I agree with Myles Kratzer's position in his blog post "Texas + Education = Failure" which states Mr. Kratzer's view on the Texas's education dealing with evolution. He points out quite a few valid statements dealing with education that involves with evolution and god.
When Kratzer states, "I think Texas is walking a thin line by doing this." I couldn't agree more. I feel that the way people respond with education conflicting with religion is ridiculous. Does it really make you that much more blind? This is one of the few of many factors that make not just Texas lag in education, but the US. Mr. Kratzer feels uncomfortable for his son not to be taught evolution, I feel as if he should elaborated on why he feels more comfortable for his son to be taught evolution. What type of education is approvable in Mr. Kratzer's eyes?
I don't agree with Mr. Kratzer when he says "Instead of focusing on personal beliefs, our representatives need to be voting based on the majority beliefs of their constituents." Because how does he know what the majority of the constituents believe? Even though I know where Mr. Kratzer is getting at, I believe the wording is just misleading. I couldn't understand some parts of the article and had to read through a couple of times, but nothing too bad. There is a part that does pull my attention when he writes "How will this non-standardized method of teaching fair compared to that of the nations other students?" which I absolutely agree.
Your idea about how education should be teaching evolution is fairly reasonable. I believe the whole US education system is very flawed compared to other nations. The step that Mr. Kratzer implies to take about teaching evolution, is a step to better our education instead of handicapping it.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Guns going to College?
After the mourning of the Virginia Tech shooting two years ago, many people became suspiciously cautious of college students at Universities. It has always been thought that Universities have been an institution of knowledge. A place where students of all ethnic backgrounds who were capable of being there. People that wanted to further their education could merge under one facility and pursue the task of doing so.
Now that shootings at universities have been happening more in these past years, faith in the facility’s security has dwindled to the point where students want to take initiative into their own hands. Students basically want the push for carrying concealed firearms. I don’t believe the concept of carrying concealed firearms to campus is justifying. It is quite ridiculous if you ask me.
The legislation has passed in Utah and one other state. The remaining has either rejected or is still pending the legislation. Legislatures conclude by asserting that firearms would only be obtained by the mentally capable. I wonder, where is the line between that of who is capable or not. Some people who may seem or even are capable of carrying a gun may still pose a hazard to the student body. I feel as if that rational person may lose his thought process when caught up in the heat of an argument or dispute. This could result to a quick judgment to pull out a firearm and use it. Have you ever been so furious at another person, you said or did something you regretted later? I believe a common dispute between people that would force them to act in such a way they may deeply regret. Some arguments, no matter what it may be, may make a person act before they think.
In conclusion I feel that enabling a students with such ease to access firearms would result in more shootings due to the fact that people are not always rational at all times and access to a gun could be the bridge between animosity and violence.
Now that shootings at universities have been happening more in these past years, faith in the facility’s security has dwindled to the point where students want to take initiative into their own hands. Students basically want the push for carrying concealed firearms. I don’t believe the concept of carrying concealed firearms to campus is justifying. It is quite ridiculous if you ask me.
The legislation has passed in Utah and one other state. The remaining has either rejected or is still pending the legislation. Legislatures conclude by asserting that firearms would only be obtained by the mentally capable. I wonder, where is the line between that of who is capable or not. Some people who may seem or even are capable of carrying a gun may still pose a hazard to the student body. I feel as if that rational person may lose his thought process when caught up in the heat of an argument or dispute. This could result to a quick judgment to pull out a firearm and use it. Have you ever been so furious at another person, you said or did something you regretted later? I believe a common dispute between people that would force them to act in such a way they may deeply regret. Some arguments, no matter what it may be, may make a person act before they think.
In conclusion I feel that enabling a students with such ease to access firearms would result in more shootings due to the fact that people are not always rational at all times and access to a gun could be the bridge between animosity and violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)