education is defined in all human rights acts post 1945.
education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people. and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.
without educated people like the people in this university many employers would not be able to gain employees.
Then I do not recognize it. The Democratic Party said that work is a right. Sure.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Oh? Really? It's necessary, hrm? How so?education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people.True enough. Still not a right. What victims does that require?and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.You are misunderstanding me, and misunderstanding the term "right". A "right" means unnatural, unalienable, something that the government can't take or give. To pursue happiness is a right, but not happiness itself; you will be sad, sometimes, but you will always have the option to be happy. Life is a right. Liberty is a right - despite what the conservatives say. Your property is a right - despite what the liberals say. But education is not a right, because that would require that there be a group of educators giving education despite what they want. You have the right to pursue education, certainly - in fact, it's encouraged. But receiving it is not a right. You do not have to - by right, you can choose to not be educated.without educated people like the people in this university many employers would not be able to gain employees.
but is not a choice for the poor. it is not a decision to be made if you cannot afford it. but is a right with a cost. and is one of the few that carry. but is a right which cannot be ignored. it is not the place of any person to not recognise the human rights of others. it is set in stone. the right to education is up there with the rest of the rights and to deny it carries the same charge.
it is also a right which benefits everyone both directly and indirectly. a higher educated population brings a better economy, more wealth and a greater country. it is not immediate but give children a better education and a basis for higher and further education then everyone reaps the rewards of a better, more intelligent, greater abled work force.
to live in ignorance is not to live at all.
Hence financial aid and scholarships.so here we have an example where we have to exact equals except for wealth and that is the defining trait which means these people will succeed or fail in live. and this wealth isn't their fault or gain. but circumstance that has nothing to do with them.
they do not have an equal chance. ben never had one.
Meh, although I feel everyone deserves a chance at basic education, you can live, and sometimes fairly well, without higher education.education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people. and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.
but that is the problem. yes you can live without it. but you will never better yourself. if you are born into a family that can not afford higher education then you will become a family that cannot afford higher education and so your entire family from now to eternity will be stuck in the same status. and that is not the great american dream.
are financial aid and scholarships open to all who make the grade? or are the weighted in favour of the exceptional?
and fyi the right to work hachifusa is also in the human rights act (article 23). also so is social security (article 22). holidays are covered in article 24. free health care may actually be taken from article 25.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
education which we are discussing here is in 26. and the act specifically states that "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." it also states it should be free for elementary and fundamental stages and in fact be compulsary at elementary level.
so there you go the 1948 human rights act is actually very socialist. and since the us signed it it should be bound to it.
to fail on the human rights act is a breach of human rights and is punishable in the hague.
Financial aid is based on need, scholarships generally on ability.are financial aid and scholarships open to all who make the grade? or are the weighted in favour of the exceptional?
are they debt free?
the problem comes in the bill and ben scenario i described before. really they should be able to have the same education even though one can't afford it. and to lay debt on for that is wrong. in the end a graduate benefits society as a whole and aids to the wealth of society.
and are scholarships based on the entry requirements or exceptional grades beyond?
Yes.are they debt free?
Depends on the scholarship.and are scholarships based on the entry requirements or exceptional grades beyond?
I think we can sum this up with, college is easy as hell to get into in the US. You just have to be smart and find a good college. You can't just jump into some privitized rip your lungs out school, and expect much.
Scholarships are free money given to people whom meet certain criteria. There may be a scholorship out there for being a moron, or one for being Irish. Its all dependant on the private party giving out the scholarships.
Bipper
but the criteria are the problem.
setting a higher entry standard for the poor than the rich is wrong.
Doesn't bother me any. I grew up poor, not dirt poor, but lower income. I never had a dime saved for college, and I went. I got my Assosiates in Programming, and all the certs I need to be where I want to be. Especially in the area's of computer programming, most of the learning you do will be on your own time.
Personally, I think way too many people put way too much stock in college the way it is. Most of your learning will come on your own, and I have worked with so many whome have thier noses in the air because they recived a doctrine or masters in some area. Granted, I know of a few decorated people whom shoes I would gladly lick to get a taste of their knowlage, but all in all, it comes down to the person, not the degree.
On top of all this, My friend Timmy, is a freaking computer super hero. He has never leanred much from the quater of college he took. He knows his stuff though, and is a very intelligent, and has my whole harted trust. The man has more respect from me than half of the people I meet with a degree. It is sad, and entirely true; he makes more money than I.
Bipper
I completely disagree with their definitions of "human rights", because it is a slap in the face of the word "right", because they are not defining the word correctly.
The US should be bound by it; like I told you before, Cloud, there are a lot of problems with the US, and their signing a ridiculously undefined approximate like this is one of them.
If we define human rights by the number of victims we can find, then we probably deserve all of the problems with the world today associated with it.
An important thing to make here, so I place now in this post the abbreviation 'QFT'. There is just too much stock placed nowadays in college/university educations. They were never designed for the majority of people to go to, they were designed for the most intelligent to go to for the most skill-requiring jobs, such as doctors and scientists. Now we have Golf Studies. I know plenty of people who went through the system and got very little from it, and I know a fair few people who are smarter and savvier by far, but have a harder time because they figured four years getting a fairly pointless degree was a bad idea.
But pretty much everyone needs to learn to lighten up and take more chances. This counts as both an individual concern and a social one. *Shrugs* I've taken chances my whole life and I'm somewhere pretty great on the whole. The major improvements would come about through people taking a chance with me (For example, allowing me to move to another country.). The status quo would not benefit me (Is not; change is how my life will improve. Always has, likely will continue to for some years to come.).
why is the right to work or be educated a falsehood. on what grounds do you deny people these rights? race? gender? religion? in america it is wealth. america has became such a society that the only worth any individual has the money in his bank. less money = a lesser person. we say this last month with the hurricane. it wasn't about race. it was that these people don't matter in american society. their death is an end to an inconvienence.
arguing with the 1948 human rights convention is a great slap in the face to the 6 years of war which we fought to end the greatest human rights abuse (except africa). that is why the act was made. to prevent such an event happening again. america has just made wealth the factor now not race.
About the hurricane - that is such an obviously foreign viewpoint, because besides being an inhuman apprasial (our government didn't exactly look to kill the people), it's also wrong practically - we have lost a ton of "manpower" and productivity through the hurricane, so to say that inaction occured purposely is ridiculous.
I could explain the concept of rights here, but you're clearly not interested.Really? I didn't realize that your mob had a chokehold on what it deems as a human right. I'll remember to be a good citizen and mind the government at all times, because foreign countries know more about human rights than I do.arguing with the 1948 human rights convention is a great slap in the face to the 6 years of war which we fought to end the greatest human rights abuse (except africa).
Posting Permissions
