid animals were around well before we started to eat them.
Not for long. Darwin said so. Well, maybe we'd have to redefine stupid to
exclude sharks, though. And coelecanths. OK, "smart" means being able to
thrive in the environment in which you find yourself. If you drop a shark out
in the desert, is he still smart? What if you drop a person into the middle
of the ocean? Anyway, we've bred turkeys and chickens that are helpless to
survive in the wild. You want to give them an IQ test, go ahead.
You advocating cannibalism?
Nope, you americans are FAR too fat to provide healthy eating.
I prefer real chicken myself.
Ah, so you've tried long pig then?
Many do, of course...
Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.
Dunno, that one is more arguable.
It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.
Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable.
Sure.
No matter what happens they will have to be cared for for their entire lives.
Not that many, actually. Even the mentally defective
can be quite useful at a place like McDs, even if its
just sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets etc.
They still require care and supervision. You just don't turn a 6-year old out
to fend for himself. Not in the US, anyway. I hope.
This is NOT a school problem, it's a medical problem.
Wrong. Any properly organised school should be
able to teach the basics even to mentally defectives.
Corse it can make sense to have specific schools for those.
Clearly. The idea was to mainstream them, which may have been of marginal
social benefit to them, but also absorbs teaching time that could be better
spent elsewhere.
Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.
That's all been abolished with the 'no child left behind' policy.
Nope.
What that means is that the teachers are forced to spend inordinate
amounts of time with those who have no wish or ability to learn,
apparently leaving those who actually can learn to fend for themselves.
Most of the kids fend for themselves quite well.
Then there's no need for the smart kids to go to school at all, is there?
Is this a great country or what?
What.
Pessimist.
--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition