🚀 go-pugleaf

Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
>> In article <VtDni.9760$zA4.30@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,  Rudy
>> Canoza at rudy-canoza@excite.com says...
>>> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
>>>> In article <1184786861.900793.235660@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Pubkeybreaker at pubkeybreaker@aol.com says...
> 
>>>>> The people living in the inner city, on the other hand, are poor
>>> Technically, it's because their parents lack
>>> education...and good work habits...and salable job skills.
> 
> <snip, snip>
> 
>> Oh boy, it's the old argument that poverty is the poor people's fault.
> 
> No.
> 
> I suggest that you read
> 
> http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
> 
> 
> What is the primary difference between those living in the inner city
> and those
> living in the suburbs?  It isn't ethnicity, skin color, religion,
> country of origin, or
> other social factors.
> 
> The answer is simple:  those living in the suburbs are the
> *intelligent* people within
> our society.  These people are intelligent.  Intelligent people value
> education and therefore
> educate themselves.  Their skills enable them to have jobs that are
> high paying because
> those jobs demand skills.  I won't debate how much of intelligence is
> genetic and how much
> is social.  However, children of people living in the suburbs are more
> intelligent because
> they both inheret their parents genes and because their parents push
> them.
> 
> The ones living in the inner city are less intelligent.  They do not
> have a positive attitude toward
> education or a positive work ethic because of this.

This is what is true on average of poor inner city 
dwellers.  The ones who do value education manage to 
get themselves, or at least their children, out of 
there.  There are, indeed, poor inner city parents who 
manage to scrape together enough money to get their 
children into parochial and other non-state schools, 
and those children do not remain poor inner city people 
for the rest of their lives.


> 
> Poor people are poor not through any fault of their own, but rather
> because they are on the
> left side of the intelligence curve.  They lack education and they
> lack skills precisely because
> they lack intelligence.
> 
> This isn't anyone's "fault".  It is just that this is the way nature
> works.
> 
> 
>> They, they, they, they. You lump everyone in the city as one big
>> "they" as if country and suburban kids are somehow more gifted and
>> bright just because of where they are.
> 
> Not because of "where they are",  but because intelligent people tend
> to
> migrate out of the inner city.  Those living in the suburbs are more
> intelligent
> and they motivate their kids to educate themselves and because kids of
> intelligent people tend to be more intelligent.  They *ARE* more
> gifted.
> 
> People in the suburbs ARE more intelligent than those in the inner
> city.
> 
> 
> 
>>> The students don't give a shit because their parents
>>> don't give a shit.  Money spent trying to instruct
>>> these animals is an unmitigated waste.
>> Now that's a good one "Money spent trying to instruct
>> these animals is an unmitigated waste."
> 
> I agree that the comment about "animals" is hostile and uncalled for.
> We should *try* to educate everyone.  People can then either rise or
> fall
> on their own merits and motivation.  We should provide equal
> *opportunity*
> for all.  But (generally speaking) stupid people do not do much with
> the
> opportunities they are given.
> 
> We need to give people and hand UP,  but not a hand OUT.
> 
>>>> Education and teachers are there so that kids *DO* give a shit.
>>> NO.  It is not the teachers' job to motivate students.
>>>   Students need to arrive in class *already* motivated.
> 
> Yes.  But for those who are willing to learn, a good teacher CAN make
> a dull subject interesting.
>> My, you are such an expert on the subject. Where did you get your PhD
>> in Education?
> 
> This remark is uncalled for,
> 
> (1) It is an attack on the poster, rather than the ideas under
> discussion.
> (2) One does not need a degree in education to apply common sense.
> 
> 
>>>> Put two and two together and you can see *why* kids in poor schools
>>>> don't give a shit. They are treated like shit.
>>> They don't give a shit because their parents are shit
> 
> Their parents are NOT shit.  Their parents are simply unintelligent.
> Being below average in intelligence is a HANDICAP in today's society.
> We should not denigrate people because of a handicap.
> 
> Their parents do however, have bad attitudes.
> 
> And I don't know how to correct this. It is in some sense,  "just
> biology".
>