Alright then. My answers will be interspersed below:
"What's there to argue about? I am simply interested in what is going on today. What is exactly is being taught? I don't know, but it seems that language is getting sloppier and I don't see anything wrong with trying to stand for something. Should people be taught to think critically? Is there anything wrong with suggesting that arguments be based on logic rather than on whims? My observation is that people have trouble thinking critically, in spelling things correctly, in using grammar that isn't all that hard to understand. What's the point of education in the first place? "
Well, I am a linguist, and I follow a thought school based on the descriptive study of language rather than the judgement of it in its many varieties. I feel that, at least in the world of the English language, grammar is still taught, but less focused on the strictness of it and more on effective communication.
Critical thinking skills are extremely important and have always been emphasized in my education. However, spelling, e.g., anything versus anyting, is separate from forms, e.g., who versus whom. I already posted a detailed response to the whole who/whom predicament in the previous thread so see my response there for that particular iteration of the argument. The mistake comes in thinking that critical thinking is somehow meshed with form, and it's not. Speakers from different generations show a strong tendency to develop, adopt, and use language forms that are different from those of older generations. It's a way of marking social identity and generational rift. It serves many other factors both directly and indirectly, but let's keep that there.
I guess the biggest takeaway from this response is that spelling /=/ form and that neither of those = critical thought, all of which are still taught, but with less emphasis on strict form usage since newer generations embrace different varieties of a language.
"Humans beings are very emotional creatures."
That we are
"Other countries seem to have more value on education. What is the point in insisting that foreigners learn to speak English when we don't seem to care about our own language?"
We do care about our own language. There are thousands of different English varieties. Even the 'unmarked' English is still a variety that's perceived as 'unmarked.' You can pick any live language in the world, and you'll find a great deal of varieties that deviate from prescribed standards, which, in essence, are power impositions.
To have variety doesn't mean that we don't care, but that we're speaking a live languages, and that we come from different places with different histories and different cultures, and linguistic diversity is just one of the ways we mark those distinctions.
"English is a difficult language to learn and the question in my mind is how can we expect foreigners to learn it if we don't even have any agreed upon rules. I have studied other languages and their rules seem a lot more rigid than our own. I don't know any language that is as sloppy as our own. When I learn another language I want to learn to speak it correctly."
We actually have a good set of rules that are agreed upon for Second Language Teaching, but remember that these are limited to second language learners who do not have the same access to the language that native speakers do. We speak differently in different contexts, and there's even more variation when you take into account what KIND of English we speak at that. I know three languages, and trust me, there's just about as much variation in them as in English. A good example is the French "ne-pas" negation that is taught by language teachers, but practically no native speakers of French actually say or write "ne-pas" and just use "pas."
"Languages do change over time and there isn't a lot that we can do about that, but it seems perfectly fine for educated people to want to speak with as much clarity as possible. Sloppy grammar, math, logic and spelling lead to confusion. Why would anyone want to risk unnecessary misunderstandings based on poor language and communication skills? I don't see any reason to object to having my spelling, logic, punctuation etc challenged. So I don't ask from anyone else what I expect for myself."
Yes, you can speak however you wish. My only cutoff is that we can all understand each other. For instance, who/whom is one of these such cases that people are especially sensitive about, while correcting it, outside of extremely formal contexts, serves no real purpose.
I think I talked a bit about nuance between spelling and form above already, so yea.
"I realize that my communications here are not always as polished as I would like them to be, but I am not presenting ideas that are supposed to be perfect. It's just an issue I have. I think that it is a problem (however small) that so many don't seem to care about clear communication."
Clear communication is key, always.
