[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]blinders

I don’t believe the CIA let it happen. I surmise that they, like you Arraya, didn’t want to give credence to the idea that he, as a muslim, could be more susceptible to jihadist philosophy than a christian and they did not analyze or care to understand how the core teachings of Islam can lead one to jihadism.

That’s how I feel.

There is evidence for my hypothesis. There is zero evidence for yours. When this situation happens, the one with zero is the whack job.[/quote]

Yeah.
Compared to you she looks like a real whack job.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]blinders

I don’t believe the CIA let it happen. I surmise that they, like you Arraya, didn’t want to give credence to the idea that he, as a muslim, could be more susceptible to jihadist philosophy than a christian and they did not analyze or care to understand how the core teachings of Islam can lead one to jihadism.

That’s how I feel.

There is evidence for my hypothesis. There is zero evidence for yours. When this situation happens, the one with zero is the whack job.[/quote]

Yeah.
Compared to you she looks like a real whack job.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]

I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.

@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.

Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.

I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.

My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.

Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.

I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.

However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.

However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.

It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.

As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]

I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.

@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.

Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.

I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.

My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.

Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.

I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.

However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.

However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.

It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.

As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]

I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.

@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.

Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.

I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.

My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.

Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.

I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.

However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.

However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.

It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.

As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]

I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.

@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.

Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.

I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.

My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.

Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.

I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.

However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.

However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.

It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.

As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]

I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.

@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.

Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.

I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.

My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.

Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.

I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.

However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.

However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.

It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.

As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).

[urbanrealtor]

CE[/quote][quote=CDMA ENG]

Your the one that is ignorant. Your ingnorant because you did not read what I said. I never said that teachers aren’t hard working. Never. I said that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.
CE[/quote]
No.
I did read it.
My dispute with you was about academics.
The hours per week part was not meant for you specifically.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I have worked in the education field albiet not as a certified teacher. I have worked on the Pima Indian reservation in Arizona until the casino was put on the reservation they were all dirt poor. I work there before the Casino when it was still dangerous for white people to even be on the Res (admittedly I was not viewed as white due to deep tan from working construction and long black hair… Yes Im a dude). We use to entice them into studying by feeding the poor kids. So yes I do know what the stress level can be of a teacher tutoring impovrised kids from broken homes. For god sakes I tutored the Osif Childern whose parents chopped up the mail-lady in Dec of 84’and sparked the largest FBI manhunt of the time. Those kids were screwed up. BUT stress levels and academics are not the same and not interchangable subjects.
CE[/quote]
And being a tutor for a brief period for poor kids is not the same as a career in it. Not interchangeable as experiences.
But I feel your deep condescending sympathy and it makes me all gooey.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I stated that the two are not equal that is all.
[/quote]
Thats because you are comparing apples to bowling balls. The skills required for teaching are an academic area of study. Basically what you should have said is that engineers learn way more engineering that teachers. Then it would have been at least been right (but still sounded as retarded as it ended up). [quote=CDMA ENG]
I have also been a math and science tutor in college and had many teachers as students. Many of them I wouldn’t let teach my dog. So yes there is a mixed bag of them and their renumeration should be reflected by thier talent. And yes I have meet many engineers that couldn’t think thier way out of a wet paper bag and are over paid for the services they preform… I wish we could eliminate all of them from the industries.

Are you an engineer? If you have been I may take your arguement more chartably.
CE[/quote]
Nope.
You should address the argument and stop being whiny. Also, spell check.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
If not you can’t not know the stress of the circulm and therefore the pride in doing it. I never met anyone who dropped into the engineering circulm that wasn’t already hard science majors so I dispute your arguement that teachers drop into engineering cause they find it easy. My college sweet heart was in teaching… Guess who use to help write her papers? So there again I am familar with the subject matter.

CE[/quote]
Okay I should clarify that because I think it got mangled coming out.
Lots of people in teaching have engineering degrees.
People who are more interested in the science part and unable to deal with the student-focus that is inherent in pedagogy often change careers accordingly. Lots of people were teachers for a brief period.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I knew plenty of engineering non-hackers that dropped into business and others. Some of them much smarter than me but couldn’t handle the stress or the work load. Also while in school, engineering and hard sciences is far more difficult and stressful than teaching. The proffesor, literally, have a code of weeding out all non-hackers (maybe nursing and med school). What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)? Usually that is why we have an ego coming out of school. We made it through a program that few attempted and even fewer made it out of.

CE[/quote] Ahh so the argument here is that you are entitled to act like a dick.
I just thought you were a dick.
My mistake.
As somebody who has set the curve with a below 30% score (I did go to UCSD) yeah I have an idea what going to a tough school is like.
It does not make you (or me) special.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

Once you get out of school it is only the stress level that changes. Teaching is more stressful in the work place. Good teachers deserve more pay.

Of course I know at least one engineer that would laugh at that. He worked at Intel which is a meat grinder and later became a HS math teacher. He would gladly tell you which one he prefers for stress.

As for the stats I challenge you. Why do I need to show stats to repudiate my own arguement especially when you did not read my arguement correctly the first time?
[/quote]
I did read it.
Watching you spin out of control in anger is pretty funny though.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

I have been on both sides of the fence. What about you? I have formed an opinion based on those experiences and what I have observed working within both. I think that make me a little less ignorant than you.

Regards,

CE[/quote]

Right. You strike me as the epitome of open-mindedness.

[urbanrealtor]

CE[/quote][quote=CDMA ENG]

Your the one that is ignorant. Your ingnorant because you did not read what I said. I never said that teachers aren’t hard working. Never. I said that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.
CE[/quote]
No.
I did read it.
My dispute with you was about academics.
The hours per week part was not meant for you specifically.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I have worked in the education field albiet not as a certified teacher. I have worked on the Pima Indian reservation in Arizona until the casino was put on the reservation they were all dirt poor. I work there before the Casino when it was still dangerous for white people to even be on the Res (admittedly I was not viewed as white due to deep tan from working construction and long black hair… Yes Im a dude). We use to entice them into studying by feeding the poor kids. So yes I do know what the stress level can be of a teacher tutoring impovrised kids from broken homes. For god sakes I tutored the Osif Childern whose parents chopped up the mail-lady in Dec of 84’and sparked the largest FBI manhunt of the time. Those kids were screwed up. BUT stress levels and academics are not the same and not interchangable subjects.
CE[/quote]
And being a tutor for a brief period for poor kids is not the same as a career in it. Not interchangeable as experiences.
But I feel your deep condescending sympathy and it makes me all gooey.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I stated that the two are not equal that is all.
[/quote]
Thats because you are comparing apples to bowling balls. The skills required for teaching are an academic area of study. Basically what you should have said is that engineers learn way more engineering that teachers. Then it would have been at least been right (but still sounded as retarded as it ended up). [quote=CDMA ENG]
I have also been a math and science tutor in college and had many teachers as students. Many of them I wouldn’t let teach my dog. So yes there is a mixed bag of them and their renumeration should be reflected by thier talent. And yes I have meet many engineers that couldn’t think thier way out of a wet paper bag and are over paid for the services they preform… I wish we could eliminate all of them from the industries.

Are you an engineer? If you have been I may take your arguement more chartably.
CE[/quote]
Nope.
You should address the argument and stop being whiny. Also, spell check.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
If not you can’t not know the stress of the circulm and therefore the pride in doing it. I never met anyone who dropped into the engineering circulm that wasn’t already hard science majors so I dispute your arguement that teachers drop into engineering cause they find it easy. My college sweet heart was in teaching… Guess who use to help write her papers? So there again I am familar with the subject matter.

CE[/quote]
Okay I should clarify that because I think it got mangled coming out.
Lots of people in teaching have engineering degrees.
People who are more interested in the science part and unable to deal with the student-focus that is inherent in pedagogy often change careers accordingly. Lots of people were teachers for a brief period.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I knew plenty of engineering non-hackers that dropped into business and others. Some of them much smarter than me but couldn’t handle the stress or the work load. Also while in school, engineering and hard sciences is far more difficult and stressful than teaching. The proffesor, literally, have a code of weeding out all non-hackers (maybe nursing and med school). What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)? Usually that is why we have an ego coming out of school. We made it through a program that few attempted and even fewer made it out of.

CE[/quote] Ahh so the argument here is that you are entitled to act like a dick.
I just thought you were a dick.
My mistake.
As somebody who has set the curve with a below 30% score (I did go to UCSD) yeah I have an idea what going to a tough school is like.
It does not make you (or me) special.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

Once you get out of school it is only the stress level that changes. Teaching is more stressful in the work place. Good teachers deserve more pay.

Of course I know at least one engineer that would laugh at that. He worked at Intel which is a meat grinder and later became a HS math teacher. He would gladly tell you which one he prefers for stress.

As for the stats I challenge you. Why do I need to show stats to repudiate my own arguement especially when you did not read my arguement correctly the first time?
[/quote]
I did read it.
Watching you spin out of control in anger is pretty funny though.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

I have been on both sides of the fence. What about you? I have formed an opinion based on those experiences and what I have observed working within both. I think that make me a little less ignorant than you.

Regards,

CE[/quote]

Right. You strike me as the epitome of open-mindedness.

[urbanrealtor]

CE[/quote][quote=CDMA ENG]

Your the one that is ignorant. Your ingnorant because you did not read what I said. I never said that teachers aren’t hard working. Never. I said that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.
CE[/quote]
No.
I did read it.
My dispute with you was about academics.
The hours per week part was not meant for you specifically.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I have worked in the education field albiet not as a certified teacher. I have worked on the Pima Indian reservation in Arizona until the casino was put on the reservation they were all dirt poor. I work there before the Casino when it was still dangerous for white people to even be on the Res (admittedly I was not viewed as white due to deep tan from working construction and long black hair… Yes Im a dude). We use to entice them into studying by feeding the poor kids. So yes I do know what the stress level can be of a teacher tutoring impovrised kids from broken homes. For god sakes I tutored the Osif Childern whose parents chopped up the mail-lady in Dec of 84’and sparked the largest FBI manhunt of the time. Those kids were screwed up. BUT stress levels and academics are not the same and not interchangable subjects.
CE[/quote]
And being a tutor for a brief period for poor kids is not the same as a career in it. Not interchangeable as experiences.
But I feel your deep condescending sympathy and it makes me all gooey.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I stated that the two are not equal that is all.
[/quote]
Thats because you are comparing apples to bowling balls. The skills required for teaching are an academic area of study. Basically what you should have said is that engineers learn way more engineering that teachers. Then it would have been at least been right (but still sounded as retarded as it ended up). [quote=CDMA ENG]
I have also been a math and science tutor in college and had many teachers as students. Many of them I wouldn’t let teach my dog. So yes there is a mixed bag of them and their renumeration should be reflected by thier talent. And yes I have meet many engineers that couldn’t think thier way out of a wet paper bag and are over paid for the services they preform… I wish we could eliminate all of them from the industries.

Are you an engineer? If you have been I may take your arguement more chartably.
CE[/quote]
Nope.
You should address the argument and stop being whiny. Also, spell check.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
If not you can’t not know the stress of the circulm and therefore the pride in doing it. I never met anyone who dropped into the engineering circulm that wasn’t already hard science majors so I dispute your arguement that teachers drop into engineering cause they find it easy. My college sweet heart was in teaching… Guess who use to help write her papers? So there again I am familar with the subject matter.

CE[/quote]
Okay I should clarify that because I think it got mangled coming out.
Lots of people in teaching have engineering degrees.
People who are more interested in the science part and unable to deal with the student-focus that is inherent in pedagogy often change careers accordingly. Lots of people were teachers for a brief period.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I knew plenty of engineering non-hackers that dropped into business and others. Some of them much smarter than me but couldn’t handle the stress or the work load. Also while in school, engineering and hard sciences is far more difficult and stressful than teaching. The proffesor, literally, have a code of weeding out all non-hackers (maybe nursing and med school). What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)? Usually that is why we have an ego coming out of school. We made it through a program that few attempted and even fewer made it out of.

CE[/quote] Ahh so the argument here is that you are entitled to act like a dick.
I just thought you were a dick.
My mistake.
As somebody who has set the curve with a below 30% score (I did go to UCSD) yeah I have an idea what going to a tough school is like.
It does not make you (or me) special.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

Once you get out of school it is only the stress level that changes. Teaching is more stressful in the work place. Good teachers deserve more pay.

Of course I know at least one engineer that would laugh at that. He worked at Intel which is a meat grinder and later became a HS math teacher. He would gladly tell you which one he prefers for stress.

As for the stats I challenge you. Why do I need to show stats to repudiate my own arguement especially when you did not read my arguement correctly the first time?
[/quote]
I did read it.
Watching you spin out of control in anger is pretty funny though.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

I have been on both sides of the fence. What about you? I have formed an opinion based on those experiences and what I have observed working within both. I think that make me a little less ignorant than you.

Regards,

CE[/quote]

Right. You strike me as the epitome of open-mindedness.

[urbanrealtor]

CE[/quote][quote=CDMA ENG]

Your the one that is ignorant. Your ingnorant because you did not read what I said. I never said that teachers aren’t hard working. Never. I said that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.
CE[/quote]
No.
I did read it.
My dispute with you was about academics.
The hours per week part was not meant for you specifically.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I have worked in the education field albiet not as a certified teacher. I have worked on the Pima Indian reservation in Arizona until the casino was put on the reservation they were all dirt poor. I work there before the Casino when it was still dangerous for white people to even be on the Res (admittedly I was not viewed as white due to deep tan from working construction and long black hair… Yes Im a dude). We use to entice them into studying by feeding the poor kids. So yes I do know what the stress level can be of a teacher tutoring impovrised kids from broken homes. For god sakes I tutored the Osif Childern whose parents chopped up the mail-lady in Dec of 84’and sparked the largest FBI manhunt of the time. Those kids were screwed up. BUT stress levels and academics are not the same and not interchangable subjects.
CE[/quote]
And being a tutor for a brief period for poor kids is not the same as a career in it. Not interchangeable as experiences.
But I feel your deep condescending sympathy and it makes me all gooey.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I stated that the two are not equal that is all.
[/quote]
Thats because you are comparing apples to bowling balls. The skills required for teaching are an academic area of study. Basically what you should have said is that engineers learn way more engineering that teachers. Then it would have been at least been right (but still sounded as retarded as it ended up). [quote=CDMA ENG]
I have also been a math and science tutor in college and had many teachers as students. Many of them I wouldn’t let teach my dog. So yes there is a mixed bag of them and their renumeration should be reflected by thier talent. And yes I have meet many engineers that couldn’t think thier way out of a wet paper bag and are over paid for the services they preform… I wish we could eliminate all of them from the industries.

Are you an engineer? If you have been I may take your arguement more chartably.
CE[/quote]
Nope.
You should address the argument and stop being whiny. Also, spell check.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
If not you can’t not know the stress of the circulm and therefore the pride in doing it. I never met anyone who dropped into the engineering circulm that wasn’t already hard science majors so I dispute your arguement that teachers drop into engineering cause they find it easy. My college sweet heart was in teaching… Guess who use to help write her papers? So there again I am familar with the subject matter.

CE[/quote]
Okay I should clarify that because I think it got mangled coming out.
Lots of people in teaching have engineering degrees.
People who are more interested in the science part and unable to deal with the student-focus that is inherent in pedagogy often change careers accordingly. Lots of people were teachers for a brief period.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I knew plenty of engineering non-hackers that dropped into business and others. Some of them much smarter than me but couldn’t handle the stress or the work load. Also while in school, engineering and hard sciences is far more difficult and stressful than teaching. The proffesor, literally, have a code of weeding out all non-hackers (maybe nursing and med school). What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)? Usually that is why we have an ego coming out of school. We made it through a program that few attempted and even fewer made it out of.

CE[/quote] Ahh so the argument here is that you are entitled to act like a dick.
I just thought you were a dick.
My mistake.
As somebody who has set the curve with a below 30% score (I did go to UCSD) yeah I have an idea what going to a tough school is like.
It does not make you (or me) special.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

Once you get out of school it is only the stress level that changes. Teaching is more stressful in the work place. Good teachers deserve more pay.

Of course I know at least one engineer that would laugh at that. He worked at Intel which is a meat grinder and later became a HS math teacher. He would gladly tell you which one he prefers for stress.

As for the stats I challenge you. Why do I need to show stats to repudiate my own arguement especially when you did not read my arguement correctly the first time?
[/quote]
I did read it.
Watching you spin out of control in anger is pretty funny though.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

I have been on both sides of the fence. What about you? I have formed an opinion based on those experiences and what I have observed working within both. I think that make me a little less ignorant than you.

Regards,

CE[/quote]

Right. You strike me as the epitome of open-mindedness.

[urbanrealtor]

CE[/quote][quote=CDMA ENG]

Your the one that is ignorant. Your ingnorant because you did not read what I said. I never said that teachers aren’t hard working. Never. I said that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.
CE[/quote]
No.
I did read it.
My dispute with you was about academics.
The hours per week part was not meant for you specifically.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I have worked in the education field albiet not as a certified teacher. I have worked on the Pima Indian reservation in Arizona until the casino was put on the reservation they were all dirt poor. I work there before the Casino when it was still dangerous for white people to even be on the Res (admittedly I was not viewed as white due to deep tan from working construction and long black hair… Yes Im a dude). We use to entice them into studying by feeding the poor kids. So yes I do know what the stress level can be of a teacher tutoring impovrised kids from broken homes. For god sakes I tutored the Osif Childern whose parents chopped up the mail-lady in Dec of 84’and sparked the largest FBI manhunt of the time. Those kids were screwed up. BUT stress levels and academics are not the same and not interchangable subjects.
CE[/quote]
And being a tutor for a brief period for poor kids is not the same as a career in it. Not interchangeable as experiences.
But I feel your deep condescending sympathy and it makes me all gooey.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I stated that the two are not equal that is all.
[/quote]
Thats because you are comparing apples to bowling balls. The skills required for teaching are an academic area of study. Basically what you should have said is that engineers learn way more engineering that teachers. Then it would have been at least been right (but still sounded as retarded as it ended up). [quote=CDMA ENG]
I have also been a math and science tutor in college and had many teachers as students. Many of them I wouldn’t let teach my dog. So yes there is a mixed bag of them and their renumeration should be reflected by thier talent. And yes I have meet many engineers that couldn’t think thier way out of a wet paper bag and are over paid for the services they preform… I wish we could eliminate all of them from the industries.

Are you an engineer? If you have been I may take your arguement more chartably.
CE[/quote]
Nope.
You should address the argument and stop being whiny. Also, spell check.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
If not you can’t not know the stress of the circulm and therefore the pride in doing it. I never met anyone who dropped into the engineering circulm that wasn’t already hard science majors so I dispute your arguement that teachers drop into engineering cause they find it easy. My college sweet heart was in teaching… Guess who use to help write her papers? So there again I am familar with the subject matter.

CE[/quote]
Okay I should clarify that because I think it got mangled coming out.
Lots of people in teaching have engineering degrees.
People who are more interested in the science part and unable to deal with the student-focus that is inherent in pedagogy often change careers accordingly. Lots of people were teachers for a brief period.
[quote=CDMA ENG]
I knew plenty of engineering non-hackers that dropped into business and others. Some of them much smarter than me but couldn’t handle the stress or the work load. Also while in school, engineering and hard sciences is far more difficult and stressful than teaching. The proffesor, literally, have a code of weeding out all non-hackers (maybe nursing and med school). What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)? Usually that is why we have an ego coming out of school. We made it through a program that few attempted and even fewer made it out of.

CE[/quote] Ahh so the argument here is that you are entitled to act like a dick.
I just thought you were a dick.
My mistake.
As somebody who has set the curve with a below 30% score (I did go to UCSD) yeah I have an idea what going to a tough school is like.
It does not make you (or me) special.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

Once you get out of school it is only the stress level that changes. Teaching is more stressful in the work place. Good teachers deserve more pay.

Of course I know at least one engineer that would laugh at that. He worked at Intel which is a meat grinder and later became a HS math teacher. He would gladly tell you which one he prefers for stress.

As for the stats I challenge you. Why do I need to show stats to repudiate my own arguement especially when you did not read my arguement correctly the first time?
[/quote]
I did read it.
Watching you spin out of control in anger is pretty funny though.
[quote=CDMA ENG]

I have been on both sides of the fence. What about you? I have formed an opinion based on those experiences and what I have observed working within both. I think that make me a little less ignorant than you.

Regards,

CE[/quote]

Right. You strike me as the epitome of open-mindedness.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CDMA ENG]
Sorry man… But only 50 percent of all people that enter an engineering program make it out… I dare say the drop out ratio for teaching isn’t the same and if it is its due to lack of commitment and not subject matter.

You cant sit there and tell me one is just as difficult academically (which I probably just misspelled) as the other. Plus… Many engineers study there subject matter constantly… They are in “training” everyday… I read and re-read all the time. I don’t have to have formalized training the training comes from working with very unique problems everyday.

I have a lot of respect for teachers but you still can’t say its the same difficulty academically.

Also I dont know if you were referring to me but I did not say that teachers work 6 hours a day. I stated that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.

CE[/quote]
That you think it is a lot easier academically is two me evidence of ignorance on your part.

In all fairness, “academic” can mean different things in these to occupations.

I have known a lot of engineers and a lot of teachers. Both require a fairly deep understanding of the subject matter. However, most people think that the subject matter is the material being taught.
Its not.
The subject matter for a teacher is the student.
The hardest subjects are the ones in the poorest neighborhoods who don’t really see the purpose in education. Usually the hardest work here is delegated to the lowest-paid workers.

Also, I challenge you to present stats comparing how many people enter engineering programs and are in that profession 10 years later and compare that with teachers.

A whole lot of teachers drop out their first year to become engineers (because they find it easier). I imagine the reverse is true.

Finally, considering most teachers I know work more than 60 hrs per week, I think the argument that they somehow don’t work as hard is kind of dumb.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CDMA ENG]
Sorry man… But only 50 percent of all people that enter an engineering program make it out… I dare say the drop out ratio for teaching isn’t the same and if it is its due to lack of commitment and not subject matter.

You cant sit there and tell me one is just as difficult academically (which I probably just misspelled) as the other. Plus… Many engineers study there subject matter constantly… They are in “training” everyday… I read and re-read all the time. I don’t have to have formalized training the training comes from working with very unique problems everyday.

I have a lot of respect for teachers but you still can’t say its the same difficulty academically.

Also I dont know if you were referring to me but I did not say that teachers work 6 hours a day. I stated that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.

CE[/quote]
That you think it is a lot easier academically is two me evidence of ignorance on your part.

In all fairness, “academic” can mean different things in these to occupations.

I have known a lot of engineers and a lot of teachers. Both require a fairly deep understanding of the subject matter. However, most people think that the subject matter is the material being taught.
Its not.
The subject matter for a teacher is the student.
The hardest subjects are the ones in the poorest neighborhoods who don’t really see the purpose in education. Usually the hardest work here is delegated to the lowest-paid workers.

Also, I challenge you to present stats comparing how many people enter engineering programs and are in that profession 10 years later and compare that with teachers.

A whole lot of teachers drop out their first year to become engineers (because they find it easier). I imagine the reverse is true.

Finally, considering most teachers I know work more than 60 hrs per week, I think the argument that they somehow don’t work as hard is kind of dumb.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CDMA ENG]
Sorry man… But only 50 percent of all people that enter an engineering program make it out… I dare say the drop out ratio for teaching isn’t the same and if it is its due to lack of commitment and not subject matter.

You cant sit there and tell me one is just as difficult academically (which I probably just misspelled) as the other. Plus… Many engineers study there subject matter constantly… They are in “training” everyday… I read and re-read all the time. I don’t have to have formalized training the training comes from working with very unique problems everyday.

I have a lot of respect for teachers but you still can’t say its the same difficulty academically.

Also I dont know if you were referring to me but I did not say that teachers work 6 hours a day. I stated that the ones I knew worked 40 plus.

CE[/quote]
That you think it is a lot easier academically is two me evidence of ignorance on your part.

In all fairness, “academic” can mean different things in these to occupations.

I have known a lot of engineers and a lot of teachers. Both require a fairly deep understanding of the subject matter. However, most people think that the subject matter is the material being taught.
Its not.
The subject matter for a teacher is the student.
The hardest subjects are the ones in the poorest neighborhoods who don’t really see the purpose in education. Usually the hardest work here is delegated to the lowest-paid workers.

Also, I challenge you to present stats comparing how many people enter engineering programs and are in that profession 10 years later and compare that with teachers.

A whole lot of teachers drop out their first year to become engineers (because they find it easier). I imagine the reverse is true.

Finally, considering most teachers I know work more than 60 hrs per week, I think the argument that they somehow don’t work as hard is kind of dumb.

[Author]

Posts