NDP set to unveil $15-billion climate plan that would slash greenhouse gas emissions

[The Lock]

10 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Again, need to use is irrelevant benchmark when the objective is to build greater rational capacity. I hardly ever use insanely complex algebraic reductions in my entire tenure as an engineer- especially the crazy looking ones i learnt in grade 10 trig ( the ones that take 3 lines to write the initial expression alone!). But it helped a lot in developing analytical skills. 

The line i draw, is every highschool grad should at the very least be a master of triginometry, basic algebra ( which means reducing almost any algebraic equation that do not involve special functions) and know virtually all of basic geometry, while knowing the basics of differential and integral calculus ( ie, fundamental theorem of calculus, differentiation and integration prior to double or triple integrals). 

Well , what you just gave me is by definition a benchmark since, by definition, "drawing a line" is a benchmark so I don't even see how your first paragraph even makes sense but anyway...).

 

What I want to point out now is I never use calculus but I use matrix algebra a lot. Therefore, there's a difference already between your career and my career. Computer science doesn't even care about significant figures! The significant figures are the variable type we told the computer to use (and if you're using Python there are no variables even!). I do however use trig and luckily learned that in I think grade 10 so it is in the school system. You can even learn calculus in some high schools, which I did.

 

However, while I appreciate you believing in everyone being able to do that, it's just not realistic in my opinion. However, I do want to provide you with an article at least with some hope: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/high-school-dropout-rates-down-by-half-over-20-years-statscan/article1241240/

 

Dropout rates have evidently been cut in half. At least that's something; however, unless if the average intelligence level of humans biologically goes up, it might be a little unrealistic to achieve your ideal world.

Edited June 2, 2019 by The Lock

[MystifyNCrucify]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I dunno, sometimes good jokes are a slow burn. you being a bit upset allowed me to put 'saltiness' into the convo with a double meaning..... Not just the pairing of tears with Oil, but triggered attitude you seem to display. 

Oh the tears are related to oil. 

 

Like having to use a horse drawn carriage to cross the alex fraser tears. Oh wait go vegan world cant do that to animals.

 

Like gliding across the atlantic to visit europe but falling a bit short kinda tears. 

 

Or is it burning trees in a fire pit to keep your family warm in the middle of winter kinda tears?

[canuckistani]

Just now, The Lock said:

Well , what you just gave me is by definition a benchmark since, by definition, "drawing a line" is a benchmark so I don't even see how your first paragraph even makes sense but anyway...).

The benchmark being used is benchmark for accomplishing analytical thinking, not benchmark for use in employment. My issue isn't regarding not having benchmarks, its the idea that a benchmark for education is usability at work. By this logic, entire arts curriculum can be trashed for many, as well as history. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

However, while I appreciate you believing in everyone being able to do that, it's just not realistic in my opinion. However, I do want to provide you with an article at least with some hope: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/high-school-dropout-rates-down-by-half-over-20-years-statscan/article1241240/

Well the countries where such stringent math standards are part and parcel of high school life, they have greater proportion of people capable of doing it than here. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Dropout rates have evidently been cut in half. At least that's something; however, unless if the average intelligence level of humans biologically goes up, it might be a little unrealistic to achieve your ideal world.

That means zilch, really. In a public system, there is a vested interest in not having drop-outs, owing to the money angle. 
What i am saying, is already being done in many countries for decades and as i said, i find their generation population to be far more rational than the Canadian one in general. 
 

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Oh the tears are related to oil. 

 

Like having to use a horse drawn carriage to cross the alex fraser tears. Oh wait go vegan world cant do that to animals.

 

Like gliding across the atlantic to visit europe but falling a bit short kinda tears. 

 

Or is it burning trees in a fire pit to keep your family warm in the middle of winter kinda tears?

yes

[The Lock]

Just now, canuckistani said:

The benchmark being used is benchmark for accomplishing analytical thinking, not benchmark for use in employment. My issue isn't regarding not having benchmarks, its the idea that a benchmark for education is usability at work. By this logic, entire arts curriculum can be trashed for many, as well as history. 

Well the countries where such stringent math standards are part and parcel of high school life, they have greater proportion of people capable of doing it than here. 

That means zilch, really. In a public system, there is a vested interest in not having drop-outs, owing to the money angle. 
What i am saying, is already being done in many countries for decades and as i said, i find their generation population to be far more rational than the Canadian one in general. 
 

Wait, so you'd rather everyone going into math and drop art? What do you think about art then? Is it some nuisance rather than a positive?

 

As far as "rational" goes: that depends on what you would define as being "rational". Is your definition of rational based on your perception of what people should be or is it based on something else?

[MystifyNCrucify]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

yes

I feel you. 

 

Sadly, until a new energy source is researched and developed and viable, the entire planet is at its mercy. 

 

R+D costs money. If canada wants to be a leader in the world, it needs to utilize its oil reserves before its too late. Either someone will make water from wine, or its gonna get taken away by someone stronger. 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

I feel you. 

 

Sadly, until a new energy source is researched and developed and viable, the entire planet is at its mercy. 

 

R+D costs money. If canada wants to be a leader in the world, it needs to utilize its oil reserves before its too late. Either someone will make water from wine, or its gonna get taken away by someone stronger. 

I forgot this was a thread about emissions.

Edited June 2, 2019 by The Lock

[MystifyNCrucify]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Wait, so you'd rather everyone going into math and drop art? What do you think about art then? Is it some nuisance rather than a positive?

 

As far as "rational" goes: that depends on what you would define as being "rational". Is your definition of rational based on your perception of what people should be or is it based on something else?

Your forehead seems to be bleeding, probably due to smashing it against a brick wall of “know it all and unrelentingly stubbornly refusing to admit someone else may have a point”. 

 

 

[canuckistani]

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Wait, so you'd rather everyone going into math and drop art? What do you think about art then? Is it some nuisance rather than a positive?

1. yep, i'd rather a person learns empiric & rational skills before the age of 20 than artistic expression. Learning rational and empiric skills, along with language skills, are predicated by age - the 6-20 age group is a far stronger learner on these topics than the 40+ crowd. This is proven in science.

 

2. Art is important, but it is a luxury. Rational skills are far more integral to survival and functioning than artistic expression- be it creative or non-creative. 

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

As far as "rational" goes: that depends on what you would define as being "rational". Is your definition of rational based on your perception of what people should be or is it based on something else?

Rational is not a subjective definition, especially when it comes to decision-making relating to choice from a pros and cons axiom towards stated objective. The person who's reasoning is mathematically consistent is by default more rational on the issue than a person who's position is mathematically inconsistent. 

[The Lock]

Just now, MystifyNCrucify said:

Your forehead seems to be bleeding, probably due to smashing it against a brick wall of “know it all and unrelentingly stubbornly refusing to admit someone else may have a point”. 

Well, I will say that intelligence and university and two mutually exclusive things. You can have all the education in the world, but how you use that education makes all the difference.

 

There's a fun little saying actually: after university, the A students get managed by the B students, which then get managed by the C students, because guess who has the soft skills in the end.

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Your forehead seems to be bleeding, probably due to smashing it against a brick wall of “know it all and unrelentingly stubbornly refusing to admit someone else may have a point”. 

 

 

the point being made, is how math skills are not required towards training a rational brain and only required for when it has direct application to the job force. By same rationale, bye bye arts, bye-bye history, etc. If someone's point is how its okay to give children less education and less skills in science & math, that is shameful position to have. 

[MystifyNCrucify]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Well, I will say that intelligence and university and two mutually exclusive things. You can have all the education in the world, but how you use that education makes all the difference.

 

There's a fun little saying actually: after university, the A students get managed by the B students, which then get managed by the C students, because guess who has the soft skills in the end.

Even simpler, theres a difference between intelligence and wisdom. 

 

One without the other is wasted and easily manipulated. 

[The Lock]

Just now, canuckistani said:

1. yep, i'd rather a person learns empiric & rational skills before the age of 20 than artistic expression. Learning rational and empiric skills, along with language skills, are predicated by age - the 6-20 age group is a far stronger learner on these topics than the 40+ crowd. This is proven in science.

 

2. Art is important, but it is a luxury. Rational skills are far more integral to survival and functioning than artistic expression- be it creative or non-creative. 

Rational is not a subjective definition, especially when it comes to decision-making relating to choice from a pros and cons axiom towards stated objective. The person who's reasoning is mathematically consistent is by default more rational on the issue than a person who's position is mathematically inconsistent. 

That would actually conflict with artistic ability. One doesn't just go one path and changes like that. Art is something that often needs to be developed earlier on much like math, so to take it away from the curriculum could be just as bad as taking math away from the curriculum entirely. I would also like to argue that math is also a luxury. Animals get by just fine without math. We just so happen to be able to use math to get ahead.

 

Rational thinking doesn't have to involve math. Here's a definition:

 

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

 

So it involves "data", which can be math, but doesn't have to be math. You are right in that it's not a subjective definition; therefore, math can be part of the data to help, but it doesn't have to be there to make a logical choice.

[canuckistani]

Just now, The Lock said:

That would actually conflict with artistic ability.

Disagree. There are plenty of artists - professional ones i know of outside of North America who are doctors and engineers and have done just fine in their later life choice of arts. 

Just now, The Lock said:

One doesn't just go one path and changes like that. Art is something that often needs to be developed earlier on much like math, so to take it away from the curriculum could be just as bad as taking math away from the curriculum entirely. I would also like to argue that math is also a luxury. Animals get by just fine without math. We just so happen to be able to use math to get ahead.

Disagree. Art can be developed at a much later age, evidenced by the far greater # of prominent and successful artists who chose arts later in life. The # of scientists and engineers who've gone the other way is a far lesser number, indicating that art skills are easier to learn later in life than Science and math skills. 

 

I simply don't see why you are so anti-math. Maybe because you want our kids to be less rational and have it easy. 

 

And if your POV is that greater math skills unless required in the work force are unnecessary, then for the vast majority of people, ability to paint, draw, sing, play instruments are also completely unnecessary skills in the workforce. So your argument towards dilution of math on a 'needed for workplace' basis, makes art an even bigger casualty. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Rational thinking doesn't have to involve math. Here's a definition:

 

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

 

So it involves "data", which can be math, but doesn't have to be math. You are right in that it's not a subjective definition; therefore, math can be part of the data to help, but it doesn't have to be there to make a logical choice.

Rational thinking doesn't have to involve math.

Building muscles also doesn't have to involve lifting weights. Both activities however, are optimized for the said skill and help more than virtually any other mechanism. 

If you have a mathematical ability to represent real life situations as math equations of some sort, you have a better success rate of analyzing the relevance of a given variable to the outcome as opposed to the other. 

 

[The Lock]

Just now, canuckistani said:

Disagree. There are plenty of artists - professional ones i know of outside of North America who are doctors and engineers and have done just fine in their later life choice of arts. 

Disagree. Art can be developed at a much later age, evidenced by the far greater # of prominent and successful artists who chose arts later in life. The # of scientists and engineers who've gone the other way is a far lesser number, indicating that art skills are easier to learn later in life than Science and math skills. 

 

I simply don't see why you are so anti-math. Maybe because you want our kids to be less rational and have it easy. 

 

And if your POV is that greater math skills unless required in the work force are unnecessary, then for the vast majority of people, ability to paint, draw, sing, play instruments are also completely unnecessary skills in the workforce. So your argument towards dilution of math on a 'needed for workplace' basis, makes art an even bigger casualty. 

Rational thinking doesn't have to involve math.

Building muscles also doesn't have to involve lifting weights. Both activities however, are optimized for the said skill and help more than virtually any other mechanism. 

If you have a mathematical ability to represent real life situations as math equations of some sort, you have a better success rate of analyzing the relevance of a given variable to the outcome as opposed to the other. 

 

Did those professional artists only start learning art at 20+ or did they actually practice it growing up? There's a difference there. A big one at that.

 

Some artists would pick it up later on still, but how many compared with now? If I'm an adult who was taught math and never was taught art and never realised I enjoyed art instead, I'm going to be probably pretty miserable since I'm doing stuff I don't enjoy for the rest of my life.

 

The reason why there are less scientists who have gone the other way is because of money. There are more jobs in science than art, not because of skills.

 

I never said that it's not necessary in the workforce. I said we humans don't need to advance. We want to but we don't need to. None of the animals on this planet will care if we don't. The Earth won't care if we don't. Only we will care. Don't put words in my mouth by saying I'm describing the workforce. I'm not even saying we shouldn't have math in school. I'm saying we benefit from both art and math.

 

Math is beneficial, but if you think it's the end all, then have fun trying to have a career after school. That's all I'm saying about that.

[wiseupsucker]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Disagree. There are plenty of artists - professional ones i know of outside of North America who are doctors and engineers and have done just fine in their later life choice of arts. 

Disagree. Art can be developed at a much later age, evidenced by the far greater # of prominent and successful artists who chose arts later in life. The # of scientists and engineers who've gone the other way is a far lesser number, indicating that art skills are easier to learn later in life than Science and math skills. 

 

I simply don't see why you are so anti-math. Maybe because you want our kids to be less rational and have it easy. 

 

And if your POV is that greater math skills unless required in the work force are unnecessary, then for the vast majority of people, ability to paint, draw, sing, play instruments are also completely unnecessary skills in the workforce. So your argument towards dilution of math on a 'needed for workplace' basis, makes art an even bigger casualty. 

Rational thinking doesn't have to involve math.

Building muscles also doesn't have to involve lifting weights. Both activities however, are optimized for the said skill and help more than virtually any other mechanism. 

If you have a mathematical ability to represent real life situations as math equations of some sort, you have a better success rate of analyzing the relevance of a given variable to the outcome as opposed to the other. 

 

Jesus Christ, your elitism and arrogance has the same smack as KOS for arrogance on this forum. We all get it, you are superior as far as circular arguments go, but sheesh, dial it back a bit

 

[canuckistani]

Just now, The Lock said:

Did those professional artists only start learning art at 20+ or did they actually practice it growing up? There's a difference there. A big one at that.

Most of them picked it up in their late teens/early 20s, especially the musicians i am thinking of. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Some artists would pick it up later on still, but how many compared with now? If I'm an adult who was taught math and never was taught art and never realised I enjoyed art instead, I'm going to be probably pretty miserable since I'm doing stuff I don't enjoy for the rest of my life.

Well that is a first world entitlement issue. One does not have to be miserable if they don't truly enjoy their line of work for what it is, beyond taking joys at being good at what they do. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

The reason why there are less scientists who have gone the other way is because of money. There are more jobs in science than art, not because of skills.

This makes no sense. If there is more money in science than arts- which there is, and if there are way more failed artists ( from the professional sense), which also there are, then it'd make sense for the failed artists to pick up science and segway into greater paying jobs. But this hardly ever happens, because science and math skills are far harder to be self taught in, learn later in life, etc. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

I never said that it's not necessary in the workforce. I said we humans don't need to advance. We want to but we don't need to. None of the animals on this planet will care if we don't. The Earth won't care if we don't. Only we will care. Don't put words in my mouth by saying I'm describing the workforce. I'm not even saying we shouldn't have math in school. I'm saying we benefit from both art and math.

Well you've spent most of this afternoon arguing on why math is relevant if it is not required for work. I am simply pointing out by that rationale, art is even less relevant and so is history. 

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Math is beneficial, but if you think it's the end all, then have fun trying to have a career after school. That's all I'm saying about that.

It isn't end-all, be-all, but it is a far more important subject for teens and young adults than music , painting, sculpting or history. 

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, wiseupsucker said:

Jesus Christ, your elitism and arrogance has the same smack as KOS for arrogance on this forum. We all get it, you are superior as far as circular arguments go, but sheesh, dial it back a bit

 

elitism because i said ability to do math is more important life skill than ability to paint ?!? Is that why in struggling nations where education budget is an issue, people learn math way more than splashing around colors ?!?

[wiseupsucker]

No, because the way you come off with your arguments are kinda nonsensical, and black and white. What if somebody was just sorta good at math and art at the same time? What if there was a spectrum where most people fit on this? And what if they did all right on it? In your worl they don't have a place on this but the real world says otherwise.

[MystifyNCrucify]

Watch this. 

 

@canuckistani

 

If your country was so god damned great, and canada is so horrible....

 

why are you in Canada? That must really piss you off, your pride for your country, and realizing your country blows, or having to move to Canada. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by MystifyNCrucify