Should education be mandatory and state-run? - Page 11 - Political Fever

Zephyr · #**101** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Yeah, right! You keep believing such nonsense.

Maybe no one told you but Chan != a god.

Quote:

Why? Who the hell are you to dictate that I shouldn't decide what's best for MY child. Keep your damned hands off MY child!!!!!!!

Oh yeah? If you're too stupid to do what's best for the kid, you forfeit the right to make that decision. Too ****ing bad.

Quote:

Oh, and you know what's best for everyone else's kids? Who the hell do you think you are to decide what's best for someone else's kids?

Someone who actually knows whats best for kids. I am one. I know that a free and mandatory education is in my best interest.

Chan · #**102** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Maybe no one told you but Chan != a god.

Neither is government; so stop worshiping it!

Quote:

Oh yeah? If you're too stupid to do what's best for the kid, you forfeit the right to make that decision. Too ****ing bad.

And who gets to make that decision? A bunch of damned government-loving nanny staters that don't have any kids of their own and who are so stupid themselves that they have to rely on government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

Quote:

Someone who actually knows whats best for kids. I am one. I know that a free and mandatory education is in my best interest.

Then get off your lazy backside, turn off your damned computer, get a job, and support yourself while you still know everything! Saying that kids know what's best for kids is about one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on an internet forum.

Chan · #**103** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

If someone doesn't properly raise their child, it becomes society's problem (they go to jail and the tax payers have to pay for them), if the child is raised properly, than they benefit society, therefore society has a stake in it for the kids to be properly raised and that includes getting a proper education.

And just who the hell gets to decide what "properly" means in this context? You? A bunch of damned government-loving nanny staters who are so incapable of taking care of themselves that they have to rely on government to take care of them from cradle to grave?

Quote:

Ah, yes, the meaningless rant of "I'm going to attack you now, rather than the issue."

No, it's a major part of the issue. People like you think that government should take care of you from cradle to grave and that people (whether they want to or not) must surrender everything they have and are to the government.

Quote:

Very few. Those right out of school almost all can read beyond a 6th grade level, and most can find any major city on a map (within 50 miles or so). Now how many 40 year olds have forgotten much of that stuff because they haven't used it in 20+ years is a different story.

NOT! I read the school records of many of these kids - including the test results. A great many of them can't read beyond a sixth grade level and almost none can read at a 12th grade level.

Quote:

I'm not talking about stealing your child out of his room in the middle of the night, calm down.

No, you're talking about having the government do it for you just because my parenting doesn't meet your approval.

Quote:

If you want to leave completely individually, then go live in the wilderness where your actions effect you and no one else, and where no one else can do anything to you. But so long as you are a member of society, you are a part of society and society has a duty to protect and look out for your well being, and your child's well being.

Like hell it does! The Puritans tried that crap and look what happened: the Salem witch hunts!

Chan · #**104** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Nor have I ever heard any legitimate proposals to do so. Let's keep the anti-government fearmongering to a minimum.

All it takes is for someone in government to propose it and then it becomes "legitimate." Given where the United States is going, don't be so stupidly naive to think it can't happen. I'm sure if you or I had suggested 20 years ago that there would be something like the Patriot Act, we would have received the same naive response that you gave here.

Quote:

True. My insinct is to see what can be done about that in the public system, rather than dismantle it. Higher standards, better review....things that our fearless leadership think is too difficult to tackle.

That's your problem: you're willing to put your trust in government.

Quote:

Ah, the legendary slippery slope argument. The answer: nothing. It's has ALWAYS been the parents responsibility to get the kids to school, NOT to teach them, as well. That's what trained, qualified teachers are for.

We got where we are in America (the Patriot Act, huge government bureaucracy, etc.) through the slippery slope.

Quote:

What I am going for is a situation where EVERY kid has radically improved education. The voucher and other ideas I have heard simply do not address the fact that we can't tolerate ANY school underperforming, and having parents endlessly "shopping" for K-12 education seems like it's missing the whole point, and leaves schools to try to figure out how to do it on whatever budgets they got. I'd rather they had anything they needed, MORE than, so we could get arts and music and PE back into the curriculum.

Not that I was ever suggesting vouchers. Competition, the "shopping" for K-12 education can be a good thing.

Quote:

Now, my ideas involve really big changes like busting the unions, yearly performance reviews of teachers, more standardization, and major investments in infrastructures and facilities. I want American schoolkids to whip up on any international comparison (and I bet I would really piss a lot of comfortable people off to acheive that.)

Your leftist buddies will never let you bust up the teachers union.

Zephyr · #**105** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Neither is government; so stop worshiping it!

I don't worship the government. I worship the people.

Quote:

And who gets to make that decision? A bunch of damned government-loving nanny staters that don't have any kids of their own and who are so stupid themselves that they have to rely on government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

Elected officials, yes.

Quote:

Then get off your lazy backside, turn off your damned computer, get a job, and support yourself while you still know everything! Saying that kids know what's best for kids is about one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on an internet forum.

Hey buddy, why don't you **** off? I know what's best for me. Many kids do not know what's best for them.

xjoe3x · #**106** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

You're argument boils down to this:

1. The children are not society's.
2. The children are not mine.
3. The children are the parents'
4. Given they are the parents', they have the responsibility and right to care for them.
5. This right includes however they see fit.
5. If it kills them, injures them, maims them, oh well. Too bad.
6. "wanks furiously to freedom."

Your ethical argument recognizes no restrictions on parental authority of care. You assume that, because parents are the primary caregivers, and because the children are theirs, not society's, they have ultimate authority over them sans any accountability. This is demonstrated by your statement that parents can deliberately fail to treat their children's health problems, thus killing them, and that's perfectly okay because "they can choose to treat them as they see fit." If because of stupidity, malice, or ignorance, they choose not to treat, say, the measles, because it's against their religious views, they can freely kill or horribly disfigure their kids via parental right. This is ludicrous and ethically bankrupt.

Moreover, the logic of your argument leads to further absurd conclusions. If we accept the premise that parents can deny simple medical care to their children "because they feel like it," there's nothing to stop them from applying the same reasoning to feeding their kids and other types of care. For example, we should also allow parents the unrestricted right to choose how to nourish their children, even if it means starving them on "special religious diets." If they can kill them due to lack of medical care recommended by doctors, I don't see why they can't also starve their kids to death against the recommendations of nutritionists! After all, they aren't MY kids, so what do I care, right?! Maybe they believe prayer will feed their kids, so we should just sit by and watch as they starve to death. Great idea. But yea. My views are so atrocious. How DARE I limit parents' right to exercise life and death over their kids like they are disposable property.

The only difference is the in type of activity, not in the nature of the results OR the logic used to defend them. If you are prepared to argue that parents have the freedom to kill their children by neglectful medical care, they also have the right to kill their children through neglectful feeding, bathing, or hygiene. You clearly fail to understand the purpose and nature of ethics, instead choosing the Libertarian "me me me mine mine mine freedomwank" Libertarian ideology, where killing kids through incompetent, neglectful parenting is okay behaviour. Absolutely heinous. It's all the worse that you couch your ethical deviancy with horsepockey philosobabble about "freedom" so it sounds better.

Just be honest. You favour allowing parents to kill their children through incompetent, neglectful behaviour.

Ya you have it exactly right.

Parents can and should raise there children how they see fit, as long as they are not intentionally beating the child. You seem to want to raise other people children, I see that as being ethically bankrupt. Yes they can fail to treat them and treat them ineffectively if they wish. Just as they can fail to treat themselves or treat themselves ineffectively.

Yes parents should be able to diet there children. They should be able to ban them from fast food. Make them vegetarians. Make them vegans. Whatever they see as best fit.

How dare you try to raise other peoples children is what I would say.

You fail to understand that ETHICS does not just represent your views. What is ethical to you is not ethical at all to me. I do not follow utilitarian ethics, hopefully I never will. My ethics are very much about liberty and freedom, things you want to write off as nothing. Just be honest you wish you could raise everyone else's children. You think you and your morals and your choices are what everyone should do. That is where freedom comes in. Freedom from some people, like you, from forcing to act a certain way. I sure like my ethics a lot more.

xjoe3x · #**107** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Maybe no one told you but Chan != a god.

Oh yeah? If you're too stupid to do what's best for the kid, you forfeit the right to make that decision. Too ****ing bad.

Someone who actually knows whats best for kids. I am one. I know that a free and mandatory education is in my best interest.

You do not represent all kids.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #**108** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Yes parents should be able to diet there children. They should be able to ban them from fast food. Make them vegetarians. Make them vegans. Whatever they see as best fit.

Including starving their children. Check. Watching you tap dance around the implications of your logic is hilarious, yet sad at the same time. "You can't beat your children, but you can starve them to death and refuse them medical care!" That's not even internally consistent logic. You think it's ok for parents to kill their parents through neglect. Period.

If they can kill their kids by refusing medical treatment, they can kill their kids by refusing them food too. You can put your kid on a diet. You can't kill him. Going on a diet is quite a bit different from negligent homicide, which is what you condone. Your ideology is highly conducive to sociopathy.

Zephyr · #**109** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

You do not represent all kids.

I'm aware of that, that's why we need mandatory education.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #**110** (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:58 PM

Just recently in the news, stupid parents refused to get their kids vaccines, so they caught a contagious disease that can kill them. They were stupid and incompetent parents.

Another case I just read about involved parents killing their kids because they decided "prayer" was a good replacement for medicine. They ought to have any kids remaining removed from their household.

And kids should go to school. Parents cannot decide. It's best left up to actual experts on childcare.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password