Why do you think so many people are bad at maths?

[lukeperry91]

"The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true."

actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible

[ninwa]

That is incredibly fallacious logic. Can you prove that there is a god(s)? No? Then geez, all those religious people must be complete morons ...

[EvangelionZeta]

To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:

1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.

Logically, every agent then either

(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or

(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.

However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.

I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.


EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol

That's alright.  ^^

"The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true."

actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible

I can't prove that aliens haven't landed on Earth before.  Therefore aliens have landed on Earth.

See your logic?

Edit: Now I'm the one copying you, Ninwa. :p

[dcc]

I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.

You are right in saying that our law system destroys freedom, albeit for the wrong reason.  The tax system is a legislated system for depriving people of their right to own property, indeed, the tax system basically boils down to stealing 'for the common good' (whatever that is).

In a free-market based society (which basically holds personal freedom and liberty as it's key ideal), we have naturally enshrined property rights.  We can sell the product of our body's work (labour) to other's in mutually beneficial trade.  We can own property, and we can decide how we wish to allocate our own resources. 

However we have no ability to interact with other people's property (unless they agree to it).  Killing someone (against their will) is infringing upon their freedom to live, and is patently unacceptable in such a society. 

The key thing to understand is that freedom is not anarchy.  There is an important distinction between 'do whatever you want to' and 'do whatever you want to do with your property'.  This is the basis of a free society, and I hope you give this some thought.

[Over9000]

Why are people good at maths, answer that, and then you will see that people are bad at maths coz they dont do what the people who are good at maths do.

[xXNovaxX]

haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one

maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.

[Toothpaste]

haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one

maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.

STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.

[enwiabe]

To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:

1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.

Logically, every agent then either

(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or

(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.

However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.

I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.

Which is where I then point you to robbo's arguments that this freedom is freedom in the context of one's own property. And then you need to think of another argument

[minilunchbox]

Why just limit this to maths? The amount of people who can't spell simple words, misuse their/they're/there and your/you're (I cringe when people give me an invitation that says 'your invited') and ignore basic punctuation are on par with those who do bad at maths.

Anyway, massive generalisations ahoy.

Australian society doesn't stress "get 100% because that's the only way you can go to Uni and lead a worthwhile life" as much compared to countries with very high-achieving students. Uni isn't seen as crucial to everyone and there's plenty of people who are aiming for apprenticeships and TAFE and generally they're the ones who don't do too well in maths because they don't 'need' it. On the other hand, the people who do want to go to Uni would generally 'need' maths, which would mean they're more motivated to do well.

Also maths is pretty broad and some concepts are harder to grasp than others. Just because someone fails a SAC on one topic doesn't necessarily mean they're bad at maths.

[Glockmeister]

"The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true."

actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible

Actually the key word is prove, because from there we can deduce that it is a inductive argument, and not a deductive argument. The easiest example of this is scientific claims. We can't prove that gravity exists. We can't prove that evolution is how we came to be. But it does not mean that gravity doesn't exist, or evolution doesn't happen.

[Glockmeister]

To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:

1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.

Logically, every agent then either

(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or

(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.

However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.

I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.


EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol

The problem you're having is the is what David Hume would call the Is-ought problem. Just because something at the moment is so, doesn't imply that it is the why things should be.

[xXNovaxX]

haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one

maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.

STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.

deviating form the topic? its MY THREAD which i posted, it's you guys talking about philosophy, china, FREEDOM (WTH?), and other stuff. I find it interesting, but i just thought i should point out to the otehr poster, thanks for going back to the point. Don't know why u would say stop opposing/avoiding topic. *sigh* I have contributed to many of the arguments put forward.

[dcc]

@xXNovaxX:
As I said previously, if you have an issue with the relevance of any of the posts in this thread, report it so that the global moderators can determine if this is the case.  Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to judge that. 

[xXNovaxX]

@dcc. It's ok lol, i don't have an issue, otherwise yes i would have told the mdoertaors, im just trying to figure out why toothpaste is saying stop deviating form the topic, when i have't said anything wrong/irrelavent etc. Just like people ehre are posting a myriad of issues, i would have thought im also allowed to say a simple "hahha, finally someones on topic, maybe i should change the name of the thread"......i don't see any error/issue with that statement.

[Mao]

haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one

maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.

STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.

deviating form the topic? its MY THREAD which i posted, it's you guys talking about philosophy, china, FREEDOM (WTH?), and other stuff. I find it interesting, but i just thought i should point out to the otehr poster, thanks for going back to the point. Don't know why u would say stop opposing/avoiding topic. *sigh* I have contributed to many of the arguments put forward.

Toothpaste/pick/brush is synonymous with sarcasmpaste/pick/brush. Lighten up