Joined: April 2007
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 10 2008,03:48)|
|Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 09 2008,18:24)|
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 08 2008,19:52)|
While it may be uncharitable, it isn't inaccurate. His premise is that the additional (and presumably disproportionate) amount spent to educate 7% of the students would be better used by adding it to the common pot with the intention of improving the common educational system. That is certainly true. Trivially true. Dress it up in whatever lofty language you chose, you are still trying to deny the fortunate few a superior education in the name of marginally improving the general system. Just as dumping a bucket of water into a pool doesn't raise the pool by the same amount the bucket goes down by.
Preventing parents with the desire and/or means to send their children to private school the opportunity to do so in pursuit of some undefinable general good is social engineering and is an affront to individual rights.
Sorry Carlson, but it's pub-debate-one-hour-rant time. I find what you are saying to be both accurate and inaccurate, and here's why.
I will state up front that you are way off base in your analysis of what I said. You have taken such liberties with my scant words that I am seriously pissed off that you didn't have the courtesy to even buy me dinner before subjecting my comments to such unseemly violence. But, I will chalk it up to the impetuousness of youth, and show you where you have mischaracterized me.
While taking money out of the public schools to fund the comprehensives would not solve the problem,and is something with which I disagree, I find it distasteful that you hold individual rights to such a high degree as to (seemingly) destroy public rights.
First of all, I challenge you, my young friend, to show specifically where I said that money should be taken away from public schools to finance private education. Let me save you the effort. I didn't. Indeed, a more charitable reading of my comments to Mr. Christopher as to why vouchers are, ultimately, bad for public school systems should have led you to the (accurate) conclusion that I happen to agree that vouchers are bad and do not support them.
|I fail to see why low taxes are such a good thing when at the expense of public services. Colour me whatever you like, but I want to live in a nation with state guaranteed health, education, transport and power (gas, electricity etc.) of a high standard and higher taxes to be able to support these things. I fail to see what the average US citizen has against these, unless you assume you are all still living under the influence of Joseph McCarthy and are utterly afraid of turning "red" whatever the hell that actually means.|
Selection bias. You don't know f**k all about what the average US citizen wants. You read the words of the loudmouths and assume they speak for the rest of us. While it is certainly true that we value our individual liberties more than many do, you really don't have the first clue with regards to what the average American believes. So, let me give you the beliefs of this American.
I don't have children and I pay a buttload of taxes that go to support public education. I believe we have an obligation as a society to provide a decent public education and even though I don't have any children through which to recoup those taxes I have paid, I pay them willingly. I don't agree that money should be taken out of the public school system to defray the cost of private education. However, I also believe that parents that have the means and/or desire to send their children for a qualitatively better private education should not be stopped from doing so in the name of some nebulous social engineering scheme.
With regard to healthcare and such, that isn't the topic here and I won't take off on a tangent other than to say, you don't have the first idea about what I think about such matters and you really ought not pretend that you do.
I find the argument that denying the few a higher standard of education in order to improve the education of the masses is somehow bad to be increadibly distasteful and exceptionally supportive of a hereditary state.
Preventing parents who wish to give their children a better education from doing so (and apparently forcibly extracting from them the money by which they would do so) is a bad thing. It is making those children a pawn in a spiteful game intended to drag down to the mean those who, by effort or inheritance, have more than you think they should. Buckets and pools, my man, buckets and pools.
Oh, and I might suggest that you probably ought to reconsider lecturing Americans about a hereditary state. We don't have a House of Lords.
I find it to be mildly disturbing that personal freedom is considered to be the number one priority, over care for others within the state or outside of it. It seems to be a primary tenant of totally free capitalism, and is one of the reasons I dislike this philosophy wholeheartedly.
Individual freedom is at the core of the American character. It is at the heart of the reason we told George III to go fuck himself. We Americans prefer to make our own decisions regarding what is best for ourselves rather than deferring them to some faceless bureaucrat who is only intent on enforcing regression to the mean.
Ok, I sent a PM about the first point. Secondly, I may well be wrong about the opinions of the averageamerican, but I based my ideas off a large group of such I met and talked, sometimes at great length, to oline and in person, if I got to meet them. I fear I must also admit to basing my opinons partially on what we are fed as American news (we get some CNN and ABC, and I think it's NBC, plus I tend to look at US news sources for my course on various matters) and the views we get from your politicians, who we (probably falsely) assume speak for you as a nation. I also get some of my opinions from American political pundits and journalists, and from what they say, extrapolate, probably almost entirely incorrectly from this. Mea culpa. Again, as to the public schools issue, I'd like to direct you to the PM.
As to the House of Lords, it's totally powerless, and effectively only acts as a filibuster of sorts. Yes, bills passed do enter the Lords for review, but no, they cannot stop them, merely postpone them going into effect and/or suggest changes. Equally, the peerage scheme is, very slowly, I must admit, being altered.
I feel that your anger in this post was understandable given the issue I PMed you about, and I would like again to appologise for this failure in communication.
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK
Roddenberry is my God.