+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: It's unfortunate... (/showthread.php?tid=795)
Pages:
1
2
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 23rd June 2003
...that in a society as advanced as ours, we still practice racism, under the assumed title of "minority advancement". The Supreme Court upheld the Affirmative Action constitutionality in the Michigan University case, which is a very disappointing statement of how some radicals can further drive a wedge between races just to further their own agendas. In the erroneous name of progress we just stepped backwards a few steps. Thanks a lot, guys.
On a brighter note, it wasn't a total loss of sanity for our Justices, as they did defeat the AA practices of Michigan University's undergraduate program, which will hopefully one day lead to it's eventual elimination altogether.
It can probably be said that racial equality will never be achieved by governmental policies, but by the eventual tolerance of successive generations. Our generation is more racially tolerant than any before. It should go without saying that our children will hopefully continue that trend, and that we can become a truly color-blind nation without the interference of self-serving liberal interests. Only time will tell, but I think, and hope, that's how it happens.
Unfortunately in the short term, the liberal mobs continue to spread messages to minorities that they cannot succeed without liberal help, that only by having special advantages will they ever achieve anything. Of course, few people realize what long-term damage that thinking will cause (and has been causing for years, so we continue to promote state-sponsered racism, a sort of watered-down reversal of Jim Crow. And that's to say nothing of the degradation of the black people, who by way of affirmative action are being told that they cannot be successes without help, that they are incapable of doing it themselves. It's this sort of short-sightedness by liberals that have racial tensions still brewing after all these years.
The funny thing is, I know that during the course of the argument that will inevitably follow this post, I will be called, if not in name then in spirit, a racist, bigoted right-wing neo-Hitler, but it's the cry of people who are exactly what they call people like me. I don't advocate racism or inequality. I simply do not believe that you can eliminate inequality by creating more inequality. It's a stupid in theory and stupid in application.
Therefore, I look at the Supreme Court decision with mixed feelings. I hope that it's a step in the right direction, which is the eventual disintegration of AA policies, even though the Court unwisely upheld some of those policies. That they did not uphold them all is definitely a good sign though.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 23rd June 2003
Not as good as it could have been but at least they upheld it. And they should keep doing that until (unlikely as it is) there is no bias and inequality in our system. But currently there clearly is bias and inquality so affirmative action is required to try to even the scales. Its not racism when its evening the scales. Racism is when you make them farther apart... as opposed to this, which makes up for natural disadvantages people in the affected groups have. None of them are their faults, so its a badly needed program to make up for those things...
Saying that getting rid of affirmative action does anything other than increase bias and racism and dramatically lower the number of black (and other affected minority) students from going to college is delusional.
It's unfortunate... - Fittisize - 23rd June 2003
Racism...? Oh, sorry. Must be an American thing.
Liberals, 2004
It's unfortunate... - alien space marine - 23rd June 2003
affirmative action maybe was somthing you do for a year but not for 50. Your just giving neo nazi justification were they can say minorities are stealing jobs and education and actually sadly admit some truth in it.
All miniroties desserve is a equal right to compete and be treated as equals they may receive whatever help they need to do it money wise. But to me education and employment is about skills and abilities not your skin texture, It makes no sense to give a person with lower marks a free jump ahead agiast one with higher marks, Unless its 50/50 and your school lacks diversity choose the black guy but if you got more blacks then whites and its 50/50 pick the white guy.
Just because whites miss treated blacks decades ago doesnt justify vengeance on todays generation who had nothing to do with it.
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 23rd June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Not as good as it could have been but at least they upheld it. And they should keep doing that until (unlikely as it is) there is no bias and inequality in our system. But currently there clearly is bias and inquality so affirmative action is required to try to even the scales. Its not racism when its evening the scales. Racism is when you make them farther apart... as opposed to this, which makes up for natural disadvantages people in the affected groups have. None of them are their faults, so its a badly needed program to make up for those things...
Saying that getting rid of affirmative action does anything other than increase bias and racism and dramatically lower the number of black (and other affected minority) students from going to college is delusional.
Predictable liberal babble. You claim it is intended to even the scales, but to do so you have to create a bias and a racism against the majority. White people are no more able to control being white than anyone else can change their color.
A better alternative would be to eliminate race altogether on applications for work and study, and hire/accept based solely on achievements and resumè. Of course, if blacks and minorities became successful, they wouldn't need liberals anymore, thus, liberals do their best to keep them down in many ways, affirmative action being one. Again, short-sightedness. It does give minorities a temporary advantage as far as getting into schools and jobs, it also broadens racial strife and exudes inequality.
There will always be bias, but broad racial biases are diminishing constantly. I know that this is important for some minorities who really wish to achieve, and it does help them. But what I am saying is that our society is moving away from the need for such programs, but from what you are saying, it should be a program that is continued forever without end. I personally think a lot of racial tensions that exist today are due to these reverse-racist policies, which feed off the racism they create to continue to exist, and therefore accomplish almost nothing in the long run.
For example, when Virginia Tech temporarily abolished all racial-preference standards for admission this year, there were no racial backlashes from minorities, however, the liberal professors and their ilk decried the move as racist and fascist and what have you, and Tech balked and cowardly reinstated racial quotas again. Being that Virginia has a rather large minority population, it figured that even without racial quotas, blacks would be pretty well equally represented in the school body, likely with better-qualified minorities, but it didn't matter to the liberals. They had a racial agenda to push and they pushed it. Thus, progress takes a backseat to political bullshit.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 23rd June 2003
Quote:affirmative action maybe was somthing you do for a year but not for 50. Your just giving neo nazi justification were they can say minorities are stealing jobs and education and actually sadly admit some truth in it.
All miniroties desserve is a equal right to compete and be treated as equals they may receive whatever help they need to do it money wise. But to me education and employment is about skills and abilities not your skin texture, It makes no sense to give a person with lower marks a free jump ahead agiast one with higher marks, Unless its 50/50 and your school lacks diversity choose the black guy but if you got more blacks then whites and its 50/50 pick the white guy.
Just because whites miss treated blacks decades ago doesnt justify vengeance on todays generation who had nothing to do with it.
What you say really has nothing to do with affirmative action. You clearly think it does, but it doesn't.
You see, blacks (and some other groups, but mostly blacks) have disadvantages in TODAY'S society. We aren't talking about "revenge" for past problems. That's irrelevant to this issue.
This is about correcting the inherent unfairness of modern society.
Most black people just DONT HAVE THE SAME POSSIBILITIES THAT WHITE PEOPLE HAVE. This is a FACT. More black people are poor. More don't have access to the things richer people have access to -- good schools, help for standardized tests, more chances of going to those colleges... its sad, but its true. And when there is a inherent flaw in society it is the responsibility of the government to do what it can to fix it! Affirmative action goes a long way towards doing this, of course, helping to make up for all the disadvantages that those students have had to overcome.
The point is that if those same exact people were white and middle-class they'd be doing as well as the rest of the class entering. Its just because of their disadvantaged situation that they are behind and get some help to make up for it. Its just fair.
As I said, there is very good proof about this stuff. I have read some studies that VERY clearly show that when a college drops Affirmative Action, its minority population dramatically goes down. Dramatically. More middle and upper class white people make it in, predictably, since those are the people with access to the good schools that actually prepare you for college and the SATs, tutors, and all those other things that almost all beneficiaries of affirmative action don't have and suffer academically for the lack of.
So it'd be a "fair" system that is inherently based on tilting the scales so the lower classes will never get out of their situation.
Of course, that's been the main plank of the Republican platform for decades, so no surprise there.
It's unfortunate... - N-Man - 23rd June 2003
Canada is so adapted to your needs as a student... no matter whether you're white, black, yellow or purple, you'll always get proper education. Then you run south to make good of it.
uh... Bloc 2004 or something. Dammit, even the Tories are socialist these days.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 23rd June 2003
As I've said before there are many cases in the US where students get into a school because theire parents are alumni or because their parents gave somthing to the school(do any of you honestly belive Bush got into Yale on his own?). But the parents of many people who belong to a minority group didn't go to university because when they were there childrens age it was still extremely difficult for them toget past all the bias and into a school, so these students don't have the luxury of their parents being alumni, and since many of their parents didn't go to school themselves they have likely have a lower income and are unable to pay for their childrens education, or to do somthing for the school that would help there children get in.
Quote:Originally posted by N-Man
Canada is so adapted to your needs as a student... no matter whether you're white, black, yellow or purple, you'll always get proper education. Then you run south to make good of it.
uh... Bloc 2004 or something. Dammit, even the Tories are socialist these days.
It is funny that even our conservitive party is starting to become more like a socialist party
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 24th June 2003
It's funny. You complain that blacks have uneven chances because they cannot access the same schools as whites can, yet liberals were staunchly opposed to private school vouchers which would have given them that very opportunity, and the liberals struck it down and by default keeps them in the decaying public school system. You complain that they cannot afford tutors and extracurricular studies, yet liberals keep shoveling unregulated welfare down their throats, eliminating their work ethic. It has been the liberal idea for decades to help blacks meet educational standards by lowering those standards to the floor.
The liberal way to help blacks is give them enough money to live and keep them poor, the conservative way is to coerce them into making their own living and encouraging advancement by way of hard work.
And yet it's the Republican platform to keep blacks in ghettoes? Hah.
It's unfortunate... - alien space marine - 24th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
It's funny. You complain that blacks have uneven chances because they cannot access the same schools as whites can, yet liberals were staunchly opposed to private school vouchers which would have given them that very opportunity, and the liberals struck it down and by default keeps them in the decaying public school system. You complain that they cannot afford tutors and extracurricular studies, yet liberals keep shoveling unregulated welfare down their throats, eliminating their work ethic. It has been the liberal idea for decades to help blacks meet educational standards by lowering those standards to the floor.
The liberal way to help blacks is give them enough money to live and keep them poor, the conservative way is to coerce them into making their own living and encouraging advancement by way of hard work.
And yet it's the Republican platform to keep blacks in ghettoes? Hah.
In canada the black people are usually more educated and better off then their americans cousins down south, The brittish ended all segregation and garanteed equality well before the U.S did in the 60's which is why you dont hear about race riots in england or canada.
Affirmative action does exist in canada but what is different is that its not just color, it is also lunguistic were having both french and english is a requirement. But even we have problems here too.
What is fundementaly wrong is going beyond just funding minorities you actually giving them handicaps and going beyond just giving them a equal head start as white people you actually giving them career which they may not have properly earned soley because of their skin color it is not fair white people have to work double the effort to get the same thing. Affirmative action should about giving everyone a fair chance but how can it be fair if your just giving things away for free that they have not been justly earned it is called favoritism, you couldnt apply for that tech job because you were white and they dont want anymore whites.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
Vouchers aren't usually for poor people. Maybe a few could actually go to a better school, but not most... no, the reason we hate vouchers is simple: The main reason they exist is to publically fund private religious (mostly Catholic) schools. And that is a very bad thing.
As for lowering educational standards, the only ones doing that are the Republicans constantly cutting the school budget.
And what does welfare have to do with the fact that schools most of the affected people go to are bad and don't have those programs and their parents can't afford to make up for that by going to a different school (usually because they are in a place where there aren't really any available good choices, vouchers or not... and even with money its not like poor people could really afford to send their kids to a private school...
No, the solution isn't draining those schools of their better students. That will just make the schools worse and put them in a steeper downward spiral. We have to fix those schools so that they can compete... its really the only way. But it cannot be done without adaquate school funding, so fixing our failing schools will have to wait until we get a Democratic administration.
And anyway, most of those schools they might go to would be Catholic private schools... don't you hate Catholics? :)
It's unfortunate... - alien space marine - 24th June 2003
Since when do liberals or any goverment actually care about education? Ours certainly doesnt and it is liberal, Our government willing to throw 300 million at vancourver for a olympic bid but I havent seen any money of that kind of money go to education were right now we could certainly use it to provide more equipement and good teachers.
Politics is just a bunch of rubbish shit.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 24th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
Since when do liberals or any goverment actually care about education? Ours certainly doesnt and it is liberal, Our government willing to throw 300 million at vancourver for a olympic bid but I havent seen any money of that kind of money go to education were right now we could certainly use it to provide more equipement and good teachers.
Politics is just a bunch of rubbish shit.
The federal government trys to put all kinds of funding into education, unfortunatly it is impossible for them to give funding directly to education. Since education like healthcare is the responsibility of the provinces to put money into education the federal government must give the money to the provinces in the form of transfer payments, but they can't force the provinces to put the money into a particular area, so the province could decide to put the money that ottawa wanted them to put into education into healthcare or building highways. Whenever ottawa trys to change it so that they can tell the provinces have to spend the money where Ottawa wants it to be spent the provinces kick up a big fuss about how whatever area it is is there juristiction, but then they turn around and ask Ottawa for even more money and it is the provinces whith governments that lean more to the left that put more money into education
It's unfortunate... - Nintendarse - 24th June 2003
Wetall, a much as you continue to disrespect me, I'm calm enough to write something level-headed.
There is a bit of confusion over this whole subject,and it boils down to the difference between equal and fair. The first thing that I realized was:
(Equal) != (Fair)
or
Equal is not fair, and fair is not equal.
Let us think of the case of a 2-man race to the top of the Philadelpphia steps. The task is the same, it is equal. The distance is the same. The steps, the day, the time, and the temperature are all the same. Yet one man has been born without legs. Sure, the system is equal, but is the outcome fair?
I think Weltall assumes that fair and equal are the same thing. This simple example illustrates that they are not.
So what is the goal of society? To make it equal, or to make it fair? Equal would mean that the legless man would be given no help. Each runner would be given the same treatment Fair would mean that the legless man would be given prosthetic legs. Each man would have a fair chance to make it to the top of the steps first. In this case, as in society, I prefer fair over equal.
As I stated before, some people have inherent advantages that they didn't earn: race, upbringing, wealth/reputation of parents, genes, etc. I understand that as a caucasian, I have an advantage in society simply because of the color of my skin. That is not fair. If it was fair, and societal standing depended solely on merit and character, the demographics of poor people would be about the same as the demographics of the entire country: 75.1% Caucasian, 12.5% Latino, 12.3% African American, 3.6% Asian, .9% American Indian. In addition, the demographics of the top 5% of Americans in terms of wealth would be the same. As we all know, the percentage of richest of Americans is disproportionately Caucasian. There are two possible conclusions: The system is not equal or caucasians are superior. For the sake of humanity, let's say it's the first. The most obvious flaw in this purportedly equal system is the parent's wealth. Your parents earned their money, not you. Therefore, in an equal system, children would not benefit from the societal standing of their parents. You would earn everything you have. But it is idealistic to think that we could make a perfectly equal system, just as it is idealistic to think that we could make a perfectly fair system. The problem is that we have so entangled equal and fair that we can't even define each without tripping over the other.
That said, I am not in total agreement with Affirmative Action. I agree with the goal, but I disagree with the means. The way it is done now, the institutions are trying to dissolve the racial barriers by RECOGNIZING them and ENFORCING them. The means are flawed. Yet by getting rid of Affirmative action and enforcing equal means, you ensure unfair ends.
Personally, I would take race out of the equation, and simply go by wealth. Society is much more likely to support a policy that unequally accepts the poor than unequally accepts the African Americans, yet the result may be the same. Granted, wealthy parents are going to complain that they worked hard to give their kids a good life, but nobody will listen to them.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
Hmm... going by wealth. That would be an interesting way to do it, and it well might work... since it is the class status and not race that determines how minorities will do, generally.
Also... yes, Republicans do assume that equal = fair. We do not.
It is in many issues other than this one as well. Look at gay rights... Republicans say that Equal = Fair. I say that Equal is about as far from fair as you can get, just like in your example with the disabled person. But I guess they don't mind that since they dislike homosexuals anyway and would probably rather that it stays legal to discriminate against them.
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 24th June 2003
I don't understand why you think I disrespect you, Nintendarse. I find myself to deal mostly civil with you. Unless it is my ideas that cause this rift, but I can't help that.
Actually, I think the idea of changing the criteria from race to wealth is a great idea, because the benefits one would get in such a way from being poor can be eliminated if that person obtains a higher tax bracket. I wish affirmative action would not continue, but I accept that affirmative action will continue. What I hope is that it can be phased out over time as society in general becomes more progressive. As Justice O'Connor said in her announcement, she hopes that in about 25 years, affirmative action will no longer be necessary.
In any case, you bring up a great point about wealth, and it should definitely be the determining factor in affirmative action, and not skin color. After all, it is harder for a poor white person to get into college than a middle-class black person. Do middle-class and wealthy blacks really need extra help? No, not nearly as much as a poor person would.
ABF, your liberal hypocracy shines through. You think it's a worse idea for kids to be exposed to religion than it is for them to recieve a decent education. What would be nice is if education was completely privatized and the government's role reduced to merely supervisory, because public education is a failure, by and large, and lack of funding is only one reason for that. Another, much more major reason is the constant lowering of educational standards, a liberal idea meant to reduce discrimination against lazy and stupid students, which leads to grade inflation and other such nonsense. Since liberal education reforms began, public education has tailspinned, and it's so bad now that it might not be possible to fix.
I very much believe in vouchers, and those vouchers should be used for the parents' choice of private schools. That way, the child recieves a decent education, and they can choose whether or not their child attends parochial school or secular school, since they will use the vouchers as they see fit. Privatization of education would force higher standards from both teachers and students.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
Quote:Actually, I think the idea of changing the criteria from race to wealth is a great idea, because the benefits one would get in such a way from being poor can be eliminated if that person obtains a higher tax bracket. I wish affirmative action would not continue, but I accept that affirmative action will continue. What I hope is that it can be phased out over time as society in general becomes more progressive. As Justice O'Connor said in her announcement, she hopes that in about 25 years, affirmative action will no longer be necessary.
In any case, you bring up a great point about wealth, and it should definitely be the determining factor in affirmative action, and not skin color. After all, it is harder for a poor white person to get into college than a middle-class black person. Do middle-class and wealthy blacks really need extra help? No, not nearly as much as a poor person would.
Its probably somewhat of a factor already, but it should be made more important... because affirmative action exists to make up for our unfair society and most of the ones in the unfair category are poor minorities. But poor whites probably should benefit more too... not as much as minorities (because they don't have to deal with the less powerful but still there in many circles color barrier), but its there and they have trouble with these things too.
But we do need affirmative action as well because that wouldn't make up for the whole difference. In the future it might become less useful,
Oh, and given your opinion on poverty I'm suprised you'd support this...
Quote:ABF, your liberal hypocracy shines through. You think it's a worse idea for kids to be exposed to religion than it is for them to recieve a decent education. What would be nice is if education was completely privatized and the government's role reduced to merely supervisory, because public education is a failure, by and large, and lack of funding is only one reason for that. Another, much more major reason is the constant lowering of educational standards, a liberal idea meant to reduce discrimination against lazy and stupid students, which leads to grade inflation and other such nonsense. Since liberal education reforms began, public education has tailspinned, and it's so bad now that it might not be possible to fix.
I very much believe in vouchers, and those vouchers should be used for the parents' choice of private schools. That way, the child recieves a decent education, and they can choose whether or not their child attends parochial school or secular school, since they will use the vouchers as they see fit. Privatization of education would force higher standards from both teachers and students.
No, no, I have nothing against sending your children to whatever school you want... the problem is state funding of a religious institution. The federal government should NEVER be paying catholic private schools! That is a blatant preach of the seperation of school and state and the fact that it is allowed now in some fashion is a very bad sign for the future of upholding the constitution... yeah, its true -- a bit of it still does exist, despite so many attempts to the contrary from right-wing Republicans...
And saying that liberals degraded our schools is laugable. They most certainly did not. Liberals always try their best to fund the schools as much as possible, as opposed to the conservatives who want to cut school funding as much as they can... its absolutely absurd to blame anything on liberals when its Republicans who cut school budgets so relentlessly, Republicans who instituted that stupid No Child Left Behind Act which has hurt more than it has or will help, and brought us to the point now where they now want to "fix" the problem by letting all the better students leave those schools and have the state pay for them to go to catholic school.
I don't think so.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 24th June 2003
There is nothing wrong with public schooling if it is managed properly. Had the US managed there public schools properly then they would be on the same level as Canadian public schools, or maybe even the same level as public schools in Britain and western europe whih are often better than many American private schools.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
True. But our schools are either bad or woefully underfunded. Or both.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 24th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
True. But our schools are either bad or woefully underfunded. Or both.
Which is why I agree with you that vouchers are a bad idea, that money should be put into the public school system in order to make it better, not taken away
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 24th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Its probably somewhat of a factor already, but it should be made more important... because affirmative action exists to make up for our unfair society and most of the ones in the unfair category are poor minorities. But poor whites probably should benefit more too... not as much as minorities (because they don't have to deal with the less powerful but still there in many circles color barrier), but its there and they have trouble with these things too.
But we do need affirmative action as well because that wouldn't make up for the whole difference. In the future it might become less useful,
Oh, and given your opinion on poverty I'm suprised you'd support this...
I am in support of the poor recieving help to step out of poverty, not the current welfare system that keeps them there, getting money for no work. Obviously such an idea would be an extra incentive for those to work or school themselves. This would help children grow into productive adults instead of perpetual welfare leeches. Why would I be against that?
Quote:No, no, I have nothing against sending your children to whatever school you want... the problem is state funding of a religious institution. The federal government should NEVER be paying catholic private schools! That is a blatant preach of the seperation of school and state and the fact that it is allowed now in some fashion is a very bad sign for the future of upholding the constitution... yeah, its true -- a bit of it still does exist, despite so many attempts to the contrary from right-wing Republicans...
Oh give me a break, you fool! It would be a church/state issue if the government gave people the money and forced them to attend parochial schools, but if they give parents the money and let THEM decide where to go with it, then that is circumvented! Hell, by that logic every welfare and social security penny that ends up in a church collection basket is indirect government funding of religion, and that of course is hardly a violation of church/state.
Even with that aside, you're still putting your stupid anti-religion views ahead of the needs of children, which makes you a hypocrite every time you blast Republicans for not caring about education. Of course, liberals don't either, and their opposition to vouchers is proof.
Quote:And saying that liberals degraded our schools is laugable. They most certainly did not. Liberals always try their best to fund the schools as much as possible, as opposed to the conservatives who want to cut school funding as much as they can... its absolutely absurd to blame anything on liberals when its Republicans who cut school budgets so relentlessly, Republicans who instituted that stupid No Child Left Behind Act which has hurt more than it has or will help, and brought us to the point now where they now want to "fix" the problem by letting all the better students leave those schools and have the state pay for them to go to catholic school.
I don't think so.
And like the typical liberal, all problems can be solved by money, right?
Funding is hardly the only problem with our schools. Lower education standards are a much bigger issue, which is a liberal-created problem designed to artificially advance children so that their self-esteem isn't hurt. This explains why there is an unacceptable amount of high-school children who can barely read at half their level.
Take for example, Florida. There is a standardized test required for graduation in Florida. A student must make only a 40% grade on this multiple-choice test to pass, and they have five attempts in which to pass it. 90% of children pass it, 10% do not. Liberal interst groups in Florida are demanding that the test be eliminated because it hurts the college and career prospects of those 10%. The liberals want them pushed along even though they lack fundamental and basic skills and have no chance in the workforce or in college.
And that's to say nothing of the abhorrent liberal history revision, which apparently is now to include no reference to God out of fear of offending someone, despite that God has a very, very significant prescence in world history, whether you believe in Him or not.
And these are two extremely major issues that all the funding in the world twice over can't fix. The damage is done and can really only get worse. That's why my dream is to see education become completely privatized, with the government as merely a supervisory role. Then, standards will rise, education quality will rise, funding would be plentiful and liberals will be far less able to screw it back up.
Public education is another rotten remnant of liberal failures, and getting rid of it is the best way to cure its problems.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
No, its better to give the money to private schools so that the struggling schools get worse and the remaining kids get an even worse education!
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 24th June 2003
You must have missed the repeated mentions of complete privatization of education. I'm not surprised.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 24th June 2003
That idea is so incredibly stupid and would fail so monumentally that its not really worth mentioning.
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 25th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
That idea is so incredibly stupid and would fail so monumentally that its not really worth mentioning.
It can't do worse than public schooling.
Why do you think it would fail? I mean, besides the fact that it's a republican idea and you are completely opposed to any and all republican ideas? You make these statements and never give reasons why, you always wait for Nintendarse to bail you out and explain things. You're either a liberal drone, having the ideas but no reason for having them, or you're lazy, and it irritates me to have to debate with someone like this.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 25th June 2003
Why would it fail?
Look at the current state of for-profit schools.
Or, rather... look at how the idea hasn't worked well at all and the companies are beginning to admit that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all to try to run a for-profit school. The idea just doesn't work in a school... its not really something that you can make much money off so the business community isn't interested.
So how do you propose doing it?
People like me say that we should be fixing the problem by increasing school spending and doing our best to improve bad schools...
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 25th June 2003
If you were to completly privatize schools there would only be schools in areas where whoever is funding the schools would know they would make a profit. This would mean that many remote areas with smaller populations would not be served and in some cases would have to travel for miles to go to school when if the system was public and not for profit a school likely would have been there.
Also the system may end up like your health care system where the rich are served first, rich people will get to go to the better schools and once again poor people will be left behind.
If they choose people should be able to go to a private school, but they shouldn't recive any state funding for it, instead the state can continue putting the money into the public school system.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 25th June 2003
Yeah, that's a major problem that would come up... when they try to make money and see that in many place they just can't, they'd close those schools and there would be major problems... much worse than our current system. As I said, attempting it would fail horribly, as the failure of for-profit schools show.
Well, except for people who can afford private schools...
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 25th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Why would it fail?
Look at the current state of for-profit schools.
Yes, let's... they're far, far, far superior to public schooling in almost every aspect. It's a well-known fact that children in public schools outperform public-school students dramatically, and recieve a far higher quality education. That fact cannot be disputed with any semblance of credibility.
Quote:Or, rather... look at how the idea hasn't worked well at all and the companies are beginning to admit that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all to try to run a for-profit school. The idea just doesn't work in a school... its not really something that you can make much money off so the business community isn't interested.
On what do you basis this? It seems to totally contradict reality in all-new ways. Private schools have always been successful, and a vouchers program would only add to that success. I would MUCH rather my tax money used in this way to help children than I would be seeing it wasted on public education.
Quote:People like me say that we should be fixing the problem by increasing school spending and doing our best to improve bad schools... [/B]
Yet again I have to repeat myself: Funding is not what is killing public education. It's the increasingly lower education standards and lack of discipline. How in the world will money fix that? How can funding be a problem when public education sponsors such worthless things like sex education and multicultural studies? Besides being at the expense of core curriculum?
Kids aren't failing school for lack of money. They are failing because liberals have ruined the system with revisionism and multiculturalism, and have lowered standards so that anyone can pass. It makes for artificially good grades in the classroom and disaster in the real world, and even though I've addressed this point at least three times you have ignored it every single time and instead continue to claim that low funds are the problem.
Quote:If you were to completly privatize schools there would only be schools in areas where whoever is funding the schools would know they would make a profit. This would mean that many remote areas with smaller populations would not be served and in some cases would have to travel for miles to go to school when if the system was public and not for profit a school likely would have been there.
Also the system may end up like your health care system where the rich are served first, rich people will get to go to the better schools and once again poor people will be left behind.
If they choose people should be able to go to a private school, but they shouldn't recive any state funding for it, instead the state can continue putting the money into the public school system.
That would be the case if not for vouchers, which, if generous enough, could easily support the placement of private schools in rural areas.
And if you don't think rich kids get better public education than poor kids already, you're living in dreamland. Sure, wealthier children would go to better private schools, it goes without saying. But private schools for less-wealthy children, while maybe not as great as the aforementioned, would be leaps and bounds better than the rotting public school system which cannot help them at all. Private schools would have stricter hiring criteria for teachers and increased discipline, and near-complete control over curriculum.
In esscense, you are against better education for the poor. You are saying we should sink more money into public schools, a solution which has never worked at all, and would further damn the poor to terrible education, just because you want more government control over education, and it is harder to force liberal agendas on students when the government cannot control the curriculum.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 25th June 2003
Quote:Yes, let's... they're far, far, far superior to public schooling in almost every aspect. It's a well-known fact that children in public schools outperform public-school students dramatically, and recieve a far higher quality education. That fact cannot be disputed with any semblance of credibility.
For-profit public schools. Which is what they'd pretty much have to be to make your "plan" work. YOU CANNOT SEND EVERYONE TO PRIVATE SCHOOL. AND IF PRIVATE COMPANIES RUN SCHOOLS FOR NO TUITION THEY WANT PROFITS. And those profits just don't come very much, as the companies that tried have learned... so as we said they'd abandon some markets. Leaving us with... nothing. Great!
As for private schools, yes, those students do do better... its to be expected -- you have to be fairly rich and/or dedicated to spend that much money, after all...
And for the few students on vouchers it might help but it'd very quickly make the schools they abandon worse by orders of magnitude. Which is EXACTLY the wrong thing to be doing! It doesn't help our nation to let a few succeed while tossing the masses to the wolves! That isn't good policy!
Quote:Yet again I have to repeat myself: Funding is not what is killing public education. It's the increasingly lower education standards and lack of discipline. How in the world will money fix that? How can funding be a problem when public education sponsors such worthless things like sex education and multicultural studies? Besides being at the expense of core curriculum?
Kids aren't failing school for lack of money. They are failing because liberals have ruined the system with revisionism and multiculturalism, and have lowered standards so that anyone can pass. It makes for artificially good grades in the classroom and disaster in the real world, and even though I've addressed this point at least three times you have ignored it every single time and instead continue to claim that low funds are the problem.
You try to convince yourself that funding isn't the problem so you can justify constant cuts in school budgets. Unfortunately, reality shows how wrong you are. Schools with more money do better. That is objective fact. They do better. The students do better. But you want to cut them and then blame it on curriculum? That's absurd!
Sure there might be a little grade inflation but its not some epidemic like you make it seem.
"Worthless" programs? I don't think so. Not at all. How are they worthless? Sure students might not like some things much but schools should provide a good varied curriculum that has more than just the basics...
Quote:That would be the case if not for vouchers, which, if generous enough, could easily support the placement of private schools in rural areas.
And if you don't think rich kids get better public education than poor kids already, you're living in dreamland. Sure, wealthier children would go to better private schools, it goes without saying. But private schools for less-wealthy children, while maybe not as great as the aforementioned, would be leaps and bounds better than the rotting public school system which cannot help them at all. Private schools would have stricter hiring criteria for teachers and increased discipline, and near-complete control over curriculum.
In esscense, you are against better education for the poor. You are saying we should sink more money into public schools, a solution which has never worked at all, and would further damn the poor to terrible education, just because you want more government control over education, and it is harder to force liberal agendas on students when the government cannot control the curriculum.
Not just tossing money at them. Spending it to actively work to improve school quality. It can work... Republicans like you just would never let it be tried. Spend money on public education? Are you insane?
And private schools aren't the perfect solution you seem to think. Sure in some ways they do better... but its not super dramatic in the cases you propose, for sure. And private schools don't necessarially have better staffs -- they pay teachers less than public schools, after all... since they don't have lots of funds, just tuition.
Oh, and of course public schools in richer areas are better. That's the way it works -- the more money the schools have the better they do.
Hmm, I wonder how other schools would go if they were given enough money?
And if you think you can make public schools private and fund them somehow and all that and have it work better than the current system you're delusional...
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 25th June 2003
They could set up a system like those found elsewhere where the taxes collected from people for school don't go directly to the local school or schoolboard which would translate into more affluent areas haveing better schools but instead put all the funds into a pot and divide them up evenly.
Once again I must repeat, public school works almost everywhere else, so why would it never work in the US? If managed properly they can work.
Privatizing schooling would also be doing the exact opposite of what is happening everywhere else in the world, place like Britain have relized that public shooling is much better for the population as a whole and many schools that were private for decades or centuries have been taken over by the public system.
Of course people who go to private schools on average do better, they tend to come from more affluent families who likelyl earned some of their money because of their intelligence, so it would make sure that their children would do better in school than the children poorer people who are in public school who were not as smart as those who are better off.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Jaguar - 25th June 2003
I'll say nothing on dropping government funded schools completely, oh what the heck, I completetly disagree with that manuever. Would have worked, and in fact did work, in the PAST when everything one needed to know about a future career in farming could be learned from the parents, but today? Nuh uh... The government needs to have education centers JUST as much as national security. At this point it's become their job, though for obvious reasons I fully support a person's right to seek education at places OTHER than what the government gives us. I fully support private schools as well. I'll tell you this. Before I started going to a private school, I really wasn't learning all that much. I would occasionally play catch up by going SLOWER than my classmates. Do the math, that doesn't add up! However, an accredited private school (unaccredited schools, don't go there, as it's very easy to get accredited and if they aren't, well that says something about the quality if they can't even get rated as high as public school), like what I went to for the last years of school, REALLY learned me some booksmarts fasterer. Speaking from personal experience, a private school, properly run that is, is FAR superior to public school, and for those who can afford it (I was very lucky as I wasn't exactly in a well off situation, but managed to get a nice deal struck as far as payment for that goes), I highly recommend NOT using Public School in favor of it. Public Schools are overcrowded as is, no need for those who can afford to both do something about it AND better their child's education to make the problem worse.
Home schooling, well, mixed bag... On the one hand, if your parents are the type who would suddenly home school you on YOUR request, I'm wondering how good a job they will actually do. On the other hand, proper home schooling could actually be the best of all, as the distraction of other classmates is eliminated. Social skills are overrated, just ask Bill Gates.
It's unfortunate... - Nintendarse - 26th June 2003
Sex education and multi-culturalism are worthless? Those classes apply most directly to every-day life. Some kids live in environments where it is socially acceptable to have sex at 12 years old. There are a few possible solutions:
1. Tell them what they're doing is bad. This won't work for a sizable portion of the population, as the school is not the primary creator of social mores. The kid will most likely continue to have sex out of a drive for rebellion or a noncaring attitude toward the school's opinion. Of course, if the school systems were Weltall's ideal, the school WOULD be the creator of social mores. The problem I see is that these people will not learn to create their own values. They will constantly be looking for an authority to enforce the values upon them. This often creates a resentment toward any/all authority figures.
2. Teach them how to have safe sex. This will work in a decent portion of the population. Although by doing this, you admit that sex occurs, you've got a bigger net with fewer holes. Everyone's eventually going to have urges to have sex (maybe not Weltall ;) ) but when they do, they'll know how to do it safely to limit the risk of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases.
3. Cut the boy's genetalia off when they turn 10. Surgically replace the genetalia when they're 18. While the boys will be forever sterile (and have pathetically small sex organs), at least they'll be asexual during those awkward teen years!
It's amazing how these issues often relate to a child's relationship with their parents. While conservatives tend to favor a "fatherly" treatment, liberals favor a "motherly" treatment. I've never been given limits by my parents, and, as a result, I've learned to set them myself. Granted, this won't work for everyone, but I can count myself as an pretty good example of how non-authoritarian parenting can work.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 26th June 2003
Yeah, I'd certainly agree that using sex-ed and multiculturalism as examples of "bad" classes is pretty uninformed...
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 26th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
For-profit public schools. Which is what they'd pretty much have to be to make your "plan" work. YOU CANNOT SEND EVERYONE TO PRIVATE SCHOOL. AND IF PRIVATE COMPANIES RUN SCHOOLS FOR NO TUITION THEY WANT PROFITS. And those profits just don't come very much, as the companies that tried have learned... so as we said they'd abandon some markets. Leaving us with... nothing. Great!
*sigh* You never get it. You never read between the lines.
If you take all the money now wasted on public education and instead used it as voucher money for private schools, even if taxes had to be raised a bit to cover the extra money, then profits would not be a problem because many children are being paid for by the government. It comes as a simple replacement of the system that already exists. The difference is that the government is paying for the tuition, but not for the schools themselves.
I know that entire paragraph will be ignored in your coming response, but I tried.
Quote:As for private schools, yes, those students do do better... its to be expected -- you have to be fairly rich and/or dedicated to spend that much money, after all...
And for the few students on vouchers it might help but it'd very quickly make the schools they abandon worse by orders of magnitude. Which is EXACTLY the wrong thing to be doing! It doesn't help our nation to let a few succeed while tossing the masses to the wolves! That isn't good policy!
I've already addressed that point.
Quote:You try to convince yourself that funding isn't the problem so you can justify constant cuts in school budgets. Unfortunately, reality shows how wrong you are. Schools with more money do better. That is objective fact. They do better. The students do better. But you want to cut them and then blame it on curriculum? That's absurd!
Sure, schools with more money do better. However, take your average inner-city public school. Even if you sunk extra money into renovating the building and improving the curriculum, that money could not fix the other major problems, the violent atmosphere, the guns and drugs and violence that go a much longer way towards destroying inner-city schools than lack of funding.
Quote:Sure there might be a little grade inflation but its not some epidemic like you make it seem.
There have been programs not only to inflate grades, but inflate SAT scores as well, and it is quite widespread. Standards across the board are dropping all the time.
Quote:"Worthless" programs? I don't think so. Not at all. How are they worthless? Sure students might not like some things much but schools should provide a good varied curriculum that has more than just the basics...
Nintendarse says that schools should not be the arbiters of a children's morals. I somewhat disagree with him on the matter, but what does sex-ed and multiculturalism do? Nothing you learn in those classes will prepare you for your future in the workforce. They don't even teach you any skills (except apparently how to properly use condoms). They are worthless classes, and a waste of taxpayer money. Schools should be teaching students skills to survive in the world, not teaching them about getting laid as early as the age of nine! If those classes were replaced with infinitely more useful classes, such as computer programming or introductory business courses, students would benefit to a much greater extent.
Quote:Not just tossing money at them. Spending it to actively work to improve school quality. It can work... Republicans like you just would never let it be tried. Spend money on public education? Are you insane?
Think of all the money public schooling would have if tax funds weren't wasted on silly environmental protections, anti-tobacco lawsuits, and welfare waste?
It's not our fault, bud. And like in all the programs mentioned above, even if the money were there, it would be laundered and wasted anyway, as it has been for much of the last twenty years.
Quote:Oh, and of course public schools in richer areas are better. That's the way it works -- the more money the schools have the better they do.
And the poor kids get left behind.
Quote:Hmm, I wonder how other schools would go if they were given enough money?
Students would fail in much nicer buildings.
Quote:And if you think you can make public schools private and fund them somehow and all that and have it work better than the current system you're delusional...
Absolutely not. Do you think all parents would get vouchers? I favor the sliding-scale idea, where parents pay a higher percent of the tuition depending on their income. That would take some of the burden off of the government as well, which could be used for even more voucher money. When schools are a private interest, there will be a much higher incentive to keep them in top shape. And of course, since the government will be supplying a lot of their tuition, it would have supervisory roles to keep them in line, without directly controlling them.
Quote: Sex education and multi-culturalism are worthless? Those classes apply most directly to every-day life. Some kids live in environments where it is socially acceptable to have sex at 12 years old. There are a few possible solutions:
1. Tell them what they're doing is bad. This won't work for a sizable portion of the population, as the school is not the primary creator of social mores. The kid will most likely continue to have sex out of a drive for rebellion or a noncaring attitude toward the school's opinion. Of course, if the school systems were Weltall's ideal, the school WOULD be the creator of social mores. The problem I see is that these people will not learn to create their own values. They will constantly be looking for an authority to enforce the values upon them. This often creates a resentment toward any/all authority figures.
2. Teach them how to have safe sex. This will work in a decent portion of the population. Although by doing this, you admit that sex occurs, you've got a bigger net with fewer holes. Everyone's eventually going to have urges to have sex (maybe not Weltall ) but when they do, they'll know how to do it safely to limit the risk of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases.
3. Cut the boy's genetalia off when they turn 10. Surgically replace the genetalia when they're 18. While the boys will be forever sterile (and have pathetically small sex organs), at least they'll be asexual during those awkward teen years!
It's amazing how these issues often relate to a child's relationship with their parents. While conservatives tend to favor a "fatherly" treatment, liberals favor a "motherly" treatment. I've never been given limits by my parents, and, as a result, I've learned to set them myself. Granted, this won't work for everyone, but I can count myself as an pretty good example of how non-authoritarian parenting can work.
Well, in my opinion schools should teach morals, because morals are not universal. There are certain things society accepts and certain things it does not. I know children need to have their own values, but they also need a base to start from, and if they start with no morals, they'll never acquire them on their own.
Now, I don't think it's the school's prerogative to teach kids about sex, especially at the young ages that the programs start (my first sex-ed class was at the age of nine). The school has no obligations to tell a kid anything about sex. It is up to parents to educate their children on that matter.
From my experience, sex-ed classes basically scared the crap out of you sexually, basically telling you that sex is Russian Roulette and if you hit wrong you'll end up with a myriad of colorful venereal diseases (accompanied by colorful, detailed images). And yet, I guess they aren't working because teen sex is always rising.
As for parenting, there is no surefire way to successfully raise a kid. You were raised non-authoritarian and it worked for you. Conversely, I was raised authoritarian, where it was taught to me to respect my parents and their wishes. And I think they did a wonderful job and while I resented it at the time I'm definitely glad they did it that way now, as many of my old highschool friends had devil-may-care parents and half of them are drug addicts now, and total wastes of human beings.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 26th June 2003
Quote:*sigh* You never get it. You never read between the lines.
If you take all the money now wasted on public education and instead used it as voucher money for private schools, even if taxes had to be raised a bit to cover the extra money, then profits would not be a problem because many children are being paid for by the government. It comes as a simple replacement of the system that already exists. The difference is that the government is paying for the tuition, but not for the schools themselves.
I know that entire paragraph will be ignored in your coming response, but I tried.
I've already responded to exactly that question.
Quote:Sure, schools with more money do better. However, take your average inner-city public school. Even if you sunk extra money into renovating the building and improving the curriculum, that money could not fix the other major problems, the violent atmosphere, the guns and drugs and violence that go a much longer way towards destroying inner-city schools than lack of funding.
You underestimate the effect of better funding. Its not just a building. Its having enough teachers. Better curriculums. After-school programs. Extracurricular activities and encouraging people to participate in them. And working to fight atmospheres of drugs and violence. None of that can be done with Republican funding levels.
Quote:There have been programs not only to inflate grades, but inflate SAT scores as well, and it is quite widespread. Standards across the board are dropping all the time.
Slightly, but its hardly a big problem.
Quote:Nintendarse says that schools should not be the arbiters of a children's morals. I somewhat disagree with him on the matter, but what does sex-ed and multiculturalism do? Nothing you learn in those classes will prepare you for your future in the workforce. They don't even teach you any skills (except apparently how to properly use condoms). They are worthless classes, and a waste of taxpayer money. Schools should be teaching students skills to survive in the world, not teaching them about getting laid as early as the age of nine! If those classes were replaced with infinitely more useful classes, such as computer programming or introductory business courses, students would benefit to a much greater extent.
'but'? That should be 'because'...
And school isn't just for what will immediately become useful in life. Its for learning things, important and less important to your work or life... its for LEARNING.
Oh, what do you mean by "multiculturalism"? I don't really understand what you mean by it...
As for sex ed, its a very important class. Sure it might not help a lot, but its VERY important to have the class... and it doesn't just teach you how to use condoms.
Sure everyone hates it but that doesn't mean it should go away, or that it has no use. It does.
Quote:Think of all the money public schooling would have if tax funds weren't wasted on silly environmental protections, anti-tobacco lawsuits, and welfare waste?
It's not our fault, bud. And like in all the programs mentioned above, even if the money were there, it would be laundered and wasted anyway, as it has been for much of the last twenty years.
Uh... yeah. Right.
*backs away slowly*
The nice men in the padded van will be here soon...
Quote:And the poor kids get left behind.
Exactly!
Quote:Absolutely not. Do you think all parents would get vouchers? I favor the sliding-scale idea, where parents pay a higher percent of the tuition depending on their income. That would take some of the burden off of the government as well, which could be used for even more voucher money. When schools are a private interest, there will be a much higher incentive to keep them in top shape. And of course, since the government will be supplying a lot of their tuition, it would have supervisory roles to keep them in line, without directly controlling them.
Ever heard of the idea that public education should be free? I think it makes some sense... saying that people have to PAY for their children go to school -- and if this is private school the bills could be quite high -- is both insane and would be a disasterous idea to implement.
As would be turning over all schooling to private schools, for all the reasons that we have mentioned... most of which you don't address... probably because you have no answer.
Quote:Now, I don't think it's the school's prerogative to teach kids about sex, especially at the young ages that the programs start (my first sex-ed class was at the age of nine). The school has no obligations to tell a kid anything about sex. It is up to parents to educate their children on that matter.
Parents? Do you live on Earth or Fantasy-land? That's absurd. Parents should do something but usually don't do enough early enough... it makes sense since its a touchy topic...
No, you can't rely on parents. The schools must do something. Sure kids don't take a lot out of it but if they didn't have that they'd have ONLY rumors to go on, and that'd be a even bigger disaster than the current state of the issue! THINK!
Quote:Well, in my opinion schools should teach morals, because morals are not universal. There are certain things society accepts and certain things it does not. I know children need to have their own values, but they also need a base to start from, and if they start with no morals, they'll never acquire them on their own.
What morals? Most of the ones you're probably thinking of adding to curriculums aren't universal...
Quote:From my experience, sex-ed classes basically scared the crap out of you sexually, basically telling you that sex is Russian Roulette and if you hit wrong you'll end up with a myriad of colorful venereal diseases (accompanied by colorful, detailed images). And yet, I guess they aren't working because teen sex is always rising.
Sure it could/should be better but its many, many times better than your non-solution to the problem.
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 26th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I've already responded to exactly that question.
By saying that most kids won't get vouchers and will be left behind? No. That has nothing to do with the question I asked.
Quote:You underestimate the effect of better funding. Its not just a building. Its having enough teachers. Better curriculums. After-school programs. Extracurricular activities and encouraging people to participate in them. And working to fight atmospheres of drugs and violence. None of that can be done with Republican funding levels.
How will extra funding eliminate, or even help to abate the largest problem in poor, urban schools: The violence and drugs? The lack of discipline? What could money buy that will change this?
I'm all for better curriculums and better teachers, but funding never seems to go this route...
Think about it: Why is it that back in the 50's, even when public school had funding issues (or in the 30s when there were REAL funding issues), why were public schools not even remotely half as bad as they are now? Why were grades so much higher, and behavior so much better then?
The answer: Higher standards and more discipline. Less attention to teaching sex and more attention to teaching the three Rs. It's not about the money and never has been.
Quote:Slightly, but its hardly a big problem.
That you really believe that frightens me. It's a much larger problem than you care to admit.
Quote:'but'? That should be 'because'...
And school isn't just for what will immediately become useful in life. Its for learning things, important and less important to your work or life... its for LEARNING.
No. School is for learning about skills that will help you make a living. It should NOT be a new-age cultural enlightenment center or a sexual therapy studio. We don't have the time to waste on this garbage when increasing numbers of high-school seniors can barely read.
Quote:Oh, what do you mean by "multiculturalism"? I don't really understand what you mean by it...
Classes for Native-American studies or Tribal African history. Revision of American and European history to include more references to other cultures, and to demonize Anglo-Saxony. Preaching diversity instead of assimilation. Worthless, and ultimately harmful. When people like Stalin and Malcolm X are considered heroes in history is when we have a problem.
Quote:As for sex ed, its a very important class. Sure it might not help a lot, but its VERY important to have the class... and it doesn't just teach you how to use condoms.
You admit it's not very helpful, yet you consder it important... VERY important. How important can it be if, as you admit, it doesn't help much?
You're right. It doesn't help much, and you're wrong, it's not important at all. It's not up to the government to teach this sort of thing to children.
Quote:Sure everyone hates it but that doesn't mean it should go away, or that it has no use. It does.
You just said it doesn't.
Quote:Uh... yeah. Right.
*backs away slowly*
The nice men in the padded van will be here soon...
This in lieu of an actual intelligent response. Let's give the boy a hand!
Quote:Ever heard of the idea that public education should be free? I think it makes some sense... saying that people have to PAY for their children go to school -- and if this is private school the bills could be quite high -- is both insane and would be a disasterous idea to implement.
Again, you're obviously not reading what I'm typing. You don't think public school is free, do you? Everyone pays for it, even if they never have children to use it.
Quote:As would be turning over all schooling to private schools, for all the reasons that we have mentioned... most of which you don't address... probably because you have no answer.
Do you know the relationship between supply and demand? Obviously not.
Quote:Parents? Do you live on Earth or Fantasy-land? That's absurd. Parents should do something but usually don't do enough early enough... it makes sense since its a touchy topic...
No, you can't rely on parents. The schools must do something. Sure kids don't take a lot out of it but if they didn't have that they'd have ONLY rumors to go on, and that'd be a even bigger disaster than the current state of the issue! THINK!
So then it becomes the government's responsibility? Bullshit. People are more sexually irresponsible now than in the times when government did not teach sex ed, so how on earth can you say it's REQUIRED? Are you stupid? This was never a problem when it was up to parents to teach their children about sexuality. I mean, you just come out with the most asanine things sometimes.
Quote:What morals? Most of the ones you're probably thinking of adding to curriculums aren't universal...
I'm not talking about adding moral instrution to curriculum. I mean basic morals that you practice in social interaction: Respecting authority, respecting those around you, being polite, work hard... basic tenets of human interaction that are slowly being deleted from society as it has become more liberal.
Quote:Sure it could/should be better but its many, many times better than your non-solution to the problem.
History says otherwise. Explain why teenage pregnancy is eponentially higher now than in the days when sexual education was exclusively the parents' duty. Explain how sexual education in school has in the slightest bit done anything to stop it. If having sex-ed taught in schools is "many, many times better" than having parents teach it, why is it that since the implementation of school-taught sexual education have minors become so much more irresponsible sexually?
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 26th June 2003
Quote:By saying that most kids won't get vouchers and will be left behind? No. That has nothing to do with the question I asked.
If everyone got full vouchers then private schools would be different from public in one way only: no national standards. And that wouldn't be a good change...
Quote:How will extra funding eliminate, or even help to abate the largest problem in poor, urban schools: The violence and drugs? The lack of discipline? What could money buy that will change this?
I'm all for better curriculums and better teachers, but funding never seems to go this route...
Think about it: Why is it that back in the 50's, even when public school had funding issues (or in the 30s when there were REAL funding issues), why were public schools not even remotely half as bad as they are now? Why were grades so much higher, and behavior so much better then?
The answer: Higher standards and more discipline. Less attention to teaching sex and more attention to teaching the three Rs. It's not about the money and never has been.
Sure, money isn't the whole answer. But it goes a LONG way to helping with the problem. I can't see how you can deny that students in a school with all the things I mentioned wouldn't be more motivated and would do better than ones in schools without them... it makes no sense... yet its your position. Huh?
As for behavior I wouldn't say its a big problem in most places.
Quote:No. School is for learning about skills that will help you make a living. It should NOT be a new-age cultural enlightenment center or a sexual therapy studio. We don't have the time to waste on this garbage when increasing numbers of high-school seniors can barely read.
Quote:Classes for Native-American studies or Tribal African history. Revision of American and European history to include more references to other cultures, and to demonize Anglo-Saxony. Preaching diversity instead of assimilation. Worthless, and ultimately harmful. When people like Stalin and Malcolm X are considered heroes in history is when we have a problem.
Okay.
*School should be boring and dull and only cover things directly useful to the real world. Check.
So we should get rid of history, philosophy, Latin, non-local foreign languages, etc, etc? Great idea! None of them are that useful in careers either, after all! Just like sex ed and multicultural programs!
And we should use the old, inaccurate history of the world so that we can protect our Western European biases into the indefinite future. That sounds like such a great idea too... I mean who cares about accurate history? Its far better to do history as America-firsters see it!
And actually wanting other racial groups to stay as a unique group withing the societal whole? Silly late 20th century idea... we should go back to the good old days of Ellis Island and forced name changes because they are hard to pronounce, and ... discouraging ... the speaking of native languages and doing rituals?
Yippee!
Or how about NOT?
History is, and always has been, my favorite subject in school. The thought of changing history to suit your Western European tastes is an awful one...
Quote:You admit it's not very helpful, yet you consder it important... VERY important. How important can it be if, as you admit, it doesn't help much?
You're right. It doesn't help much, and you're wrong, it's not important at all. It's not up to the government to teach this sort of thing to children.
I mean that the kids don't think they learned anything from it. But they did... and it WILL help them, whether they admit it or not.
Quote:This in lieu of an actual intelligent response. Let's give the boy a hand!
There is no way to respond to such an idiotic statement in any other way.
DEMOCRATS DO WHAT THEY CAN TO GET MONEY FOR EDUCATION.
REPUBLICANS DO WHAT THEY CAN TO CUT IT.
And you try to imply that Republicans are BETTER on education because the Democrats cut education to give to other programs?
You really ARE insane...
Quote:Again, you're obviously not reading what I'm typing. You don't think public school is free, do you? Everyone pays for it, even if they never have children to use it.
Taxes and direct payments are very different things.
Quote:Do you know the relationship between supply and demand? Obviously not.
How does that relate, exactly to, say, DLN's statements on this issue?
Didn't think so.
Quote:So then it becomes the government's responsibility? Bullshit. People are more sexually irresponsible now than in the times when government did not teach sex ed, so how on earth can you say it's REQUIRED? Are you stupid? This was never a problem when it was up to parents to teach their children about sexuality. I mean, you just come out with the most asanine things sometimes.
If they'd had a media like we have they would have a far worse problem than us because of their lack of official teaching on the issue.
Quote:I'm not talking about adding moral instrution to curriculum. I mean basic morals that you practice in social interaction: Respecting authority, respecting those around you, being polite, work hard... basic tenets of human interaction that are slowly being deleted from society as it has become more liberal.
Ah, so we can all learn to say "sir" and "ma'am" like all you nice polite Southerners?
That's such a funny thing... I know a few people from the south and its like they do it by instict, but there's no reason for it I can see...
Oh, and its not like schools don't try to do some of those things...
Quote:History says otherwise. Explain why teenage pregnancy is eponentially higher now than in the days when sexual education was exclusively the parents' duty. Explain how sexual education in school has in the slightest bit done anything to stop it. If having sex-ed taught in schools is "many, many times better" than having parents teach it, why is it that since the implementation of school-taught sexual education have minors become so much more irresponsible sexually?
That its not taught especialy well (a big part of that blame are all the schools that can't talk about contraception because of rightwingers who would sue them) and that students have far more influences on them now.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 26th June 2003
Though post secondary education is not quite the same thing as elementry and high school educations I think that you can look at the example of Canadian universities and colledges to show how publicly funded institutions can be by far supperior to private institutions.
Currently the vast majority of universities (in canada university refers to institutions that have four year degree granting programs where a colledge refers to what I think you would call a community colledge where they have 2 year diploma granting programs) are publicly funded and a majority of colledges and tech schools.
The reason for this is that the private institutions could not keep up with standards set by the publicly funded institutions when they were introduced, and eventually many of the private for profit schools closed because they were inferior to the well managed publicly funded isntitutions and many of them ended up being transfered to government control.
None of the private schools that remain open are well known on an international or national level because the quality of education they deliver doesn't even compare to that of the publicly funded institutions, but publicly funded schools like McGill University, University of Waterloo, University of Toronto and Queens University are well known internationally for the quality of schooling they deliver and not only schools that many Canadians want to attend but also recive thousands of applications a year from American students and western Europeans.
So if properly funded and managed public institutions can almost completly replace private instituions and can give a good quality of education
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 26th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
If everyone got full vouchers then private schools would be different from public in one way only: no national standards. And that wouldn't be a good change...
Oh, there would most definitely be standards. Those schools will be fighting for those kids to get into their school, they can't help but have higher standards unless they really don't care about money.
Quote:Sure, money isn't the whole answer. But it goes a LONG way to helping with the problem. I can't see how you can deny that students in a school with all the things I mentioned wouldn't be more motivated and would do better than ones in schools without them... it makes no sense... yet its your position. Huh?
You really come across as someone who never really experienced the world. Were you a rich kid from a private school? Pompous liberals often are. How easy is it to concentrate on schoolwork when you have good reason to fear for your life while you're there?
Quote:As for behavior I wouldn't say its a big problem in most places.
Okay, now I REALLY don't believe you ever attended public school.
Quote:Okay.
*School should be boring and dull and only cover things directly useful to the real world. Check.
So we should get rid of history, philosophy, Latin, non-local foreign languages, etc, etc? Great idea! None of them are that useful in careers either, after all! Just like sex ed and multicultural programs!
History, philosophy and languages all have real-world applications.
Quote:And we should use the old, inaccurate history of the world so that we can protect our Western European biases into the indefinite future. That sounds like such a great idea too... I mean who cares about accurate history? Its far better to do history as America-firsters see it!
The old, inaccurate history of the world is infinitely preferable to the new, even more inaccurate history of the world that considers us to be a race of evil and terror, whereas everyone else was kind and benevolent. Suddenly America is genocidal but Communist Russia and China are not.
Quote:And actually wanting other racial groups to stay as a unique group withing the societal whole? Silly late 20th century idea... we should go back to the good old days of Ellis Island and forced name changes because they are hard to pronounce, and ... discouraging ... the speaking of native languages and doing rituals?
Yippee!
Why should we adapt to foriegn customs? Other countries don't do that for us! If you move to a foreign nation, you should learn to adopt their language and customs as your own.
Quote:History is, and always has been, my favorite subject in school. The thought of changing history to suit your Western European tastes is an awful one...
So instead we'll change it to demonize Europeans. They did nothing worthy of praise and lived only to destroy. Wonderful idea.
Quote:I mean that the kids don't think they learned anything from it. But they did... and it WILL help them, whether they admit it or not.
What did you learn from it? I sure didn't get anything out of it except a few new vocabulary words. My dad taught me more in one day than I learned in five years of school-based sex ed. Maybe your parents weren't competent enough to teach you, but that doesn't mean everyone's are.
Quote:There is no way to respond to such an idiotic statement in any other way.
DEMOCRATS DO WHAT THEY CAN TO GET MONEY FOR EDUCATION.
REPUBLICANS DO WHAT THEY CAN TO CUT IT.
And you try to imply that Republicans are BETTER on education because the Democrats cut education to give to other programs?
You really ARE insane...
You missed the point. Again. Why do I bother?
Quote:Taxes and direct payments are very different things.
Yes. Taxes are usually wasted. Direct payments are not.
Quote:How does that relate, exactly to, say, DLN's statements on this issue?
Didn't think so.
I wasn't responding to DLN, I was responding to you. And you obviously have no clue.
Quote:If they'd had a media like we have they would have a far worse problem than us because of their lack of official teaching on the issue.
They wouldn't HAVE a media like us, because people back then would not have allowed it. Unfortunately, the liberals came to power, and then the media went to shit.
Quote:Ah, so we can all learn to say "sir" and "ma'am" like all you nice polite Southerners?
No, so you can say "sir" and "ma'am" like polite and respectful human beings. Instead kids today call authority figures such wonderful things like bitches and motherfuckers to their face. Certainly a welcome alternative to sir and ma'am, right?
Quote:That's such a funny thing... I know a few people from the south and its like they do it by instict, but there's no reason for it I can see...
It's called civility, you moron. It's called showing people respect. How can you possibly say it's a bad thing? You really are nuts.
Quote:Oh, and its not like schools don't try to do some of those things...
Then all hope is not lost.
Quote:That its not taught especialy well (a big part of that blame are all the schools that can't talk about contraception because of rightwingers who would sue them) and that students have far more influences on them now.
Of course it's not taught well. NOTHING is taught well anymore. And it should not be taught at all by schools. But contraceptives are ALWAYS talked about, and there are very few rightwingers who object to it.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 26th June 2003
Quote:No, so you can say "sir" and "ma'am" like polite and respectful human beings. Instead kids today call authority figures such wonderful things like bitches and motherfuckers to their face. Certainly a welcome alternative to sir and ma'am, right?
Kids calling adults sir or ma'am in normal coversation isn't something I've ever seen anyone who isn't from the south do... its a southern thing. It doesn't mean you aren't polite or something, but being that formal? Why would anyone do that?
As I said, its a regionalism. Like soda vs. pop. :)
Quote:Oh, there would most definitely be standards. Those schools will be fighting for those kids to get into their school, they can't help but have higher standards unless they really don't care about money.
But if they are private they aren't as obligated to follow them. And poor schools in districts with little money? Forget it...
Quote:You really come across as someone who never really experienced the world. Were you a rich kid from a private school? Pompous liberals often are. How easy is it to concentrate on schoolwork when you have good reason to fear for your life while you're there?
Actually, I was in public school. I thought ours was pretty good. Fear for your life? Er... in inner cities, maybe... but even there I think you overstate it for almost all cases.
Sure some kids had behavior issues, and were in special ed... but its not like it does major harm to most of the students or anything. I would say that in Jr. High there were some problems, but doesn't Jr. High stink everywhere?
Quote:The old, inaccurate history of the world is infinitely preferable to the new, even more inaccurate history of the world that considers us to be a race of evil and terror, whereas everyone else was kind and benevolent. Suddenly America is genocidal but Communist Russia and China are not.
Right, right. Because trying to teach the whole story means you teach that Stalin and Mao are good people... yeah...
I see no connection between saying history as it happened and saying those were good people. Because they weren't...
Oh, and us a force of evil and terror? Hardly! Have you read many highschool history books? While they are a bit better than they used to be in being balanced, they still show us as usually good... because we are...
You just must acknowledge things like what the Europeans did to the peoples of the Americas and Africa. Its a MAJOR part of our history.
No, the American Indians and African tribes weren't great perfect examples before the evil white men came and killed them. That is a myth. They fought eachother, did destroy land by fire, killed species off (like all of North America's really big game), etc... but compared to what we did to them? Tame.
Quote:Why should we adapt to foriegn customs? Other countries don't do that for us! If you move to a foreign nation, you should learn to adopt their language and customs as your own.
First, no one has to adopt foreign customs.
Second, America is a unique nation in the world -- we are a nation immigrants. I know it sounds dumb but it really is true...
If America was like Western Europe and Japan and had almost no immigration we would be having their problem right now: declining population. Our population is only growing because we allow huge immigration...
And because we allow that, we have to acknowledge their cultures. Yes, they will assimilate to some extent, sure, within a generation or two... but they shouldn't forget their heritage, like we made people do until not that long ago!
As for us learning about other nations I'd think that that could easily be very relevant for some people.
Quote:History, philosophy and languages all have real-world applications.
So do multicultural studies.
Quote:What did you learn from it? I sure didn't get anything out of it except a few new vocabulary words. My dad taught me more in one day than I learned in five years of school-based sex ed. Maybe your parents weren't competent enough to teach you, but that doesn't mean everyone's are.
I don't think I learned much from them either... something but not much. I don't really remember my parents ever telling me, maybe they did. I don't know. There was this program in church we did when we were 13 or 14 or something... and probably a little from school. Not a whole lot. But I bet that for some people they do learn from the school programs...
Quote:You missed the point. Again. Why do I bother?
How is this anything other than a reply to your statement several posts ago that we were discussing in that quote?
Quote:I wasn't responding to DLN, I was responding to you. And you obviously have no clue.
I guess you missed the posts I did where I said essentially the same thing he did. But he said it better, so I referred you to his post... his most recent one is quite good too (along with the others). I think it shows that private schools aren't the answer, really...
Quote:Yes. Taxes are usually wasted. Direct payments are not.
I would definitely not say that taxes are wasted... well some are, but not the vast majority of them.
Quote:They wouldn't HAVE a media like us, because people back then would not have allowed it. Unfortunately, the liberals came to power, and then the media went to shit.
Democrats were in office from 1932 to 1952.
Hmm... yet you talk about the 30s and 50s...
Oh, and they couldn't stop the media any more than we could. What would they do, make cable TV and the internet illegal?
Quote:Of course it's not taught well. NOTHING is taught well anymore. And it should not be taught at all by schools. But contraceptives are ALWAYS talked about, and there are very few rightwingers who object to it.
I wouldn't call the whole Catholic Church "very few". No way. And they object. So while it is taught in most places the issue is really danced around and they almost always deephatise it and try to push abstinance... which is fine for some people but won't stop anyone who wants to. And those people need the stuff on contraception... in school and preferably not from their friends or some sort-of-conversation with their parents.
It's unfortunate... - Dark Lord Neo - 26th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Second, America is a unique nation in the world -- we are a nation immigrants. I know it sounds dumb but it really is true...
If America was like Western Europe and Japan and had almost no immigration we would be having their problem right now: declining population. Our population is only growing because we allow huge immigration...
And because we allow that, we have to acknowledge their cultures. Yes, they will assimilate to some extent, sure, within a generation or two... but they shouldn't forget their heritage, like we made people do until not that long ago!
Canada is in a similer position as the US, we are also a nation of immigrants, but instead of being a melting pot we attempt to have a multicultural society. People are encouraged to learn english or french depending on the area of the country they imigrated too but other than that they are not forced to join our culture. The government actaully puts millions of dollars a year into groups that help people preserve their ethnic identity. In some provinces there is a whole seperate publicly funded school system that catholics can choose to go to, and within the general, then within the public school system there are schools or programs for many different ethnic groups where there is demand for them, and parents can choose to send their children to one of these programs or send them into a normal public school program. In other areas the seperate publicly funded board may be a french board instead of a catholic one because that is what is in demand, and even within the seperate boards there are multicultural programs, the publicly funded catholic schoolboard here has French and Ukranian programs, and so does the general public school board, but some of the public school boards also have programs for Native Americans, Muslims, Francaphones and other minority groups.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 26th June 2003
Well that is a very sensible system.
It's unfortunate... - Undertow - 26th June 2003
Instead of AA, I think more funding should go to the poorer schools in a given state instead of a frelling booster seat policy...
It's unfortunate... - Nintendarse - 27th June 2003
The government should not have a role in teaching children about sex.
So I'd imagine that you don't like the government to teach children about cigarettes, drugs, etc?
Schools should teach history from a Western European perspective.
I don't know where you got your education, but I felt my history lessons were quite balanced. It is pretty objective to say that Western Europeans treated the rest of the world with a tint of supremacy. But when kids in the class started to make quality judgements on Western Europeans (Oh, they're evil), the teacher would usually explain that history has many viewpoints, and being self-centered is characteristic of practically every civilization. Western Europeans simply had the power to spread their ideals, assuming that their ideals were objectively good for all. If we assume this, as they did, the Western Europeans were doing a wonderful thing for the world. But it is more informative to examine how that assumption allowed them to make mistakes in regions like Africa and the Middle East.
Possibly my most interesting history lesson made me question the legendary status of the forefathers of the United States of America. From the British perspective, our forefathers were terrorists. We killed the authority police force, we killed tax collectors, we destroyed property, and we revolted. To us, they were freedom fighters, fighting a principled fight. They were the creators of this great nation. They were our forefathers. This lesson was meant not to destroy our fantasy image of George Washington, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, but see that history contains no charicatures, only humans. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is a matter of perspective. If you agree with that, then you can see that there are many similarities between Anglo-saxons and Arabs. It is a shame that the United States government does not see it this way.
Possibly the most important thing I have learned to do with history is to remove quality judgements from it (although it is difficult in some cases). There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There are simply people, ideas, triumphs, mistakes, etc. Everyone is simply doing their best to do what they think is best. Is that always the best for all? Of course not. If everyone could always do what is best for all, we wouldn't be human.
In general, I am against forcing one's ideals on other people, but there is a marked difference between what the United States does to immigrants and what Western European nations did to the World: immigrants choose to come to America. Africa, India, China, the Americas, etc. did not choose to be ruled by Western Europeans.
My system of morals, guided by this view of history, is centered on one principle: do onto others as you would do onto yourself. That is possibly the most objective form of moral that I have found in my short life.
Society agrees upon things that you can and cannot do
I agree. Do these change? Of course. Are these occasionally contradictory? Yes. The idea is that, over time, these contradictions will be sorted out. Example: slavery. Does everyone have to agree with the societal values? Of course not. If it were that way, slavery would never have never come to an end.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 27th June 2003
Quote:So I'd imagine that you don't like the government to teach children about cigarettes, drugs, etc?
Yeah, that's a great idea...
History. First, not everyone gets taught a view as fair as that... everyone should, though. It is best to not bias one side or the other but to explain it as it was... and for history, that isn't based on "who is better"... its "who had power". Because as you say, EVERY society thinks that its the best and that the rest of the world is barbarians. So the fact that the Western Europeans did that too isn't surprising. And we can condemn some of their actions... but can't be surprised that they happened, because given the public opinions of the time what happened was pretty much inevitable. If other societies had done that it'd have happened the same way... African and American Indian societies aren't inherently great or anything. As I said, they have many flaws. In both cases they fought eachother a LOT... they constantly were at ewar with eachother. Of course the Europeans exploited that, but it was their tribal culture that caused that problem. And both did do ecological damage. They just didn't have Western Europe's level of technology...
The American Revolution. Yes, they did revolt. They rebelled about mainly taxes and wanting representation in parliament. And yes to the British governement they were rebels and terrorists. And some of their reasons for revolting weren't that great... I mean, revolting because taxes are high? That is so dumb... but the representation part is a major issue. And as the British parliament learned the revolt wasn't as much about the level of taxes as it was about the fact that they had no say in what the taxes were. Yes, they were rebels. Hence its a "Revolution".
Oh, and as for myths... George Washington wasn't a great general... he lost more battles than he won and never showed great military skill in the war consistently. He was a great man, but really was a leader and a politician... he wasn't great because of his generalship. It was because he could lead and managed to keep an army in the field for seven years... which was quite an accomplishment, but not related to military victories.
But comparing that to the Arabs? Huh? How so? Could you explain that some more?
Quote:My system of morals, guided by this view of history, is centered on one principle: do onto others as you would do onto yourself. That is possibly the most objective form of moral that I have found in my short life.
Yeah, that's a pretty objective and fair moral to hold... but really hard to follow all the time...
Quote:I agree. Do these change? Of course. Are these occasionally contradictory? Yes. The idea is that, over time, these contradictions will be sorted out. Example: slavery. Does everyone have to agree with the societal values? Of course not. If it were that way, slavery would never have never come to an end.
Yes, of course. It does takes time for each of these issues to get sorted out...but in the end they will be, to the betterment of everyone.
It's unfortunate... - Darunia - 27th June 2003
Racism...? Oh, sorry. Must be an American thing.
I'm going to kick you in the teeth.
It's unfortunate... - A Black Falcon - 28th June 2003
First, I note that Weltall gave up.
Second...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/06/28/school.vouchers.ap/index.html
Interesting, it seems that vouchers aren't exactly catching on. :)
It's unfortunate... - Fittisize - 28th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
I'm going to kick you in the teeth.
Der...but it's true...
It's unfortunate... - Weltall - 29th June 2003
It's very difficult to debate when I'm up against three, sometimes four people. It's really not fair to me. Unfortunately, the other conservative-minded people here have the right idea, and stay out of it. I should follow suit.
And anyway, we had gotten way off topic.
And third, you keep repeating your wrongness so it makes no sense for me to continue. That excuse always works for you when you cop out. We're already re-treading the same freaking arguments repeatedly and it will end up turning into a fifty-page thread filled with bickering that goes nowhere.
Besides, just because I have nothing further to add doesn't mean I'm not right ;)