Life's side track

ihave always known what i wanted to do with my time

when i was 15 we were asked at school to write about what we wanted to do and i put that i wanted to draw cartoons. i was put on detention and had a letter sent home to my parents for not taking the session seriously.

but then at school i was also punished for being left-handed....

What the heck? Are you serious? Where did you go to school? :confused:
(and when?!)

you think thats bad. once we were all sat in essembly and one of the kids down the front kicked another kid and this teacher saw so he grabbed the kid by the collar dragged him in front of the whole school and kicked him in the back as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to kick

we were 10

learn by example an all

you think thats bad. once we were all sat in essembly and one of the kids down the front kicked another kid and this teacher saw so he grabbed the kid by the collar dragged him in front of the whole school and kicked him in the back as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to kick

we were 10

learn by example an all

Ouch, schools back in the day were tough. Although, I'd say, that in it's own, twisted and evil way, the education system is as unjust as ever these days. (obviously not for physical abuse, though.)

we didnt see it as cruel and unjust. we saw it as if you misbehave, you get your ass whooped....and for the most part it worked...or at least you operated under the full knowledge that if you got caught, you got punished. we respected the authority

if i were king of the world we would have canings back in schools. only it would be some rough bass ass who lives in the schools basement...like sloth.....you misbehave you have to go see sloth

you think thats bad. once we were all sat in essembly and one of the kids down the front kicked another kid and this teacher saw so he grabbed the kid by the collar dragged him in front of the whole school and kicked him in the back as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to kick

we were 10

learn by example an all

That kid kicked another kid. His behavior was wrong. If that's what you school had to do to make their point and it worked. I guess that's what worked for them, but I don't condone it, neither do I condone him kicking another kid.

I don't see discipline as something that's wrong. What I think is wrong is teachers using physical abuse as a fear tactic. My problem is that back in the day, discipline wasn't handled wisely. For something like that, you need wisdom.

Kids shouldn't learn that you should respect older people, because if you don't, you'll get hurt. That's teaching them the wrong lesson.

I don't see discipline as something that's wrong. What I think is wrong is teachers using physical abuse as a fear tactic. My problem is that back in the day, discipline wasn't handled wisely. For something like that, you need wisdom.

Kids shouldn't learn that you should respect older people, because if you don't, you'll get hurt. That's teaching them the wrong lesson.

Kids are notorious for learning the limits of given systems and pushing it. Just how in a society that forbids physical punishment do you deal with a child that knows your limits and wants to push his own at the expense of other innocent children? Do you give him a sticker? Take him out for pizza?

Kids are notorious for learning the limits of given systems and pushing it. Just how in a society that forbids physical punishment do you deal with a child that knows your limits and wants to push his own at the expense of other innocent children? Do you give him a sticker? Take him out for pizza?

My point is that you should teach kids from a very early age the terrible consequences of bad behaviour.

The problem with schools back then...and the problem with discipline in schools especially now is that they seem to teach a kid not to do something because they might get in trouble.

That's not teaching them that misbehaving is wrong. It's teaching them that they gotta try harder at not getting caught.

Sure, little, little-little kids don't really understand anything. But even then, I think physical discipline should be restrained to a parent giving the kid a firm swat on the butt if their really acting out of control.

But, once a kid starts to get older...you need to teach them what's right and wrong. Teach them consequences. Whacking them over the head with a ruler doesn't really suffice.

EDIT: On the side note, I do believe that parents and teachers have the responsibility to force their kids to do things that the kids don't necessarily want to do. You know, drag the kids kicking and screaming down the right path. :p I just wanted to make it very clear that it should have no connection with physical punishment...and has to be handled incredibly carefully.

but you have absolutely no reason to hold the opinion that physical punishment is wrong, other than, well, your opinion

there is no evidence that the softly softly approach is working.

and yet as society moves onward down the path of not punishing kids for their bad behaviour, the more 'orrible they become

physical punishment may well not be the answer, but neither is our current approach.

we either have to try something new or at the very least revert to a tried and tested approach which had arguably better results

id be willing to support caning in schools for a couple of generations as an experiment to see if it works....if it dont, do a couple of generations with a different approach

The challenges with children's behavior is mostly due to the parents.

Our society as a whole is so aquisitive that folks don't give enough time to their kids.

Naturally, parents want their kids to have EVERYTHING....well, maybe that is not a good thing. What they are really doing for their kids and themselves (with some of their adult toys) is making up for the time they don't spend with their kids because they are out -both parents, trying to make money. Most parents are not willing to trade time with their children... for making money.

When we lived in Ireland, it was NOT a windfall. We lived like most of the Irish- paycheck to paycheck. In fact, at one point, I made up some cartoon buttons and sold them to a sports store so we could money for food.

My wife and ALWAYS made sure someone was home. Yes, we could have used two incomes- but our kids were more important. Money will not give kids what they need...and thats their parents - parents to spend time with.... parents to set the rules and limits...parents as role models... parents as friends and confidants.

Cell phones, gameboys, xboxes, playstations and TV's are not what the children need...they need parents.

The parents also feed in the "entitlement" factor- children who are used to receiving everything - think they are entitled to everything ...like A's in school...without the work.

I have seen first hand where preschool programs have more than half the kids dealing with divorces of their parents...this is PRESCHOOL. WHAT WERE THE PARENTS THINKING? Why did they have kids in the first place?

Sorry...you struck a nerve!!!

Thanks.

i didnt know you were a fellow paddy

ah b'jesus thats sweet sure itez

as someone who feeds into the media culture and relies on it for income i reluctantly offer that i feel tv contributes to alot of the problem

not the content...i think it is safe to let kids watch anything they want*

but rather tv in itself.....and all the products which come with it

im sure it was much healthier in times when kids were not bombarded with messages to consume. im a victim too. i have far too much shit. i own hundreds of dvds and when you tot them all up i could have taken the whole family to disney land for 2 weeks a years for 5 years....

but it is that instant fix consumerism brings....and children feel they need to compete with other kids who have the new type of shoe or bike or game or whatever...who only probably have it because they suspect everyone else will have it etc etc.....

dunno...im sure someone somewhere has written some bloody good research on it and im sure it is being ignored by everyone in power because why the hell would they want us to start thinking when tv does it for us...hell we might start caring about who is running the country and that they are doing a shitty job

*based on personal experience that given the choice, a child wont want to be frightened by 'adult' material. if they do choose to experience these things, then they are ready to experience them. but given the choice and without the allure of prohibition, why would they?. until they can make the distinction that what they are seeing is fantasy, why would they choose to be frightened?

I strongly agree with what Larry L. just said. I could have been a really messed up kid, but I had fantastic parents who really cared, (and still care) about the person I would become, and will become.

victorthroe, I have a problem with the way that children are raised and disciplined these days. Don't think I'm satisfied with the way parenting is handled now.

Anyway, the biggest reason I object to physical punishment isn't so much the fact that it's an "uncomfortable thought," as much as the fact that ruling by fear doesn't make better children.

You said:

"you think thats bad. once we were all sat in essembly and one of the kids down the front kicked another kid and this teacher saw so he grabbed the kid by the collar dragged him in front of the whole school and kicked him in the back as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to kick

we were 10

learn by example an all"

Did that kid learn not to do such misbehaving ever again in school? Probably. So is it effective? Only in a way.
Because, did that kid really learn to grow as a better person from the experience? Probably not.

He just knew that there would be pain if he didn't please the administration. That isn't obeying out of love or respect, it's obeying out of fear. I doubt that punished kid had any moral repentance from that.

Fear tactics have results. But they're all negative ones.

wow...irony really is lost on americans

learn by example an all"

the overiding lesson learned that day was that bad behaviour had bad consequences, which i believe to be an important lesson.

and that lesson went out to the who school. and there was also the shame factor....who wants to cry like a baby in front of the whole school?

what got me about the whole situation was that this mature adult felt that kicking a child was in some way a clear message that kicking each other was unacceptable....it is crazy logic.

i dont believe that physical force is the way to solve disputes and so should not be re-inforced by using physical force to make children stay in line, however, i know from example of my own childhood that the fear of physical force was the only thing that was in the back of my mind as a consequence of my actions. i could stand and be shouted at all day long without flinching but pain was to be avoided. and that was until i matured and realised that being good had more complex values than just not getting a smack...and this is purely without supporting evidence, but i dont believe children have a full grasp on other peoples feelings until a few years old, hell they dont even know who that other child in the mirror is until they are nearly 2(which is evidenced) but are quite capable of hitting their siblings and spitting food on the carpet

so i dont know what the answer is and thats why im not a sociologist. but caning worked for me.

wow...irony really is lost on americans

For the record, I'm Canadian...but I don't know what irony you're talking about that I didn't pick up on. Am I really that oblivious? :confused: :(

Anyway, from your last post, you cleared a few things up. I only mildly disagree with you now. :P

I think we should conclude this argument here. Going any further would have no point to it.

Of course, we could go on and debate something far more complex, controversial, and personal, by debating the existence of God, as it was started up earlier in the thread. :D

Wait...maybe not. I do want to have some time to draw today...

.whilst i dont think it is anyones business to tell others what they should do with their lives, your post looks like a dream of being a teacher not an animator.

take away the specifics of what you wrote and you will achieve your dream by being a good dad and earning your crust as a good teacher

in the big scheme of things, i often find myself sat in my office chair spending hours and hours animating and i cant help but suspect its all just a big fat waste of everyones time

considering there is no god....no heaven....nothing....once we die that is it....do i really want to spend most of my life sat in a chair?...you only get one chance at it(life)....so make it a goo'un

the earth is enormous....and most of it beautiful.....i could be out there exploring....me my wife and kids just cruising around having fun

so its sorted.......thats what im going to do......just need to get some spending cash together.......now....hmm.....i want to earn money for this endevour.....whats the quickest and most enjoyable way to earn money.....

animation

back to the chair

You sure there's no god? I am not. But I am with you as far as life is short. It is, and money and fame..they don't make that big a difference. The thing what makes the biggest difference is our contact with others. Make contact...I don't think that costs anything.

me solice.

We taught our kids do what you love. If you are not happy with your job you are doing someone elses job.

Thanks

How often around here do we hear the kids ask what pays best before they choose a school or "career". I think you have it right, and I wish the kids of today paid more attention to it.

Victor explore the world right around you. It doesn't cost much, and I am sure you haven't really experienced everything it has to offer. Start with the little stuff, and you may find it's not all that little at all.

self-censored

I like Victor's take on the idea that there's no perfect job. We do all want more, no matter what. And the grass does look greener on the other side. Recently, I've gone through doubt, worry and paranoia about my interest and enjoyment in animation - but when I look at the fine print, I know it's just how I am - I worry, I get paranoid, I get scared - especially of change. I also think far too much. There was a time when I didn't question my interest and enjoyment in animation - a time when I didn't care to think about that sort of stuff.

Life is too short - especially to think. Those who can't, teach, the saying goes. Those who won't, think. Thinking is really a dagger through the heart for me. My entire situation of worry, doubt, paranoia...all caused by thinking. And not doing. Made far worse by continuing to think. And not doing. There's a reason why it is said that it isn't enough for character's in a story to think, but that they also have to act on those thoughts and do something - and it's because that is true.

Despite my worries at the moment, I have this urge to not give up animation. It feels like giving up would be a betrayal of who I want to be. A betrayal of myself. A rejection of change just because it was hard. But I have a choice...I can either be stuck playing games all day, being a politician, being a historian, being an archaeologist, and so on, hurting because I didn't do my animation - or I can simply just do my animation and not think for once.

The moral of the story is that thinking may have done some good for someone, but it also did very terrible things - the Nazis, biological warfare, fraud, Big Brother (LOL!), Paris Hilton...you get the idea.

I think my personal saying will be 'Those who can't, teach. Those who are just too bloody lazy, think.' Gandhi had many great ideas, but he acted on his thoughts. Mother Teresa the same. Buddha the same. That's the difference between them and most everyone else. You don't start living your life until you stop thinking and start doing. The brain...the greatest invention the combined forces of laziness and procrastination ever created.

self-censored

Okay...bad quote. Maybe it would better read 'Those who can't, are just too bloody lazy and think and think and think. Those who can, do whatever it is they must.'

As for the reference to thinking causing the Nazis...I didn't mean their rise to power, but the power of thought to be a very dangerous thing in the hands of some (especially me ;)...now I only need a reason to start my world conquest...ah, someone corrected me - right, good enough reason for me :D).

Don't underestimate the power of thought. It can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. It ended up in Hitler's hands...and we all know how that ended. Some smartass only needs to get an idea, and then all they need do is act on it, and we can all end up in deep shit. Including exploiting the ignorance of the desperate masses.

teaching is seen by many as a cop out but what nobler an activity could there be than dedicating ones life to ensuring others can spread the joys of animation

The irony of the "those who can't - teach" chestnut is that the people who spout this nonsense are the same ones who rush off to school to try to learn what they don't know. It's an interesting dichotomy - holding those you're relying on to relieve your ignorance in utter contempt once they've enlightened you.

If you want to use your powers of thought - chew on that one for a while.

self-censored

Continue your bickering here.

Aloha,
the Ape

and the old saying 'money doesnt bring happiness' is a lie propogated to keep the masses in order. the simple fact is if we didnt have the constant threat of needing money to survive we would be much more peaceful. star trek had it right...

Well if money brought happiness, then people like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, John Belushi wouldn't messed up or dead.
Money is just a tool in life, real serenity is independant of money.

as for your rather crass conclusion that the nazis were the result of thinking

its ignorance which allowed them to take hold in the first place

But what is ignorance? A lack of thought? Or thinking down a different path?

That is what we call ignorance, isn't it? Most of the discord in the world isn't due to ignorance, its due to disparate and divergent points of view in conflict with each other.
People haven't flown airplanes into buildings because they are ignorant of others, they've done so because of a set of rigidly held points of view that say to them such an act is worthwhile. They and their POV are demonized because they are at odds with a majority view, but that is how the world has long functioned.

I like Victor's take on the idea that there's no perfect job.

Y'know.......in my experience, there ain't.
Sometimes they come close, sometimes you have a really good time, but there's always a taint somewhere.
I was offered a dream job about 12 years ago..........absolute, hands-down-pinnacle-of-my-career gig.

And I turned it down.
And in retrospect, it was the best thing I ever did.
Doing that job would have descended into a undreamed-of hassle--a pit of frustration the likes a body and mind cannot concieve. Life, is indeed, too short to waste serenity on emotional poisions like that--so giving it up was a salvation, not a condemnation.
I have, subsequently, pursued other "dream jobs" and had them blow up in spectacular fashion--thus, at least to me, proving the point.

Now, am I just unlucky, I ask??
I dunno...........maybe. But I've also been granted many favours, gifts and boons over the same years, enough to show me that life is indeed fair.
I have experienced things that lead me to a belief in some kind of higher power--and quite frankly/honestly......that's a healthy message for my life.
Do I settle for less? Who determines what is less? Others? Me?
I keep hallucinating my death-bed......thinking how absurd it would be to think lying there that all those crazy jobs, all that high profile stuff.......all that stress, all that angst..........yea, it was "worth it".
Bull-hookey.
What's worth it is things like sitting on the porch with my pooch, doing stuff with my wife and step kids, laughing and enjoying things. Those things are not less in my eyes, they are MORE. They are the kinds of things that resonate deeply in me and I cherish them.
I will NOT lament spending less time at the drawing table, or in the office.
My employers might frown that I do not relish spending all my time working for their ends, but hey.........too bad. I do not live to work--that's just who it is.

Sure, I've never found or had a perfect job, but I'm not seeking one either--a paying one will do just fine, thank you.

Now, if you'll excuse me all, I have a a couple of dogs I'm going to take for a walk down to the lake, where I want to sit on a stump and listen to the wild loons cry whilst the dogs play in the water. Life is too short to miss out on something like that.

self-censored

what the hell is a loon?

Don't be ignorant Victor, think man! THINK!

so to fly a plane into a building killing hundreds of people...to strap a bomb to your chest in the belief that you will go to heaven and get a bunch of virgins is ignorant.

at its most basic level it is the ignorant assumption that one persons religion holds some kind of superiority over another when neither have any evidence to support their existence in the first place.

Ahh, but your assumptions are the correct ones and are not ignorant?
A belief if a belief--what basis is there for raising one above the other?

If I believe in God, and you do not........who is right?
Doesn't atheism, or non-belief, require just as much faith as believing?
Atheism, after all is a belief in a Universal negative.

Sorry Victor, but I think you are partially............partially barking up the wrong tree here.
If the belief system you cling to works for you, then that is all is required.
Its not some Universal constant after all, and when it comes to people there are no constants.
That is why human society places such emphasis on matters of faith.
Emphatically stating that someone else is wrong, or ignorant.........well, doesn't that depend upon a point of view? Which POV is the right one?
How can that be established--what are the parameters?
If the parameters are self-determinations and personal freedoms, doesn't the declaration of ignorance towards someone else because they believe in something different fly in the face of those parameters?
Doesn't it just blindly discount ( by an ignorant standard no less) that the supposedly ignorant person hasn't rationally thought out and measured their beliefs?

What you can call facts typically will only have bearing on your life and the lives around you. A life, mind you, that is supported by certain specific cultural and social mores built up by many factors ( like environment, resoruces, connection, politics etc.
Are those factors constant the world over?
Of course not--that's why there's so many different POVs.
Is the western person's belief in the sanctity of life, for example, a Universally held concept? Is it a just concept?
No.
Such a belief depends upon those things I mentioned above. A person in a part of the world where the environment is harsher, food and resources are scarcer, and political happenings far less reliable will probably hold to a very different belief about life--and not just human life, but all forms of life.
Are they wrong?
That is their environment, their Universe.
Does the imposition of your Universe upon theirs make your beliefs fairer, or more just?
Not so sure about it now, eh?
Ignorance is an easy label to toss about......but one has to be REALLY careful about who the label is really applying to.
Remember, the Course in Miracles cites that ALL human communication comes down to two simple exchanges: either a loving response, or a cry for help.
Sometimes, when we are saying another is ignorant, its really we who are saying we don't know.

The irony of the "those who can't - teach" chestnut is that the people who spout this nonsense are the same ones who rush off to school to try to learn what they don't know. It's an interesting dichotomy - holding those you're relying on to relieve your ignorance in utter contempt once they've enlightened you.

If you want to use your powers of thought - chew on that one for a while.

I feel bad for coming out with that quote now...it's quite clear that those who teach bloody well can - otherwise how the hell could they even teach it? A German teacher has to speak German, and therefore can, before he/she can teach it. A sailing instructor who can't would be very bad - hence why they usually can, otherwise how the hell do they have the ability to teach sailing?

Of course, I would like to say that my references to thought...it can be a dangerous thing in the wrong places. I'll limit myself to concerning it with art though. I seem to have kicked up a whirlwind...which I apologise about. When writing the first draft of a novel, or any draft for that matter, you're not meant to think. Otherwise, along comes your internal editor and that's the end of that - you'll still be left with a blank page at the end of the day. Same with drawing and animation. I remember a reference to Bobby Chiu someone made on CG Society - he was supposed to have said something along the lines of,' Don't think about drawing. Just draw, because if you think about drawing, even for 3 seconds, you'll talk yourself out of it'. It's like there's a unique type of thinking just for creative pursuit (whether or not it's your passion and day job or just a hobby) - and it's an invisible force you can't gain access to unless you carry out that work, safely tucked away in the right side of the brain - the left side of the brain in this always coming out with 'Access denied' and 'Does not compute'.

I remember a reference to Bobby Chiu someone made on CG Society - he was supposed to have said something along the lines of,' Don't think about drawing. Just draw, because if you think about drawing, even for 3 seconds, you'll talk yourself out of it'. It's like there's a unique type of thinking just for creative pursuit (whether or not it's your passion and day job or just a hobby) - and it's an invisible force you can't gain access to unless you carry out that work, safely tucked away in the right side of the brain - the left side of the brain in this always coming out with 'Access denied' and 'Does not compute'.

I know that kind of thinking, I do! I do!

Its a highly intuitive state, and "zone" where the force is strong and where can and must trust that your proton torpedos will fire/fly straight and true.
It is the first step you take into a larger world, and after that you can whack the snot out of the Jedi training ball, at will!
Even with the blast shield down.

See, I'm not so dumb after all!

Doesn't atheism, or non-belief, require just as much faith as believing?
Atheism, after all is a belief in a Universal negative.

athiesm doesnt require faith. athiesm is what remains when you look at the facts. it is a choice between believing in something baseless and contradictory or accepting evidence.

Emphatically stating that someone else is wrong, or ignorant.........well, doesn't that depend upon a point of view? Which POV is the right one?

for one religious person to state another religious person is wrong is absolutely ignorant. for a religious person to claim an athiest is wrong when all the evidence supports atheism is ignorant. for an athiest to claim a religious person is PROBABLY wrong means that the evidence has been considered and proves sufficiently strong to prevent religion being an option. but an atheist will always consider the possibility that evidence may emerge to prove the existence of god. none exist currently and none will ever emerge to validate the mainstream gods because there is already far too much evidence to contradict the mainstreat teachings.

Doesn't it just blindly discount ( by an ignorant standard no less) that the supposedly ignorant person hasn't rationally thought out and measured their beliefs?

no. by the very definition of ignorant. you cannot rationally come to the conclusion that god exists if you educate yourself on the facts. the only way to conclude that god exists is to discount the evidence and choose to have FAITH. the very act of choosing faith over evidence is ignorant.

your last paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion. i struggling to see your point. would you care to elaborate?

either a loving response, or a cry for help

thats a rather romantic way of looking at the human behavioural sciences. what about trade?

Sometimes, when we are saying another is ignorant, its really we who are saying we don't know.

i will concede that everyone is ignorant to a degree, some more so. but to label someone ignorant isnt a default ignorant action.

for example you could quite legitimately label me ignorant because your grammar is considerably better than mine.....and i hold my hands up and admit that my grammar is bad and i have little intention of improving my ability in that area...i knowingly proceed forward in the face f information which could improve my grammar.

and really...what is a loon?...im fairly sure if its a wild animal we dont have them in the uk.....according to the dictionary its a fish eating bird, but just want to make sure you dont have mental patients roaming the woods in your part of the country like a crazy safari.....idea for a film there

I feel bad for coming out with that quote now

ah dont feel bad. simple fact of the matter is most people have crap experiences of their teachers and most teachers do seem to have just stumped for it as a career. there are some real gems, but empirical evidence carries great weight.

I usually engage my mouth - or my typing fingers in this case - before my brain. But now that you mention it, there was at least one teacher in my past who I'd simply slap in the face now. I used to suffer panic attacks, and this one teacher shouted at me, saying that they didn't exist. I can't remember it myself, but my mother does, and it was reported to her by friends, so...

And as far as religion goes, I like to keep out of those arguments because they can end up going very awry. By can, I mean most of the time they do. I'd just like to say to everyone not to get too angry, this discussion isn't a matter of life and death (no pun intended).

I'm not even gonna bother with Ken's reply to my previous post. In fact, I will request that my previous post be no longer discussed, as I can see a heated argument ensuing. End of story.

As for the definition of ignorance...argue away...

EDIT: You can tell the dead serious tone in my writing, can't you? It is partly intended. I just don't need to get angry about anything at the moment, so I'm ducking out of the conversation. People say things, people get angry, and the crap starts hitting the fan, and it all goes downhill from there. I've been too angry during the recent weeks, and it's time I got back to being more positive on the whole.

as I can see a heated argument ensuing

and there is nothing wrong with that

although if you peel away at those types of discussion you can normally boil it down to 2 things

1 side arguing that they are entitled to freedom of speech

the other side trying to enforce respect for a religion that the other doesnt share

simple fact of the matter is most people have crap experiences of their teachers and most teachers do seem to have just stumped for it as a career. there are some real gems, but empirical evidence carries great weight.

On what empirical studies (which, by their very nature include "facts") are you basing your conclusion? Whose evidence? Or are you basing your assumption that most teachers suck on the perceptions of yourself and those you know? Perceptions are far different than "facts", and your sample size is simply too small (number of teachers you and your acquaintances have had / number of teachers in the world) to have any validity as "facts".

For someone as enamored of "facts" as you seem to be, can't help but notice you've yet to bust out any in support of any of your "opinions". Not surprising though; opinions are generally unassailable, which brings us back to "belief", which, as you correctly pointed out earlier, is quite different from "fact".

quoted from the dictionary

EMPIRICAL

depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory...

note the 'or', it is quite important

my experience, and from discussion i have shared with others about their experiences of school is that there is a common sentiment that school sucked and it was down to the teachers lacking enthiusiasm or skill.

so when i refered to empirical evidence it was directly refering to peoples personal experiences, which carries 'great weight'

in the same way that statistically if you ignore a wasp it will generally go away (supported by the number of wasp encounters we have resulting in no sting) , but we have all been stung and so our empirical evidence, in spite of the facts are that wasps will sting. so our perception of wasps are that they are vicious stinging beasts and should be avoided.

it is simple. humans will choose the worst case scenario because our survival favours it. better to assume all wasps will sting than assume none will and get stung.
the same applies to anything in life which could have a bad outcome.(this is scientific fact as of our current understanding - references would be too numerous, start with darwin and move on from there)

so to us humans, empirical evidence carries great weight

Or are you basing your assumption that most teachers suck on the perceptions of yourself and those you know? Perceptions are far different than "facts", and your sample size is simply too small

i absolutely am basing my assumptions on that...because it is my opinion, not fact. my opinion based on empirical evidence

For someone as enamored of "facts" as you seem to be, can't help but notice you've yet to bust out any in support of any of your "opinions".

when i state fact i will be sure to include a reference. but the quote you included was opinion which as you so rightly pointed out, need not be substantiated with facts since they are only opinions.

still, you made quite a blunt response so im guessing a nerve was touched somewhere.

It's probably true that your school experience sucked , as did the experience of those you spoke to. But if you're talking with all "D" students, you're going to get a skewed result.

Using your wasp example, if I talk to all people who have seen a wasp but have never been stung, I could easily come up with "empirical evidence" that wasps don't sting. Similarly, if I talk to all poor-performing students, I could easily come to the conclusion that "all teachers suck". That doesn't make that conclusion fact, however. Again, your sample size is too small, and more importanly, self-selected, so it's by definition skewed. And if all you talk to are people who share your opinion, well...

You say now that the quote I chose was your opinion, but it starts off with "simple fact of the matter...". Not opinion - fact. 'nuff said.

If you saw my response as blunt, maybe it's because it challenged your preconcieved notions and made you uncomfortable. Believe it or not, that's a good thing. Never hurts to look at the other side, even if you come to the conclusion that you still don't agree with it.

i never claimed all teachers sucked to be fact. i never claimed empirical evidence was fact...empirical evidence is what it is, that only improves the probability of it being fact.

yes, empirical evidence is skewed because the criteria is normally loaded. which is why in medicine it is normally used in conjunction with sound scientific theory...."we reckon this pill turns your hair white, but lets test it and record the results"...those results are empirical....based on observation....they wont prove the tablet turns everyones hair white, just those that took the tablet and their hair turned white.

no drugs go on the market without empirical evidence. that doesnt mean the drug is 100% safe, but the scientists have enough empirical evidence to suggest the drug is safe.

its moot anyway because it merely used in support of an opinion, i neednt have even provided that since i am entitled to an opinion...i hope

but it starts off with "simple fact of the matter...". Not opinion - fact. 'nuff said.

i get your point there, thats a conversational colloquialism from ol blighty. but the essense of the statement was not supposed to be outside the realms of empirical evidence since the term 'those who cant, teach' had been previously validated as being abundant in society. i will make the assumption that we had all heard the term before this conversation took place and regardless of whether we subscribe to it, there is a good chance that in order for such a myth to survive it must ring true with enough people for the myth to continue to propagate. which i would hazard to be the majority...see above

and yes, one could assume that if you took a control group of people who had not been stung or given any other reason to fear insects, there will be a good chance that they would not fear wasps.

you are merely reinforcing my point with your hypotheticals.

sample size is irrelevent. because emperical evidence is not fact per se. think of it as a probability curve. the more examples you find to support your assumptions the more probable it is. the wasp scenario only requires one sting in a lifetime for our brains to conclude that we should avoid wasps even when our sting-less encounters will probably amount to millions. it is in our interest to assume whatever is going to be in our interest...

your response was blunt and full of holes(except the colloquialism which i hope to have cleared up) but i put that down to your not understanding the word 'empirical'

Naturally, you're entitled to an opinion. It's when opinion is presented as fact that I have an issue. Your colloquialism excuse aside, you've spent a fair amount of time asserting your opinion as fact. You really shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

Lob all the insults you like at me; your little closing potshots merely bring a smile to my face. :D

it wasnt a pot shot, you called me on my use of the word empirical without understanding the word. which was magnified by your hypertheticals which i suspect were intended to contest my use of the word.

fair amount of time asserting your opinion as fact. You really shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

to which statements are you referring?

Gamecon, as a fellow citizen (Happy Merdeka Day for the 31st August btw!), yes I can empathise. Most of us don't know at 17 what we want to do with the rest of our lives, and our parents are paying some pretty hefty fees whatever we end up studying! My parents yelled whenever I said dirty words like 'art' or 'animation' or 'graphic design'. So I ended up studying architecture, which is its own very special brand of hell. And I can tell you that even with a good job that lets me go home before 6pm, I'm completely exhausted by the end of the day. So much for having hobbies!

And from the perspective of someone a little older :), it's not the end of the world if you find yourself taking a wrong turn at this crossroads. People change courses, or work several years and study something else. And quite often do very well at that something else too (more than if they'd gone for it straight out of school).

Oh and one last thing - there is no such thing as a secure job these days, and you probably wouldn't want a job that is 100% secure anyway :D

Good luck with the SPM, and you're welcome to send me a message.

Most of us don't know at 17 what we want to do with the rest of our lives

ihave always known what i wanted to do with my time

when i was 15 we were asked at school to write about what we wanted to do and i put that i wanted to draw cartoons. i was put on detention and had a letter sent home to my parents for not taking the session seriously.

but then at school i was also punished for being left-handed....