|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:17 pm
Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:07 pm
Mythsysizer Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:37 am
Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification? No, but reading the plot of the story it seems that the movie is anecdotal. What it predicts is going to happen is based on unsupported assumptions that technology impoverishes the mind. When their's a body of knowledge called the flynn effect that seems to contradict that. Throughout this last century we've made amazing revolutionary technological advancements which have steadily increased our innovations and capabilities in commercialism. If it's true that we're getting stupider by these achievements and innovations, then why is our IQ going up by a margin of 3 per decade in this last century?If you agree with this movie's argument as it appears you do, then you do so based on a speculative anecdotal story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:22 am
Mythsysizer Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification? No, but reading the plot of the story it seems that the movie is anecdotal. What it predicts is going to happen is based on unsupported assumptions that technology impoverishes the mind. When their's a body of knowledge called the flynn effect that seems to contradict that. Throughout this last century we've made amazing revolutionary technological advancements which have steadily increased our innovations and capabilities in commercialism. If it's true that we're getting stupider by these achievements and innovations, then why is our IQ going up by a margin of 3 per decade in this last century?If you agree with this movie's argument as it appears you do, then you do so based on a speculative anecdotal story. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/scho-a03.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:40 am
Not that I have any evidence to support it but it was my understanding that a lot of schools are passing students and giving them ridiculously easy assignments just to raise their grade point average on purpose, just so the school district won't look bad. As I understand, it's a more recent phenomena, taking place in the past decade.
It may be true that our IQ levels have been rising over the past century, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing those levels taking a good plummet. It seems that there's few students now-a-days that have the gumption to even try in school, more or less are they receiving the discipline necessary to motivate them if they won't motivate themselves.
I'm with Aakosir on this one. It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to express themselves every now and again through writing with chat speak but when it gets to the point that you're unable to communicate regularly there's a huge problem. It becomes even worse when a huge chunk of the population communicates solely in that means through writing.
Every now and again in ED you'll get someone that posts solely in chat speak. The ED regulars will of course jump them for it, but the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:41 am
Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification? No, but reading the plot of the story it seems that the movie is anecdotal. What it predicts is going to happen is based on unsupported assumptions that technology impoverishes the mind. When their's a body of knowledge called the flynn effect that seems to contradict that. Throughout this last century we've made amazing revolutionary technological advancements which have steadily increased our innovations and capabilities in commercialism. If it's true that we're getting stupider by these achievements and innovations, then why is our IQ going up by a margin of 3 per decade in this last century?If you agree with this movie's argument as it appears you do, then you do so based on a speculative anecdotal story. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/scho-a03.shtml Thanks for that point, yet I never said everyone is a contributor to the nations IQ going up,(also the flynn effect is noted internationally.) nor did I say the US is the brightest country. Yet does everyone have to be a contributor to IQ going up or does the us have to be the brightest country to avoid a denegrating society or "idiocratic" future? Your study says 70% of students in specific urban areas and school districts aren't completing school. I'm not sure if your "70% of students aren't completing high school" meant those specific locations or if you were confused and thought this statistics means nationwide. If it's the latter than sorry to say this, but you're WAAAY off. Depending on the data sources, definitions, and methods used, the U.S. graduation rate is estimated to be anywhere from 66 to 88 percent in recent years. The range of estimated minority rates is even greater—from 50 to 85 percent. (pg. 3)So even the lowest nationwide graduation rate (50%) includes only minorites, which is a far cry away from your implied 30%. And this statistic is only reached by the revised definition of a high school graduate by the no child left behind policy. Where those with alternative credentials, such as the GED certificate are excluded from the calculations. So it doesn't necessarily mean that those who didn't graduate were dropouts, it just means they didn't get a diploma. Anyways the point of this article is making the distinction of a suburb-urban dichotomy of graduation rates. And how the cause of this is the differences of the rich suburbs and poor urban and unfairness of it. Basically an attempt at bringing evidence for the socialist perspective. (which the site is all about) So it doesn't support your position that the cause of this is some sort of anti-literacy and intellectual trend at all. Of course this brings up concern for educational policies, but to answer your question, I see no reason to believe this is sufficient evidence to suppose our future "will" be bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:21 am
Mythsysizer Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Mythsysizer Aakosir Oh, I'm so glad I am not the only one XD
But it is the internet in general that bugs me. I really think there should be a built in spell check on every site that does not allow you to post in the "text talk" A person has a right to express themselves and meaning in text talk if they wish. The person also has the right to type in a way you don't understand. Why would you infringe on these rights, is it simply because you're selfish and everything that is done should be done as a means of giving only you gratification? No, but reading the plot of the story it seems that the movie is anecdotal. What it predicts is going to happen is based on unsupported assumptions that technology impoverishes the mind. When their's a body of knowledge called the flynn effect that seems to contradict that. Throughout this last century we've made amazing revolutionary technological advancements which have steadily increased our innovations and capabilities in commercialism. If it's true that we're getting stupider by these achievements and innovations, then why is our IQ going up by a margin of 3 per decade in this last century?If you agree with this movie's argument as it appears you do, then you do so based on a speculative anecdotal story. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/scho-a03.shtml Thanks for that point, yet I never said everyone is a contributor to the nations IQ going up,(also the flynn effect is noted internationally.) nor did I say the US is the brightest country. Yet does everyone have to be a contributor to IQ going up or does the us have to be the brightest country to avoid a denegrating society or "idiocratic" future? Your study says 70% of students in specific urban areas and school districts aren't completing school. I'm not sure if your "70% of students aren't completing high school" meant those specific locations or if you were confused and thought this statistics means nationwide. If it's the latter than sorry to say this, but you're WAAAY off. Depending on the data sources, definitions, and methods used, the U.S. graduation rate is estimated to be anywhere from 66 to 88 percent in recent years. The range of estimated minority rates is even greater—from 50 to 85 percent. (pg. 3)So even the lowest nationwide graduation rate (50%) includes only minorites, which is a far cry away from your implied 30%. And this statistic is only reached by the revised definition of a high school graduate by the no child left behind policy. Where those with alternative credentials, such as the GED certificate are excluded from the calculations. So it doesn't necessarily mean that those who didn't graduate were dropouts, it just means they didn't get a diploma. Anyways the point of this article is making the distinction of a suburb-urban dichotomy of graduation rates. And how the cause of this is the differences of the rich suburbs and poor urban and unfairness of it. Basically an attempt at bringing evidence for the socialist perspective. (which the site is all about) So it doesn't support your position that the cause of this is some sort of anti-literacy and intellectual trend at all. Of course this brings up concern for educational policies, but to answer your question, I see no reason to believe this is sufficient evidence to suppose our future "will" be bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:24 am
Lateralus es Helica Not that I have any evidence to support it but it was my understanding that a lot of schools are passing students and giving them ridiculously easy assignments just to raise their grade point average on purpose, just so the school district won't look bad. As I understand, it's a more recent phenomena, taking place in the past decade. It may be true that our IQ levels have been rising over the past century, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing those levels taking a good plummet. It seems that there's few students now-a-days that have the gumption to even try in school, more or less are they receiving the discipline necessary to motivate them if they won't motivate themselves. I'm with Aakosir on this one. It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to express themselves every now and again through writing with chat speak but when it gets to the point that you're unable to communicate regularly there's a huge problem. It becomes even worse when a huge chunk of the population communicates solely in that means through writing. Every now and again in ED you'll get someone that posts solely in chat speak. The ED regulars will of course jump them for it, but the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 am
Lateralus es Helica Not that I have any evidence to support it but it was my understanding that a lot of schools are passing students and giving them ridiculously easy assignments just to raise their grade point average on purpose, just so the school district won't look bad. As I understand, it's a more recent phenomena, taking place in the past decade. It may be true that our IQ levels have been rising over the past century, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing those levels taking a good plummet. It seems that there's few students now-a-days that have the gumption to even try in school, more or less are they receiving the discipline necessary to motivate them if they won't motivate themselves. I'm with Aakosir on this one. It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to express themselves every now and again through writing with chat speak but Every now and again in ED you'll get someone that posts solely in chat speak. The ED regulars will of course jump them for it, but the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here. I'm going to ignore most of your first two paragraphs, since all they do is make assumptions, "bets", and speculate on most likely only your experience, and as you said are based on no objective evidence. In this sense I don't think it contributes anything of worth to the conversation. The only response it could warrant, is a personal contradiction from me, which I would be glad to say. "It seems there're many students motivated to try in school." You see, without any evidence what does that make our convictions, besides that which we reassure ourselves with? when it gets to the point that you're unable to communicate regularly there's a huge problem. It becomes even worse when a huge chunk of the population communicates solely in that means through writing.Everyone learns how to write through teaching, therefore everyone who speaks like you usually knows how to write like you to. If you encounter some writing you don't understand it's done because of insuffient teaching, dyslexia, or another type of vernacular with esoteric meanings that person learned later and is choosing to write with. If this is so then there is no huge problem, unless this imaginary huge chunk of the population 'only' communicates in this way. Even though this population knows more about the formal way to write since that is their basis of knowledge on how to write. So I see no reason, nor have you presented any to believe that they do only communicate this way. Even unconventional ways of typing like chat speak are usually easy to understand and rarely are ever truly incoherent and completely detached from its native tongue and grammar. What I think you're doing is over exaggerating the discrepancies of these ways of typing, or being petty about spelling. Which is what most of you people do, that's what I is think truly annoying. the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here.What excessiveness? If they don't know how to type regularly then I find it confusing how they could learn to type chat speak. They both require a fundamental knowledge of how to write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:16 pm
No,Well obviously the only part of the article you read was the title and a few paragraphs. barry grey Detroit, by many calculations the poorest US city, graduates less than 25 percent (24.9 percent) of its public high school students. Indianapolis Public Schools graduate 30.5 percent of their students, and the figures for the Cleveland Municipal City School District and the Baltimore City Public School System are 34.1 percent and 34.6 percent respectively. So yes the article does claim and show few cities, that statistically have generally a 70% drop out rate as I said. I was trying to make a correlation with what you said "70% of students are dropping out of school". (by their methodology) that study said major cities drop out rates are 50%.You are right, their study also says barry grey The report finds that, overall, 17 of the public school systems in 50 major cities have graduation rates of 50 percent or lower, and the average graduation rate of all 50 systems is 58 percent. I left that out because everything about it had absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Then the total for the nation is 70%.This article??? What? It doesn't say that at all! If you're saying that the nations drop out rate is 70%, then this article is contradicting you, and so is every statistic and study on this subject. barry grey The report states that only 52 percent of public high school students in these cities graduate after four years, while the national average is 70 percent.So the national average of high school students that graduate after four years is 70%. Why are you so confused about this, it's pretty explicitly said. neutral And the minorities... They are more the nation's future then the majority. Aka the whites. Which is fastly changing. Uh, right. The studies pretaining to this subject always make the distinction by ethnicity. So we don't even have to say minorities-majority, that's just what those ethnicities are currently defined as. So your "which is fastly changing bit" is unnecessary and makes no difference. Companies are firing their legal citizens to hire illegal immigrants. How does that bode for the country? Not well at all. The educated people with Master's degrees are even having a hard time finding work. The companies are choosing the people who will work for less then minimum wage so they can save money. This spells disastor for the economy.I already said these things deserve attention and that it brings concern about policy making on those subjects, yet it doesn't mean the future is bad. You're essentially becoming a dogmatic doomsayer, that is not just suggesting the possible consequences of what can happen. But saying that it is going to happen. It's as if you've never heard of problem solving and think that people are just staring at these problems and saying to themselves, "whelp look at that, things are bad. Yup. Lets not do anything and just wait for the world to crumble." If you are then I guess you're right. But back to the education point. People who are high school drop outs will have an even harder time finding work unless they are willing to do the grunt work. I live in a little town and we have so many homeless and unemployed. The unemployment is at 7% for the country now. And I know about putting people through who should not go on. I had to threaten the school to drop out because they were not doing anything for me. Once my mom said "drop out" they freaked and put me in an internet program. They did not want to look bad for having people drop out. How exactly did this do anything to expand your point? Whatever the hell your point is at this point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:03 pm
Mythsysizer Lateralus es Helica Not that I have any evidence to support it but it was my understanding that a lot of schools are passing students and giving them ridiculously easy assignments just to raise their grade point average on purpose, just so the school district won't look bad. As I understand, it's a more recent phenomena, taking place in the past decade. It may be true that our IQ levels have been rising over the past century, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing those levels taking a good plummet. It seems that there's few students now-a-days that have the gumption to even try in school, more or less are they receiving the discipline necessary to motivate them if they won't motivate themselves. I'm with Aakosir on this one. It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to express themselves every now and again through writing with chat speak but Every now and again in ED you'll get someone that posts solely in chat speak. The ED regulars will of course jump them for it, but the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here. I'm going to ignore most of your first two paragraphs, since all they do is make assumptions, "bets", and speculate on most likely only your experience, and as you said are based on no objective evidence. In this sense I don't think it contributes anything of worth to the conversation. The only response it could warrant, is a personal contradiction from me, which I would be glad to say. "It seems there're many students motivated to try in school." You see, without any evidence what does that make our convictions, besides that which we reassure ourselves with? The lack of evidence is due to oral conversations with teachers, although this is limited to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Largely, their complaints center around two things: 1. The school districts are constantly under threat of law suits by parents, it's hard enough to come up with a P.C. curriculum, more or less enforce discipline. That's not to mention there's been several cases of teachers just plain quitting because parents are harassing them about their students grades, even though the students in question aren't doing the type of work that warrants the straight A's parents harass them for. As such, they either have to find ways to pass them to stop the harassment or they just give up and quit, not wanting to have anything to do with such a corrupt system. 2. The students know that there's no real discipline in schools. They know at the mention of a lawsuit the school system will bend over backwards to prevent the family from getting a lawyer. As such, many will push the limits and do whatever they please. That's not to say that ALL students do, just a large number. Kids aren't stupid after all, if they know they can do what they want without suffering immediate consequences they will. However, since that is regional and it is based on oral conversations that you have no direct record of, feel free to ignore all you want. I'll admit it's a weak point. when it gets to the point that you're unable to communicate regularly there's a huge problem. It becomes even worse when a huge chunk of the population communicates solely in that means through writing.Mythsysizer Everyone learns how to write through teaching, therefore everyone who speaks like you usually knows how to write like you to. If you encounter some writing you don't understand it's done because of insuffient teaching, dyslexia, or another type of vernacular with esoteric meanings that person learned later and is choosing to write with. If this is so then there is no huge problem, unless this imaginary huge chunk of the population 'only' communicates in this way. Even though this population knows more about the formal way to write since that is their basis of knowledge on how to write. So I see no reason, nor have you presented any to believe that they do only communicate this way. Even unconventional ways of typing like chat speak are usually easy to understand and rarely are ever truly incoherent and completely detached from its native tongue and grammar. What I think you're doing is over exaggerating the discrepancies of these ways of typing, or being petty about spelling. Which is what most of you people do, that's what I is think truly annoying. I was never arguing chat speak is evil period. All things in the appropriate environment. You wouldn't speak gutter English or slang in a professional setting. Chat speak is fine in the situation where such shorthand is almost required to participate in the conversation, such as with text messaging or even in IMs where you only have so much space to type. When, however, you're trying to engage in an in-depth conversation using solely shorthand, it becomes ridiculous. Spelling errors are forgivable as are many grammatical errors, but there's a point where it's obvious you're not even trying. Let's take this conversation for instance, in a debate setting it would be inappropriate to use such shorthand and I notice you yourself aren't using it. If there's an in-depth conversation going about Lord of the Rings in which proper English is being used by all participants, you're going to look absolutely ridiculous when you come in and go 'LOL Frodo OMG <3 Legolas' and blatantly refuse to even so much as try to type normally. I'm not saying that they're stupid in the least, but as far as the education system goes many aren't even bothering to try. The basis for which we judge intelligence is based on both academics and standardized testing which covers subjects that are supposed to be covered in school. I say you may see IQ levels start to plummet because many students aren't learning the material they'd need to pass such IQ tests. As for not even knowing how to type normally, that ties into the above with my points about the education system. If you're going to ignore that portion, we can skip this point of the conversation entirely. Either Aasokir and I are right and the education system is flailing, leading to such cases where a person wouldn't know how to write in proper English because they're not learning the material, or you're right and there's really no excuse for claiming you can't write properly as the education system is doing a proper job and students have a willingness to learn. the chat-speaker's response is essentially 'leave me alone I don't know how to type regularly'. It's that exact type of excessiveness that's being argued against here.Mythsysizer What excessiveness? If they don't know how to type regularly then I find it confusing how they could learn to type chat speak. They both require a fundamental knowledge of how to write. That's my point there, they can read the material and have the means in which to type normally, it's there, but a few have made ridiculous excuses just so they don't have to take the time to type everything out normally. I'm not at all saying chat speakers are less intelligent than everyone else, just that they're not willing to put any effort into a conversation, hence making themselves look ridiculous. For some reason they have the mis-guided notion that they should be able to take the short way out of every written conversation and don't bother trying to figure out when it is and isn't appropriate. Not to mention, would you have even bothered to take the time to reply to ANY of these arguments if we had come at this debate in chat speak? Would you have taken any of them seriously or just dismissed them entirely? It's all about the appropriate effort in the appropriate situation, just like you ignore in the first half of my arguments the point in which I don't bother to place any type of evidence for you to review. I didn't put the effort, you find my argument ridiculous and dismiss it. Same point for the conversations in which it is irksome to have chat speak when you should be typing everything out. That in the end is what this all boils down to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:44 pm
Lateralus es Helica The lack of evidence is due to oral conversations with teachers, although this is limited to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Largely, their complaints center around two things: 1. The school districts are constantly under threat of law suits by parents, it's hard enough to come up with a P.C. curriculum, more or less enforce discipline. That's not to mention there's been several cases of teachers just plain quitting because parents are harassing them about their students grades, even though the students in question aren't doing the type of work that warrants the straight A's parents harass them for. As such, they either have to find ways to pass them to stop the harassment or they just give up and quit, not wanting to have anything to do with such a corrupt system. 2. The students know that there's no real discipline in schools. They know at the mention of a lawsuit the school system will bend over backwards to prevent the family from getting a lawyer. As such, many will push the limits and do whatever they please. That's not to say that ALL students do, just a large number. Kids aren't stupid after all, if they know they can do what they want without suffering immediate consequences they will. However, since that is regional and it is based on oral conversations that you have no direct record of, feel free to ignore all you want. I'll admit it's a weak point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe everything you've just said is fictitious. And makes many assumptions on the mindset of many students. But even granting what you say is true under what pretense could you sue a teacher for giving a student a bad grade? This harrasment seems like complete frivolous bullshit to me, and counter-intuitive thinking to how the justice system would approach this. Since teachers can justify their grades to any courtroom because they can objectively prove the kids work is bad and deserves a bad grade. Your whole reason sounds bizarre, how could a teacher, let alone the school system, believe they're honostly threatened. Your second point can only be granted if your first point is true, and it's rather funny to believe that it would be. But what I was mainly talking about in response to your post was the bit that students aren't motivated to learn in school, and that IQ's will lower. It may very well be that teachers are starting to give their students easier assignments in order to pass them. Since the No Child Left Behind policy made graduation rates a primary objective it required schools to meet a qouta,(the adequate yearly progress) states and school districts that didn't meet the AYP recieved reduced federal funding. So schools that were doing bad probably put more pressure on there teachers, and some of them may have given their students easy assignments so they could pass more easily. But this doesn't mean that only a few students are motivated to try in school. The problem I have is that you appear to think that there's only this small class of noble little kids motivated to try in school, it just seems ridiculous how you could infer something like that. Anyways that's something I would believe rather than this nonsense about parents bullying school systems with frivolous lawsuits. (wasn't there a recent law passed that's aimed at discerning and rejecting frivolous lawsuits?) I mean, do you think I'm stupid? Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Lateralus es Helica I was never arguing chat speak is evil period. All things in the appropriate environment. You wouldn't speak gutter English or slang in a professional setting. Chat speak is fine in the situation where such shorthand is almost required to participate in the conversation, such as with text messaging or even in IMs where you only have so much space to type. When, however, you're trying to engage in an in-depth conversation using solely shorthand, it becomes ridiculous. Spelling errors are forgivable as are many grammatical errors, but there's a point where it's obvious you're not even trying. Let's take this conversation for instance, in a debate setting it would be inappropriate to use such shorthand and I notice you yourself aren't using it. If there's an in-depth conversation going about Lord of the Rings in which proper English is being used by all participants, you're going to look absolutely ridiculous when you come in and go 'LOL Frodo OMG <3 Legolas' and blatantly refuse to even so much as try to type normally. I'm not saying that they're stupid in the least, but as far as the education system goes many aren't even bothering to try. The basis for which we judge intelligence is based on both academics and standardized testing which covers subjects that are supposed to be covered in school. I say you may see IQ levels start to plummet because many students aren't learning the material they'd need to pass such IQ tests. As for not even knowing how to type normally, that ties into the above with my points about the education system. If you're going to ignore that portion, we can skip this point of the conversation entirely. Either Aasokir and I are right and the education system is flailing, leading to such cases where a person wouldn't know how to write in proper English because they're not learning the material, or you're right and there's really no excuse for claiming you can't write properly as the education system is doing a proper job and students have a willingness to learn. I never said you're arguing that chat speak and other unconventional ways of typing are evil. I'm saying that there's no real reason to hate it, unless you're easily annoyed. I'm also tired of all this unwarranted arrogance that comes from people that talk down to those who type in CS. I wouldn't use it in a professional setting? Why? I think it's reasonable not to, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't. Maybe you meant to say I shouldn't because it usually wouldn't be useful or practical? By that reason I wouldn't only if I valued being useful and practical during those sessions. Ridiculous. Really? So we've come full circle already? I think I should just give up right now, since you've missed my point completely. the fact that it's ridiculous or not is irrelevant. A person doesn't necessarily have to stop writing the way they do just because it appears ridiculous to somebody or the situation they're in. The fact that I can have an in-depth conversation with someone who types in chat speak completely undermines your reasoning. That is, it's not true that chat speak appears ridiculous to everyone in a serious context. In fact I would say the only reason you would believe it's ridiculous is due to your bias and prejudice. I agree, I think there are many students who don't try or have insufficient knowledge of there subjects. But I also think there are just many if not more that do try and learn the materials to pass subjects. Also the average IQ won't start to plummet for that reason because they aren't based off how much schooling you've had. They measure logical problem solving, pattern recognition, etc. And whether your IQ goes up through studying is completely unfounded so far. So you still haven't justified your reason for thinking IQ will plummet. Sorry that's a false dichotomy, those aren't the only two explanations. The kid could have been suffering from dislexia, or he could have been lying so he could continue to use that form of typing or escape from being embarrased, or other psychological reasons. Also how "improperly" did he write? If it wasn't in accordance with your perscriptive grammar then I don't really care. I don't see how you think the education system is failing because one kid doesn't understand how to write, at most this indicates that some teacher somewhere in the bowels of the education system failed to notice this child was having trouble learning standard perscriptive grammar. Which isn't entirely the teachers fault, some kids do have trouble learning it. I know, shocking. Lateralus es Helica That's my point there, they can read the material and have the means in which to type normally, it's there, but a few have made ridiculous excuses just so they don't have to take the time to type everything out normally. I'm not at all saying chat speakers are less intelligent than everyone else, just that they're not willing to put any effort into a conversation, hence making themselves look ridiculous. For some reason they have the mis-guided notion that they should be able to take the short way out of every written conversation and don't bother trying to figure out when it is and isn't appropriate. Not to mention, would you have even bothered to take the time to reply to ANY of these arguments if we had come at this debate in chat speak? Would you have taken any of them seriously or just dismissed them entirely? It's all about the appropriate effort in the appropriate situation, just like you ignore in the first half of my arguments the point in which I don't bother to place any type of evidence for you to review. I didn't put the effort, you find my argument ridiculous and dismiss it. Same point for the conversations in which it is irksome to have chat speak when you should be typing everything out. That in the end is what this all boils down to. So because they want to save some time, it's a ridiculous excuse? How, that makes no sense? I disagree, I think the way to measure the effort someone puts in a conversation is how much critical thought and appreciation they have for the topic and discussion. Not whether they say "u" instead of "you", THAT I see as ridiculous. I would say that you're under the mis-guided notion that if they know how to write properly then they must always write properly. I don't ever find it "inappropriate" so you telling me that or any other person who types like that, will appear completely meaningless. If U hAd CoMe In HeRe talKIn 2 Me In ChAt SpeAk I wOulD haVe TaKen All YoUr aRguMentS seRiOusLy. BeCAuSe cRItIciZinG tHe WaY yOu TyPe is IrReLLeVaNt 2 ThE ArgUmeNtS YoU maKe. I'm NoT JuStiFiEd In DiSRegaRdinG uR ArgUmeNTs BasEd On ThE ChARActer Of yOUr PreSeNtAtiOn As LonG As I CAn UnDeRSTAnd ThE MeaNinG Of It. ACTuallY I Did rEplY to ThAT PArT Of YouR poST, WhAT i DidN't Do WaS MaKe A CoUnteR-ArGumEnT To It, nOt BeCaUse It tOok LittLe EffORt But iT siMplY DidN'T wArRAnT aNy CouNtEr ArguMeNT. ALsO I Did aRgue AgaiNst It, I arGued ThAt It doEsn't waRraNt Any coUnteR-ArGumeNt. So No, iT doEsN't bOil DoWn tO whAt Is IrksOme or rePlYinG OnlY to wHat toOk ExcesSivE Effort To Write. FoR if That WeRe True Then U mUSt NecesSaRily ReplY to ThiS ChaT SpEak. BecAusE tHiS PaRticulAr OnE ReQuiRes A sHitLoad Of Effort, My HanDS Are EvEn GettInG TiRed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:39 pm
This is a debate. Not an attack. So chill. It seems everyone who has posted here understands how it seems uneducated.
I sense a troll in our presence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:59 pm
Aakosir This is a debate. Not an attack. So chill. It seems everyone who has posted here understands how it seems uneducated.
I sense a troll in our presence. Well you certainly aren't treating it like a debate right now, how about you counter my arguments like people do in debates instead of making ad hominems? smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Mythsysizer Aakosir This is a debate. Not an attack. So chill. It seems everyone who has posted here understands how it seems uneducated.
I sense a troll in our presence. Well you certainly aren't treating it like a debate right now, how about you counter my arguments like people do in debates instead of making ad hominems? smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
