Korean Job Discussion Forums

[freethought]

It was not a tantrum. Every post to that point had in some way addressed the OP, but not that one. That post went out of its way to make an irrelevant point.

I like Ya-ta's point on critical thinking. It's something didn't think of, but I don't think that's the best way to handle this issue. For critical thinking I might lay out the events (without these dumb revisions/pro-park takes), good, bad, or neutral, and then have questions like:

1. Are Park's repressive actions and martial law justified? Do the ends justify the means?

2. Do you think the same developments could have come about through other means? What other ways might economic development and security have been attained.

3. What if Park had NOT taken these actions? What would Korea be like today? Better? Worse? Explain your answer.

I can think of all kinds of other questions that would stimulate critical thought. But they're NOT trying to stimulate critical thought with this 'new textbook' but rather just the opposite.

As for me being an 'idiot' you're proving my point....

READ the article... it's a conservative group writing the textbook!!!! That's WHY IT HAS TO DO with conservatives. This is NOT complicated...

As for leftists, yes, it can be done, and when I see an article in the Korean Herald about a leftist group writing a textbook they want used in the schools that says Korea would be better off if the North had won the war, I'll post that link as well. But for NOW, we can discuss THIS article and THIS issue.

You are of course welcome to post links to similar incidents in Korea where leftist groups have tried to do something along these lines. You can post them here or start a new thread, but STOP asking about leftist dictators. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[bucheon bum]

[Bulsajo]

The title was clearly designed to get a rise out of people, which it did. The only mystery is why Freethought is acting so surprised at the reaction.

[freethought]

Christ you people are simple....

The title was so-phrased to draw attention. The actual post made it quite clear what the topic was. But at the same time, point taken, next time I will try to put things more simply and straight forward so as not to confuse people.

[Bulsajo]

Don't bother on my account...

[cbclark4]

People who resort to name calling need to add more thought to their routine.

Clearly they are not thinking freely.

Morons, Idiots and Jackasses are welcome to state their opinion.

cbc

[cbclark4]

Park was a dictator.

He had some pretty good economic policies.

His country was in a state of war with NK, his primary responsibility was security.

That he was able to grow an economy within that climate is a miracle.

He was benign as dictators go, but not without sin.

Anyone who disagrees with me must be stoopid or unenlightened.

cbc

[Paji eh Wong]

[happeningthang]

[ddeubel]

My own take? Why conservatives are bunk??? Funk, punk, junk, sunk, skunk????

Conservatives believe wholeheartedly that inorder to reorder society, a whole lot of eggs must be broken to come up with this omelette.

That is why many commentators put Stalin, Mao and others (Bush?) up there as conservatives. They do not believe in the SANITY , oh sorry, SANCTITY of human life.

PARK never did and as that old phrase goes........live by the ... die by the...

DD

[cbclark4]

Conservative and liberal are more to do with economic policy.

The left to right spectrum is probably Communism, Socialism, Liberal Capitalism, Conservative Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism.

Communism and Monopoly Capitalism are pretty much the same thing, instead of an "East India Company" owning all the resources the State owns all the resources.

For the most part modern parlimetnary government operate on the liberal capitalism concept, social programs public schools, funding for medical care, social security or national pensions, economic control of inductry through taxation, import export market controls. Modern Conservative tends to less control and hold the line on spending in social programs, the liberal mind tends towards more control and higher spending on social programs.

As for oppression of liberties, I don't think these traits can be called conservative or liberal.

I prefer Radical (free thinking anything goes liberty) and Reactionary (police state in your bedroom lunacy), both ends of the economic spectrum are guilty of either extreme, though very few have achieved the
Radical ideal the Reactionary police has existed from time to time.

For instance in Saddams world there was a radical liberty available to his sons, who freely raped the country blind, but a police state in the less loyal geographies.

Theocracies would tend towards the oppresive Reactionary ideal.

In the end the Radical ideal would work if people had manners.

cbc

[Pligganease]

[Bulsajo]

"Pol Pot, Liberal Dictator" -Sloganizer.net

[cbclark4]