ruford1976Unacademy Teacher Fired for telling students to 'Vote for Educated Leaders' Remark during lecture.
SpezCanLigmaBallsIt’s so incredibly sad how adults need to be reminded and told to vote for people that have a background with real education. I can’t believe people don’t care about education when it comes to voting for someone to be put in your government. I feel sorry for those people who don’t. You know it’s the people who don’t that have lives that revolve around politics and consume it everyday
Define real education. Does that mean education attained at some overpriced, heavily left-leaning university with a degree in some social field? Can that mean someone that’s educated in say a trade or other type of job skill? What about a successful business owner? Maybe they’d make a good leader, right?
The problem with this guys comments is that we know what he really means: “Educated” as in someone that went to specific colleges and has fallen for the progressive sales pitch. You know and I know that’s exactly what he means.
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
“Medicine has a clear goal - politics do not. “
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
I think politician has a goal of health of a nation. FTFY.
Your argument is stupid. Stop making yourself look the same.
Why does health of a nation matter? I don’t agree. And what does health of a nation mean?
I’d prefer a politician who let’s a nation collapse but greatly improves the quality of life of many. (Like what Gorbachev could’ve been.)
Lol. I’m sure you would agree that improving the quality of life of many is improving the health of a nation. QED.
Okay so thats how you define it. Again, QoL is not every politicians goal.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia.
To get back to the point of this discussion, your contention is literally the dumbest point I’ve heard in a long time. Politicians are professionals just like doctors. Education is important.
Politicians are not professionals like doctors, they are supposed to represent voters views, not be subject experts.
Wrong
Thanks for informing me :)