Reality TV Gone Too Far? (Organ Donor)

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's very funny. And beforehand I had my doubts that this was what it appeared to be. Now, if it had been on the Fox Network in the USA, that'd be a different story...

Where'd you get the idea there's no public television in the US? Obviously never heard of PBS.


Alright then: Ali's (an elected member of parliament!) citizenship was revoked on the whim of the crazed minister of integration, Verdonk (who later went on to singlehandedly cause the government to fall). Nice, eh?

"Free country": Thanks to Verdonk, after 17 years of living in your xenophobic, grey county, living a law-abiding life, becoming fluent in your pitiful, bound-for-extinction language, and paying a mountain of taxes every year, I have to take the inburgerings test! For those not familiar, it's a language + cultural fluency test for folks who already have residency permits (not even for NL passport or permanent residence). We have to pay for this test ourselves (hundreds of Euros), and it has questions such as "Can I beat my wife in Holland?" (which of course assumes that all foreigners are low-life wife-beating so-and-so's).

Ah, the tolerant, enlightened, compassionate, Dutch.

Point was that they DIDN'T make the telivision for the money and that america only cares for money.

[/quote]

Please stop the discussion on Ali: you're pathetic on that discussion. Verdonk didn't let it fall: for someone only knowing a small part of our politics it might seem indeed (if he doesn't think enough), however, it is far more complicated than you could manage to understand.

So we're not a free country because some mentally disabled minister Verdonk thought out an inburgeringstest that's indeed very dumb? Left-winged are against that test, because it has questionbs like:
is holland most of the time wet or dry? They're suppost to answet wet; I'd say dry. It even appears that most dutch would fail the test. This test was made by a minister hating foreigners, Verdonk. She's a member of a political party hating foreigners. They got into leading the country due to a sinile christian party, CDA, with a sinile christian leader, Balkenende, lacking political statements, winning the elections only by attacking opponents and due to their christianity (a mayor attack on democracy).

The eight years before their leadership however, three political parties were in charge introducing: coffeeshops, abortion, euthanasia. They let foreigners enter without serious problems.
Those times have (too bad) changed. However, your all brilliant america closes its gates even worse. They're willing to build a wall against Mexicans entering the US, a wall comparable to Berlin's Wall. If you're proud, be proud. If you want to be proud on your president you won't, however strange, stand alone.
If we're not free, what are you? Living under totalitarism? Of course totalitarism can be pretty free

Where are you from?

Utter nonsense. Your Dutch education is showing. PBS is strictly not-for-profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Bro ... ng_Service

So this means I won the discussion but for this tiny point? Thanks uncle bear!
However, my 'dutch education' (why do you americans hate us?) is better education than yours will ever be. How could you have better in a country with universities teaching students dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago?
I rest my case.

Hardly. You've freely admitted that your minister for immigration and integration was a total nut job. That was my first point, and you freely acceded. Thank you.

My next point was that there IS in fact public (ie: not-for-profit) TV in the States, despite your yammering (and lack of proof) to the contrary. Again, thank you.


Both my kids took your insipid CITO test, and attend gymnasium. (For the uninitiated, the Dutch make kids take days worth of tests at age 11, to decide what their potential is for the rest of their lives. If they do poorly on the test, they're shuttled off to gas-pump school. Should they do well, it's brain surgeon school for them.) Now, how many of us blossomed to our full potential at age 11????

Again, I give you the tolerant, enlightened Dutch.

Indeed, WAS. She ISN'T anymore. Here whole party is kicked from leadership (and due to their extrimism won't rule the next very many years probably) and others are in the lead. And believe it or not, they're christians that are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-drugs truly enlighted christians.
So I think I have to thank you. So I say, thank you.

What are you really talking about on the CITO-toets? Do you know the system? Apparently not. You mean, your kids ARE ALLOWED to go to gymnasium. Had they had lower they would not be allowed to gymnasium. There is a huge difference between "is allowed" and "can attend". (And it's even more complex than that, but for you couldn't notice this difference, please let this first sink in and I might tell you the rest later. There, for instance, is a possibility to follow courses inbetween two levels, to two years later see what learning level suits best)
Not only the test counts, but also the teacher's vision on the kid's potentials. So it's totally >>>>>NONSENSE<<<<< what you're saying.
Do I read from your words that people in america follow same lessons up until 16/18? That's truly dumb if it's true. I'm sorry to say, but how ever hard some people work or how good education is, there is no way they'll never learn as fast as some others.

Now why in the world would you object to everyone having the same opportunity for an education???

It is true
As I said, and you 'cleverly' didn't quote, not everyone is the same. Saying they are is naive. I follow highest education, but if I would have to learn in the same tempo as an overall average student, I would get really, really bored. Things they'll never learn, have I learned when I was only 14.
I know in america there's the common idea 'same chances, so when you end up in the gutter, it's your own fault'. People are different (and you should know that better than most) so giving the same chances actually is NOT enough.

Deciding a child's fate at age 11, based on one poorly thought-out test is evil.

You say it. But the point with you is, your points are unbased, dumb and, most of all, prejudiced. I don't know why I still react to your dumb posts, maybe it's because ignoring stupid arguments appears to be even worse, but you're clearly just up to provoke. And that's pathetic. Maybe you even think you're right. Than you're just dumb. The only persons I know that use your style of arguing (ignoring most part and than writing a short line just to provoke) are extreme-right-winged people. I even doubt you even read the things I say, so I could safely say you're a sorry idiot and you'd never notice.

Still:
As I said before, their fate is >>>>NOT<<<< (please just try to remember this word, it might be important in its context) decided on age 11. The fast learners are split from the slow learners. Hell, my ucle started middle-leveled. He then did some other forms of eduction and in the end attended university.
As I said before, but you (as most things, dude you're tunnelvisioned) didn't read, there is the possibility to attend at age 11 a level inbetween, and on age 13/14 to decide whether continue higher or lower education.
Where really did you grow up that everyone you ever saw was the same? Extreme christian community or so? Everybody family and all? Because where I live even at age 7/8 there appeared huge differences between different students. Me and some friends received extra hard work because the common level was too easy, while others received easier work or more help because they weren't as easy learners as the common student. That was 3 or 4 years even before age 11, that you think is already too young.

Well, I'm sure there are nutcase universities in the US, but the top US unviersities are (still) also the top in the world. Partly because most Americans are not actually anti-science (unlike the Europeans, who will give away massive subsidies to everything except science; I have lived in the US and in Europe), US universities are properly funded, which in Europe can only be said of Swiss universities. I'm not American, and no fan of the US, but for Europeans to lash out at American universities is a bit rich. Especially given that US universities are ahead of European ones because of funding, not because European scientists (well, those that actually get jobs in academia) aren't competent.

My favourite (if that's the right word) Reality TV story is about a guy called Nik Russian.

From The Guardian

The price of fame

Thirty contestants; £100,000 up for grabs. To the young hopefuls who jacked in everything for the chance to take part in a reality show, it sounded perfect. But there was no show, no production company, and the man behind it left an army of potentially destitute people in his wake. Welcome to the moment reality TV came off the rails

Rupert Smith
Monday November 18, 2002

Truth, we all know, is stranger than fiction, and so it stands to reason that the truth about reality TV is the strangest of the lot. Here's a story so ridiculous, so horribly satirical, that you couldn't make it up. Thirty willing wannabes, lured by the promise of easy fame and £100,000 prize money, gave up their homes, jobs and loved ones in order to take part in a 12-month reality TV project that would eventually be broadcast on Channel 4.

Hypnotised by the Byronic charms of self-styled producer Nikita Russian, they underwent gruelling auditions (complete with "psychological tests"), signed silly contracts and turned up in London, penniless, to await Dame Fortune. But reality bit in an altogether unexpected way. Nik Russian was a fantasist/conman, there was no commission from Channel 4, no prize money, nowhere to live, nothing to eat - in short, no show.
Thirty very disappointed people returned home (those who still had homes, anyway), and that might have been the end of the story - had it not been for a twist in the tail, the kind of chance encounter that TV producers dream of. Debbie Driver, one of the thwarted 30, called up Christmas Television, a small independent producer, and suggested that she might have a bit of a story for them. Six months later the full, breathtakingly bizarre story has found its way to the screen.

<snip>

The project started so well: professional auditions in a posh banqueting suite on a private island on the Thames near Surbiton, the promise of a unique adventure, riches, fame etc. Nik Russian was easy to fall for - a tall, beautiful young man with floppy hair and a leather coat, the very image of a television producer. The headed notepaper looked good, there was talk of sales teams and marketing guys, and the contestants fell for it hook, line and sinker. Alarm bells rang when, on the launch day in June, they were given their challenge: three teams of 10 would compete to be the first to raise £1m. First of all they had to find food and shelter, then get cracking...

... Click here for full article