(once again, too big)
First of all, who is this? I'd like to know who is disagreeing with me.
Schools do set rules and regulations, but what is the alternative? People going to school without any amount of time required in the classroom? How can we assure that our students are actually learning/retaining the knowledge they acquire so they can apply it in the real world when they graduate? If students aren't required to demonstrate that they've truly learned the material, they can be sent out into the work force as incompetant non-thinkers--completely useless in today's society unless their highest aspirations are to become garbagemen.
Everything one learns is based on the assumption that you will be able to convert unbiased ("approved," if you will) facts into an idea of one's own. It is true that schools try and encourage memorization or repetition in order to better remember those facts, as opposed to forgetting about them after a test or something. But the more base information one has in his head, the better one can form his own opinions and modes of thinking. You yourself wouldn't be able to put sentences together or use proper punctuation or grammar if you hadn't learned at least something from those "approved facts."
Following a format is simply so that one can learn to follow certain parameters, as one will have to do in real life. In jobs in the real world, there will be rules on how you must act/conduct business. It could also be there so that you can learn how to write properly.
History, again, is meant to impart the knowledge of past mistakes so they don't happen again. "Positive" facts, you say? What would you consider the Great Depression? The Holocaust? The exploitation of lesser nations? Every war ever fought? The genocide in Rwanda? I could go on, but apparently these lesser points in history were passed over in your history education. Why would we need to learn about such atrocities? The answer is simple: SO THEY DON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. These balance with the good things about history toward which we should strive, gravitating toward history's successes and avoiding its blemishes.
"Ever notice..": No, I must have missed that one. Because it always seems to me that whoever writes the history textbooks or writes the shows on the History Channel stress the fact that history is an ongoing process, and we still have a LOT of work to do. Which we do. There is still discrimination, injustice, and repression throughout the world, and I think one would have to look pretty hard to find someone who disagrees with that. It is exactly because history is an ongoing process that all the problems in the world are not solved.
Coward, eh? Well, Mister/Madame I'm-not-going-to-use-my-name, I've got news for you, being a radical does NOT make you a hero or a leader or any better than I am. One could have the radical idea of abolishing government entirely. That doesn't help anyone. It would induce chaos and literally bring about the destruction of our world and everyone in it. But that's for another essay. Free-thinking is an integral part of any functioning person anywhere, but a man by the name of Adolf Hitler could also be considered a "free-thinker." I think you would agree with me in the fact that he was a terrible, evil being. He had the belief that all non-Aryan peoples deserved death, especially the Jews. Radical new ideas are only a good thing if they are beneficial to the greater good, using my utilitarian viewpoint here. Terrorists have radical ideas that whoever doesn't follow their ideals deserve death. Communist Russia had radical ideas to repress the proletariat and censor periodicals. Ayatollah Khamenei had the radical idea to send thousands of unarmed civilians to the front lines as cannon fodder in the Iran-Iraq war.
Forgive me for consulting my conscience before making a decision or forming my opinion. I believe that no action should be made without a thought about the repercussions that action will have on everyone else. Thomas Edison was a free-thinker. Ben Franklin was a free-thinker. Gorbachev was a free-thinker. FDR was a free-thinker. They all made magnificent contributions to the world with the things they did. Many of them did things no one else thought possible. FDR gave people hope. Gorbachev helped end the Cold War. Franklin helped secure the US' place on the world stage. Edison embodies the "try, and try again" spirit. They also believed that ideas are useless unless used to benefit the greater good. No, I think that true cowardice lies in those who fail to realize that they have the ability to make the world a better place, but choose not to. Before you call me a coward, maybe you should cure cancer or do something productive with your life, then you might have some solid ground from which to talk down to me.
Schools do set rules and regulations, but what is the alternative? People going to school without any amount of time required in the classroom? How can we assure that our students are actually learning/retaining the knowledge they acquire so they can apply it in the real world when they graduate? If students aren't required to demonstrate that they've truly learned the material, they can be sent out into the work force as incompetant non-thinkers--completely useless in today's society unless their highest aspirations are to become garbagemen.
Everything one learns is based on the assumption that you will be able to convert unbiased ("approved," if you will) facts into an idea of one's own. It is true that schools try and encourage memorization or repetition in order to better remember those facts, as opposed to forgetting about them after a test or something. But the more base information one has in his head, the better one can form his own opinions and modes of thinking. You yourself wouldn't be able to put sentences together or use proper punctuation or grammar if you hadn't learned at least something from those "approved facts."
Following a format is simply so that one can learn to follow certain parameters, as one will have to do in real life. In jobs in the real world, there will be rules on how you must act/conduct business. It could also be there so that you can learn how to write properly.
History, again, is meant to impart the knowledge of past mistakes so they don't happen again. "Positive" facts, you say? What would you consider the Great Depression? The Holocaust? The exploitation of lesser nations? Every war ever fought? The genocide in Rwanda? I could go on, but apparently these lesser points in history were passed over in your history education. Why would we need to learn about such atrocities? The answer is simple: SO THEY DON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. These balance with the good things about history toward which we should strive, gravitating toward history's successes and avoiding its blemishes.
"Ever notice..": No, I must have missed that one. Because it always seems to me that whoever writes the history textbooks or writes the shows on the History Channel stress the fact that history is an ongoing process, and we still have a LOT of work to do. Which we do. There is still discrimination, injustice, and repression throughout the world, and I think one would have to look pretty hard to find someone who disagrees with that. It is exactly because history is an ongoing process that all the problems in the world are not solved.
Coward, eh? Well, Mister/Madame I'm-not-going-to-use-my-name, I've got news for you, being a radical does NOT make you a hero or a leader or any better than I am. One could have the radical idea of abolishing government entirely. That doesn't help anyone. It would induce chaos and literally bring about the destruction of our world and everyone in it. But that's for another essay. Free-thinking is an integral part of any functioning person anywhere, but a man by the name of Adolf Hitler could also be considered a "free-thinker." I think you would agree with me in the fact that he was a terrible, evil being. He had the belief that all non-Aryan peoples deserved death, especially the Jews. Radical new ideas are only a good thing if they are beneficial to the greater good, using my utilitarian viewpoint here. Terrorists have radical ideas that whoever doesn't follow their ideals deserve death. Communist Russia had radical ideas to repress the proletariat and censor periodicals. Ayatollah Khamenei had the radical idea to send thousands of unarmed civilians to the front lines as cannon fodder in the Iran-Iraq war.
Forgive me for consulting my conscience before making a decision or forming my opinion. I believe that no action should be made without a thought about the repercussions that action will have on everyone else. Thomas Edison was a free-thinker. Ben Franklin was a free-thinker. Gorbachev was a free-thinker. FDR was a free-thinker. They all made magnificent contributions to the world with the things they did. Many of them did things no one else thought possible. FDR gave people hope. Gorbachev helped end the Cold War. Franklin helped secure the US' place on the world stage. Edison embodies the "try, and try again" spirit. They also believed that ideas are useless unless used to benefit the greater good. No, I think that true cowardice lies in those who fail to realize that they have the ability to make the world a better place, but choose not to. Before you call me a coward, maybe you should cure cancer or do something productive with your life, then you might have some solid ground from which to talk down to me.