...the reasoning in the statement:
"Getting rid of public schools and moving to private will increase the standard of education and remain affordable due to competition."
Because I just can't wrap my head around the idea that businesses would have the best interests of the people in mind, or that everyone would be able to afford private education.
~Kai,
Knows a very annoying socialist hating libertarian.
I'm more amused with the idea that parents will choose good schools once the marketers get involved.
The reasoning, Kai, is that the rich should get Andover, and everyone else should get schools run by WalMart or Wackenhut.
The people espousing this are "pre-rich", and of course will be able to afford Andover. Somehow.
Fact is, Libertarianism is a religion, and there is absolutely no sense in arguing with them. Just point, laugh, and walk away in search of someone with a brain.
Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.
The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.
It's complete bull. Competition? How does that work exactly. Is every town in America going to have multiple private schools to choose from? No. A town out in the middle of nowhere, and hour drive from civilization is going to have one school to choose from, and it will be damned expensive. IF, they have a school at all. If not, they're shit out of luck or they're gonna be spending half their day driving their kids to and from school. And so you'll have more home schooling for those who cannot afford or who are too far from a school. I think tests scores would get progressively worse and the social class war would escalate.
In other words, it's a big huge recipe for failure.
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 07:49:51 PM
Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.
The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.
Libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails. End of story.
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 07:49:51 PM
Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.
The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.
Private colleges work in the exact opposite manner though. In order to raise prices, they have to be seen as a 'better' school. To be seen as better, they reject more applications. Most Ivy league schools aren't actually worth anything above state universities except for the brand name and the networking you get from hanging out with rich kids.
So why would large scale private schooling be any different? The school thing never made sense to me, and its probably the biggest reason I pushed libertarianism aside. Did not want to agree with whackjobs who thought that would work.
The reasoning is indeed, as suggested, that multiple schools will compete to attract as many students as possible, and so cut prices.
However, the real world problems with that are clear, as this thread points out. Education is not really like a bottle of cola, it doesn't follow the same rules.
Incidentally, my main worry would be that privately run schools would not offer bad education, but they would offer a very narrow education, focusing on "job-related skills". They don't do that over here, but only because most private schools are the preserve of the elites, where a grounding in philosophy, classical literature and history are considered necessary for social standing.
I agree with all of the above.
While I personally don't think the Government has a right to make demands about what their citizens can and cannot choose to do, that doesn't mean that corporations would supply the niceties of modern civilization better than the government can. That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine" or "You can't grow weed in your basement, for you to smoke on your own"... I do think that IF we have a government, its a useful way to provide social services to the country at large.
Libertarianism, as TGRR pointed out has the dogmatic problem that religions have... rather than saying "The government should tell us what we can and cannot do... but hey, at least they can provide services for the average Joe", they just assume Government = Evil. There are some good arguments for a more lIbertarian stance on some areas.... this particular one is not at all a good argument.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
It's a false premise, plain and simple. Because you can point to pleny of scenarios both present and past where the have's do not and will not share with the have-not's. The correct premise is that the have's do not provide for the have-not's unless forced. That force is government, NOT market share.
Witness: the current health care debacle.
Public school is what gives a poor kid a fighting chance in a world where everything else is pretty much stacked against him.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 07:55:48 PM
The reasoning is indeed, as suggested, that multiple schools will compete to attract as many students as possible, and so cut prices.
However, the real world problems with that are clear, as this thread points out. Education is not really like a bottle of cola, it doesn't follow the same rules.
Incidentally, my main worry would be that privately run schools would not offer bad education, but they would offer a very narrow education, focusing on "job-related skills". They don't do that over here, but only because most private schools are the preserve of the elites, where a grounding in philosophy, classical literature and history are considered necessary for social standing.
:lulz: Yeah, there's no economy of scale with early childhood education. In fact, people thinking there would be is :horrormirth:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 18, 2009, 08:12:55 PM
Public school is what gives a poor kid a fighting chance in a world where everything else is pretty much stacked against him.
No, the schools are stacked against em too in most places.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.
They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2009, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.
They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.
Oh, yeah, I can agree with that.
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
I am planning on doing some small-scale home distilling. I have a couple of friends who already do, and it's not hard.
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 08:19:43 PM
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
The idea is efficiency. Markets are pretty good at providing certain commodities, under certain conditions, more easily than a centrally controlled beaurucracy. See: Soviet bread lines for more. However, the viewpoint is taken to an extreme when everything, from the food you eat to your healthcare to education to armed forces are assumed to have the same logic. Its an inability to understand the basic difference between different types of goods and services, coupled with the wow factor of how well a particular one seems to have worked out (ignoring certain amounts of regulations, cultural and political factors etc).
I think a few quite prominent libertarians are evil fucks (google "instapundit" if you have the time), but I think a fair few are essentially misguided, don't know clearly how economic systems work or apply the word to themselves in another way (civil libertarians, for example, or left-libertarians, and some mutualists).
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 08:19:43 PM
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
"Pre-rich" = I will be wealthy someday, so I don't want to fuck it up for the rich.
The means by which they will someday be wealthy are never made clear, however.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 08:19:43 PM
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
"Pre-rich" = I will be wealthy someday, so I don't want to fuck it up for the rich.
The means by which they will someday be wealthy are never made clear, however.
And Joe the Plumber is their mascot.
kai is you libertarian friend arguing for vouchers or all out privatization?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 18, 2009, 08:15:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 18, 2009, 08:12:55 PM
Public school is what gives a poor kid a fighting chance in a world where everything else is pretty much stacked against him.
No, the schools are stacked against em too in most places.
They're still more open than what libertarian ideas about schooling would lead to (see Cain's thoughts). They teach a kid to read, do basic math, know something about science and history. Students can take skill-oriented stuff if they want, but they can also focus on more intellectual classes, too. Public schools are an avenue of escape to the middle and upper classes IF the person in question wants it bad enough and fights tooth and nail to get it. And happens to be fairly lucky as well. :P
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 08:19:43 PM
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
He really is that narrow mindedly stupid and selfish and hypocritical.
They breed in Starbucks, yes, and other trendy places. I find them in a chain of lunch cafes around here a lot. :P Never in local cafes, though.
They breed everywhere, actually. Most likely in an ivory tower situation, though, where the school of hard knocks has yet to come into their purview(sp?).
Also: schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some. Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday. It's pretty mind-blowing...
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
Also: schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some. Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday. It's pretty mind-blowing...
^This. My mother teaches in a very poor school and I hear all sorts of things. Like access to psychologist. I've heard some horror stories about what her kids have seen at home and at least this way they have someone to talk to about it (one kid she has this year saw a man shot in the head--he said the resulting mess looked like a broken egg). Plus, teachers are required to call child services if they suspect abuse which isn't something they get if it weren't for public schooling.
In addition to a distinct lack of compassion, I'll add that I've noticed in libertarians the idea that "if you're poor, it's your fault." They don't seem to take circumstances into account.
I never hear anything interesting like that.
Then again, the last school my mother was working at costs more to go to per term than the average yearly income in the UK. So I hear stories about parents showing up with bodyguards to pay in cash for their child's tuition, the nightlife in Ankara, what the Queen's sense of humour is like, etc
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
Also: schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some. Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday. It's pretty mind-blowing...
^This. My mother teaches in a very poor school and I hear all sorts of things. Like access to psychologist. I've heard some horror stories about what her kids have seen at home and at least this way they have someone to talk to about it (one kid she has this year saw a man shot in the head--he said the resulting mess looked like a broken egg). Plus, teachers are required to call child services if they suspect abuse which isn't something they get if it weren't for public schooling.
In addition to a distinct lack of compassion, I'll add that I've noticed in libertarians the idea that "if you're poor, it's your fault." They don't seem to take circumstances into account.
Irony being: a lot of THEM are not too well off either. That kind of shit always amazes me.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 08:56:57 PM
I never hear anything interesting like that.
Then again, the last school my mother was working at costs more to go to per term than the average yearly income in the UK. So I hear stories about parents showing up with bodyguards to pay in cash for their child's tuition, the nightlife in Ankara, what the Queen's sense of humour is like, etc
I wouldn't mind hearing about the nightlife in Ankara...but the rest of it, yah, would get old real fast.
Pro-tip: dropping credentials from the Ambassador from the UK to Turkey gets you into the best nightclubs very easily. Even when you're only 17. Or so the Ambassador's daughter told me.
*raises eyebrow* THAT easy? Dayum.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 08:56:57 PM
I never hear anything interesting like that.
Then again, the last school my mother was working at costs more to go to per term than the average yearly income in the UK. So I hear stories about parents showing up with bodyguards to pay in cash for their child's tuition, the nightlife in Ankara, what the Queen's sense of humour is like, etc
Interesting? I'm sorry, but no. Gang violence, drugs, mental illness, and extreme poverty are not interesting when they happen to or affect kids in negative ways. I don't start laughing at people or being interested in their misery until they have at least some control over their lives.
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
Also: schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some. Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday. It's pretty mind-blowing...
^This. My mother teaches in a very poor school and I hear all sorts of things. Like access to psychologist. I've heard some horror stories about what her kids have seen at home and at least this way they have someone to talk to about it (one kid she has this year saw a man shot in the head--he said the resulting mess looked like a broken egg). Plus, teachers are required to call child services if they suspect abuse which isn't something they get if it weren't for public schooling.
In addition to a distinct lack of compassion, I'll add that I've noticed in libertarians the idea that "if you're poor, it's your fault." They don't seem to take circumstances into account.
Irony being: a lot of THEM are not too well off either. That kind of shit always amazes me.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 09:18:56 PM
Interesting? I'm sorry, but no. Gang violence, drugs, mental illness, and extreme poverty are not interesting when they happen to or affect kids in negative ways.
Sure they are. Interesting =/= good or morally right.
I think interesting is apt in Cain's case...there's only so much you can hear about the rich and unaffected, srsly.
The horror that is health care and education in the urban regions in the US is far far more interesting, especially in thinking about how to improve its problems, their causes, etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
Right, because that's why its illegal... not for revenue purposes, no not never. ;-)
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2009, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.
They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.
100% Troof
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 08:18:14 PM
Oh, yeah, I can agree with that.
Pfffft, just cause she is hot and I am not.
I grok your ways, old man.
:lulz:
here in CA "special education" has replaced heath care as the main provider of service for the handicap and disabled kids...
they get nurses to watch them clean them provide for their medical needs, buses to transport them, food to eat, a place to be all day (instead of being institutionalized) and there "education" is basically therapy, exercise swimming etc..
So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.
And then it hit me... I think they may be like the paraplegic that refuses help to get into his wheelchair, even if he falls headfirst into the toilet trying to do it himself. Pride, insane pride... I DON'T NEED THE POOR DON'T NEED A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.
Quote from: ThatFomieDudehere in CA "special education" has replaced heath care as the main provider of service for the handicap and disabled kids...
they get nurses to watch them clean them provide for their medical needs, buses to transport them, a place to be all day (instead of being institutionalized) and there "education" is basically therapy, exercise swimming etc..
IEPs! They're like the "Golden Ticket" of the health care and education systems nexus.
here in sac one school district practically specializes in them (i cant recall the % but it its way high)... closer to 100% than 51%..
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 09:18:56 PM
Interesting? I'm sorry, but no. Gang violence, drugs, mental illness, and extreme poverty are not interesting when they happen to or affect kids in negative ways.
Sure they are. Interesting =/= good or morally right.
Point, I suppose. Now that I think about it, I guess it depends on what kind of "interesting." Interesting like "how do we fix this?" or car-crash interesting is ok or understandable, versus amusement. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 09:38:39 PM
So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.
And then it hit me... I think they may be like the paraplegic that refuses help to get into his wheelchair, even if he falls headfirst into the toilet trying to do it himself. Pride, insane pride... I DON'T NEED THE POOR DON'T NEED A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.
Being on government assistance
is humiliating. Usually the grunt level civil servants make no disguise of the personal distaste they have for you, there is a social stigma attached to taking handouts and, quite often, you have to be answerable about your actions in some degree or another to said civil servants about what you are doing when you are not around them (looking for work etc).
Quite often I suspect this is done on purpose exactly to play to that kind of pride, and to discourage people from taking the money in question. I myself took pride in outwitting said civil servants, but that is a game that gets boring quickly. I mean, they are civil servants, after all.
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 09:18:56 PM
Interesting? I'm sorry, but no. Gang violence, drugs, mental illness, and extreme poverty are not interesting when they happen to or affect kids in negative ways.
Sure they are. Interesting =/= good or morally right.
Point, I suppose. Now that I think about it, I guess it depends on what kind of "interesting." Interesting like "how do we fix this?" or car-crash interesting is ok or understandable, versus amusement. Sorry about that.
No problem.
Quote from: fomenter on September 18, 2009, 09:42:28 PM
here in sac one school district practically specializes in them (i cant recall the % but it its way high)... closer to 100% than 51%..
You know why this is such a big deal?
Unfunded mandates.
they get fed money too, the more they expand the more they get...(part of how unfunded mandates get sold to the public i think)
libertarian wise i don't see the free market taking this new function of education over..
Quote from: fomenter on September 18, 2009, 09:51:30 PM
they get fed money too, the more they expand the more they get...(part of how unfunded mandates get sold to the public i think)
libertarian wise i don't see the free market taking this new function of education over..
except there are those counties, like mine, that sue t he shit out of the state in order to get more funding out of that entity for these new adventures in federal laws.
ours drop services to the regular students, increase class sizes, lay off teachers etc and barely touch or don't touch special ed ( goose/golden egg)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 18, 2009, 08:28:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 08:19:43 PM
Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.
Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.
"Pre-rich" = I will be wealthy someday, so I don't want to fuck it up for the rich.
The means by which they will someday be wealthy are never made clear, however.
And Joe the Plumber is their mascot GOD.
Fixed. And he turned out to be a loser.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 09:38:39 PM
So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.
They've been sold a bill of goods about the "rugged individualist" that never existed.
Whenever I see debates like this I wonder why charter schools are never part of the discussion. They're public schools that take their own directions in the education of their students. New Orleans, home to one of the worst school systems in the country even pre-Katrina, is becoming a beacon for charter school movement, attracting a lot of education reformers as a place to rethink how it's done.
As for special education, what I find the most interesting is how the laws were written in its regard. While currently a great deal of funding goes to kids with special needs, it obviously only goes to a relatively small percentage of students and only the ones on the far low end of whatever measurements they're using. The laws are written for students with special needs, though, which technically includes kids that are on the far high end of these measurements. So there are a lot of students who are in classes that are the equivalent of putting an average student in special education classes.
Once again, I had a bunch of work to do before I could finish this thought completely so I'll end it here.
Hm...not sure if what you said above fits the scenario I see played out here in CA, EofC. You see, CA is now identifying more and MORE kids with IEPs so that they GET what they need in order to get through school. This has repercussions of good and bad proportions, of course. There's a serious encroachment on the General Fund (i.e. the kids WITHOUT IEPs), and this means that as resources dwindle for the general public population that relies upon public education as a system to not only rear and train their children but also to feed them, keep them safe and give them some tertiary form of health care, there's less and less to do so with in the way of resources, staff and financial wherewithal.
I don't see the federal mandate for special education doing anything other than making sure that kids with IEPs get a better deal in the end than the ones without, esp in CA. You see, the kids with IEPs are tracked, the parents are better informed, and the teacher-to-student ratio is ALWAYS necessarily low. I am not saying the kids with IEPs don't deserve or shouldn't GET this treatment--on the contrary, I'm very grateful for it for I have a dear little niece who's used it to good measure and will have a great education ahead of her because of it. Not to mention the fact that this is what I think society should do--protect and support the weak so that they are given every chance to keep on keepin' on.
On the other hand, as to the measurements, this is something I sat in on a seminar for last year, and I have to say they are quite complete and have been revised multiple times for the current state of health affairs. Doctors and teachers (not to mention school administrators and nurses) are much better at identifying the children who need this classification, and so there are now more and more of them. Instead of sidelining a child as "difficult" or "has a discipline problem," they now give them a diagnosis and a plan to move forward. This is great, as there are less throw away cases than there were when I was younger. Kids with health issues are no longer pitched into the forever--to-be-ditch-digger category, and it's not just the kids with wealthy parents who'll actually go somewhere and do something other than sit drooling in an institution where they drug them into vegetative states.
The problem of course is that this makes it more difficult for those who are not part of the IEP system to get any sort of anything that doesn't involve great sacrifice on the part of the students, the staff, the district, etc. (depending on who you talk to, it's a matter of degree who actually sacrifices the most--I'd wager it's the ones who are too low-performing to get the accolade but not low-perfoming enough to engender an investigation and therefore slip silently into lower mediocrity that get the worst of it).
Anyway...this is sort of a bailiwick of mine...so I apologize if I went off.
Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs? Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are). We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one. In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point. Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones. That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on September 18, 2009, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
Also: schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some. Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday. It's pretty mind-blowing...
^This. My mother teaches in a very poor school and I hear all sorts of things. Like access to psychologist. I've heard some horror stories about what her kids have seen at home and at least this way they have someone to talk to about it (one kid she has this year saw a man shot in the head--he said the resulting mess looked like a broken egg). Plus, teachers are required to call child services if they suspect abuse which isn't something they get if it weren't for public schooling.
In addition to a distinct lack of compassion, I'll add that I've noticed in libertarians the idea that "if you're poor, it's your fault." They don't seem to take circumstances into account.
Irony being: a lot of THEM are not too well off either. That kind of shit always amazes me.
I think they believe that they would be wildly successful under a Libertarian system, not realizing that if they cannot be successful now, an economic environment that protects them
less is not going to help them attain riches.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
Right, because that's why its illegal... not for revenue purposes, no not never. ;-)
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2009, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.
They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.
100% Troof
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 08:18:14 PM
Oh, yeah, I can agree with that.
Pfffft, just cause she is hot and I am not.
I grok your ways, old man.
:lulz:
:crankey:
I would like to believe, both to his credit and to mine, that it's because I clearly and concisely stated a logical argument.
Quote from: fomenter on September 18, 2009, 08:38:58 PM
kai is you libertarian friend arguing for vouchers or all out privatization?
I wouldn't consider him my friend since he openly hates socialists and I'm pretty open about my socialist leanings (use the transitive property). He WANTS all out privitization, but apparently would take vouchers if they were available. I can't recall the number of times he said he would close all the public schools if he was president.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 09:38:39 PM
So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.
And then it hit me... I think they may be like the paraplegic that refuses help to get into his wheelchair, even if he falls headfirst into the toilet trying to do it himself. Pride, insane pride... I DON'T NEED THE POOR DON'T NEED A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.
I'm a little bit like that... I'm dragging my feet at applying for food stamps, partly out of pride and partly out of a fear of humiliation.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on September 19, 2009, 01:00:40 AM
Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs? Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are). We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one. In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point. Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones. That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.
Well, one thing for sure is that in Oregon, TAG is unfunded and highly intelligent children are definitely not considered "special needs" for funding purposes. Charter school question raises a good point, my understanding is that they're funded the same as any other school but are able to set a different curriculum. The charter school that my kids go to has a specialized staff and a strong focus on individualism and student-led education, with a curriculum completely different from PPS standard, but they're struggling financially just like the regular neighborhood school.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on September 19, 2009, 01:00:40 AM
Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs? Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are). We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one. In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point. Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones. That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.
Charter schools here don't end up helping anything but those children who are lucky enough to go there. The system here is too closed to fix anything longer term for a larger group of people. In the end, they are publicly-funded, smaller-populated schools that can still syphon off resources from the general fund creating a hole with no filler for those that cannot join in.
As for the higher-performing students (c'mon, we're talking GATE and other higher-IQ'd kids here), no, they are given some benefit of extra-help (in my school district there's a GATE-mandate where all can take the test on recommendation of 1) teacher and 2) parent(s), and once they are "GATE-identified," they go on to get "special" treatment in class and they are invited to a volunteer class after school, once a week usually for an hour for about 6 mos out of the 9-month schoolyear--then they are put into a "homogeneous GATE" class that moves throughout jr. hi and hi school with them, setting up a cohort of the "good kids" who get high grades in the higher classes).
No, there's not enough resources for the higher-functioning/gifted and talented kids. We are struggling with that even now, because the basics are all that the school districts want to pay for. We're talking not even school supplies and copy machines now. Our parents fund the copy machines in the school--the paper, the toner AND the contracts. We outsource to a publication department in the school district to make our own copies.
So there you have it. IEPs do protect the lower end of the school spectrum, but I'm not sorry for it. I think that's actually a societal good that will go far. I would rather make a child with mild autism someone who can lead a more fulfilling life than not. But yes, of course, I'd rather broaden the whole spectrum and fulfill EVERY child's need to perform to the point where they get the best out of their education. Eventually, hopefully, that vision can be realized. In today's market, not so much...maybe in MY kids' lifetime?
Who the hell knows.
Quote from: Kai on September 19, 2009, 01:16:37 AM
Quote from: fomenter on September 18, 2009, 08:38:58 PM
kai is you libertarian friend arguing for vouchers or all out privatization?
I wouldn't consider him my friend since he openly hates socialists and I'm pretty open about my socialist leanings (use the transitive property). He WANTS all out privitization, but apparently would take vouchers if they were available. I can't recall the number of times he said he would close all the public schools if he was president.
your libertarian is a nutter... for the reasons given in this thread all out privatization is crazy
vouchers are an interesting idea... i would like to see it given a better/fair test, i have heard good things about the outcomes, i have also heard they got cut off everywhere they have been tried, and that because of it the good results may not be conclusive..
Once, long ago, I was in favor of vouchers, but the more I thought about it and the bigger my pictureframe got, the more I started to realize that they utterly defeat the purpose of having a taxpayer-funded public school system. Yes, it's socialism, but the idea is that everyone pays in whether they have children in public school or not, in order to ensure a better educated and therefore healthier and wealthier society. If you start taking money out of that pool and feeding it into the private sector, you weaken or damage the system. The next step would be for people who do not have children to receive a tax credit, so that only people with children in public school are paying for public school. Clearly, at that point, public school would be prohibitively expensive for the poor, and it would not be feasible to mandate education. The public school infrastructure would be gutted, and privatization would be the only option.
What would America look like if children from working and lower-class families never went to school, I wonder? Certainly many would still learn to read and do arithmetic, but most would not surpass a fairly elementary level. The middle class would probably vanish completely. There would be an educated upper class and an ignorant laborer class, for the most part.
Public school has many failings... it's not a perfect system. We would all like to believe that we, left to our own devices, would be the ones who would come out on top. But who really wants to be among the wealthy in Detroit? What public school does is helps mitigate the effects of idiocy, incompetence, apathy, and laziness on the society that WE live. I know perfectly well that half the parents in my city wouldn't bother educating their brats, and then I'D have to live with the fallout. A socialized school system seems a small price to pay for not having to live in a borderline feudal society.
since only limited trials have been done i will wander into pure speculation i have no idea if this is what the credit system would look like or if it would work.. i imagine the ones that were tested wouldn't end up looking this way at all ..
i see everyone paying in and everyone reviving the credit back, if you don't have kids, grand-kids, nephews, nieces to spend the credit on, you can donate it to a school you care about (poor neighborhood or alma mater) or pool it with other peoples unused credits and create scholarships and if you don't do that it goes back to the gov and they put it where they think it is most needed..
pure speculation whether it could work or not, public schools would compete with each other and private schools some would go out of business others might expand there are undoubtedly problems with it i don't see..
every one needs to be educated no new system or modification of what we have should be allowed to change that...
Nigel's 169% right, though--whether or not you believe in a voucher system--the answer is always to provide free education to those who are ALIVE and can't afford or don't want otherwise.
I can give you a country my husband comes from where the price of education is a girl's life, and we do NOT want to be THAT place, now do we? DO WE?
(short answer: fuck no, never, nah.)
every one gets an education no disagreement there..
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 01:11:39 AM
I think they believe that they would be wildly successful under a Libertarian system, not realizing that if they cannot be successful now, an economic environment that protects them less is not going to help them attain riches.
I wouldn't actually say libertarianism would protect people less, just in a different way.
For example, if your boss gets caught refusing to pay you for the work you did, they'd be on the hook for fraud (at least the way libertarianism has been presented to me, the moral hazard has to be purged for it to count) as it is now, they can't be held liable for more than they owe you, there is literally nothing to discourage them from stiffing low wage workers.
The problem is that your boss *also* isn't required to pay your unemployment insurance, or to provide basic safety equipment (if you want that, pay for it yourself!). You get all sorts of nice benefits, but it fucks up everything we have right now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
Risks of methanol poisoning are
highly overstated, just
because of the retardedness of prohibition, they need some kind of scary half-truth to stop people from distilling their own alcohol. In order to get an actual risk of methanol poisoning, you almost need to do it wrong on purpose in order to get a distillate that does not contain a
smaller methanol:ethanol ratio than the original brewed liquid. So if you consume equal amounts of alcohol (a double shot moonshine versus a pint of homebrewn cider), you're gonna go equally blind.
Basically in order to risk blindness you need to consume moonshine or homebrewn vodka like a Russian alcoholic. And even then those guys more often die because they don't feel the cold anymore and drink vodka below freezing at a temperature of -10C (14F).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 19, 2009, 08:35:35 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 01:11:39 AM
I think they believe that they would be wildly successful under a Libertarian system, not realizing that if they cannot be successful now, an economic environment that protects them less is not going to help them attain riches.
I wouldn't actually say libertarianism would protect people less, just in a different way.
For example, if your boss gets caught refusing to pay you for the work you did, they'd be on the hook for fraud (at least the way libertarianism has been presented to me, the moral hazard has to be purged for it to count) as it is now, they can't be held liable for more than they owe you, there is literally nothing to discourage them from stiffing low wage workers.
The problem is that your boss *also* isn't required to pay your unemployment insurance, or to provide basic safety equipment (if you want that, pay for it yourself!). You get all sorts of nice benefits, but it fucks up everything we have right now.
I would agree there are different levels of protection within libertarianism (mostly revolving around the sanctity of contracts and the initiation of force), however I wouldn't agree they aren't necessarily less. In theory or in any real world implementation.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 19, 2009, 08:35:35 AMI wouldn't actually say libertarianism would protect people less, just in a different way.
For example, if your boss gets caught refusing to pay you for the work you did, they'd be on the hook for fraud (at least the way libertarianism has been presented to me, the moral hazard has to be purged for it to count) as it is now, they can't be held liable for more than they owe you, there is literally nothing to discourage them from stiffing low wage workers.
Under libertarianism, what happens if you're a low wage worker trying to sue your boss for fraud, but the boss can afford much better lawyers and can afford to keep the case tied up in court until you run out of money to pay your legal expenses?
You don't sue people for fraud, you call the cops. Right now you can't do that to a corporation, but no special restrictions on business also means no special protections.
You might need to sue to actually get your money, in which case yeah, you're in trouble, but in theory its its going to happen less because there would be deterrent effects.
(It should be noted I'm not saying libertarianism would work, the second you get to what it does to the economy everything collapses, and you pay 500 a month on your water bill, simply because the water company can do that now).
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 19, 2009, 10:59:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
Risks of methanol poisoning are highly overstated, just because of the retardedness of prohibition, they need some kind of scary half-truth to stop people from distilling their own alcohol. In order to get an actual risk of methanol poisoning, you almost need to do it wrong on purpose in order to get a distillate that does not contain a smaller methanol:ethanol ratio than the original brewed liquid. So if you consume equal amounts of alcohol (a double shot moonshine versus a pint of homebrewn cider), you're gonna go equally blind.
Basically in order to risk blindness you need to consume moonshine or homebrewn vodka like a Russian alcoholic. And even then those guys more often die because they don't feel the cold anymore and drink vodka below freezing at a temperature of -10C (14F).
Truth.
Quote from: Jenne on September 18, 2009, 09:00:22 PM
Irony being: a lot of THEM are not too well off either. That kind of shit always amazes me.
I've noticed this too. My former friend is a raging libertarian even though he works at fucking Wal-Mart. He got to be such a douchebag about it that I had to unfriend him on Facebook and block him on Twitter.
One thing that has always bothered me about Libertarians is their supernatural belief that the Invisible Hand of the Market will ALWAYS produce the best/most efficient/most stable results. They always forget that humans are irrational apes that seldom care about long term goals. If we can make a buck in the here and now then fuck the future. Other people can deal with the consequences.
Well that is the failing of neoclassical economics.
Strangely enough, most of the original classical economists were well aware of these problems, and made it clear they were (The Wealth of Nations, where Smith talks about how much more those who own the means of production are paid compared to the worker, who does the majority of the work, for example. Or the degrading nature of some of those types of work, which would reduce the craftsman into a relic of a bygone era). But Smith, and Cobden, and a few others, believed the Hand of the Market was literally God, and that since God was a god of the dispossessed and poor and meek, he wouldn't just abandon them.
The rational individual actor who has equal access to knowledge as everyone else is the new God. Same sleight of hand, new packaging.
How the hell can you base an entire discipline on such a blatantly false premise, i.e. "humans act rationally"?
There's this notion that's bred into many of us that pushes forward the idea that government's good for nothing, fucks up everything, and being without it is better than sustaining it, especially at its current level of "up-your-buttcrack-with-hands-in-everything-you-do" and general fucked-upness.
I think the first two parts of that premise are just fine, it's the 3rd that's the barstool in so many ways. Because the alternative is NOT better, and anyone who's seen what the absence or absolute corruption of government at the hands of what readily takes its place knows this indubitably. It's only sheer arrogance, stubborness and outright ignorance (I want to even say lack of maturity...but that's not always the case) that sticks people to that side of the ideal/utopian cloud they try to live on.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 01:23:39 PM
How the hell can you base an entire discipline on such a blatantly false premise, i.e. "humans act rationally"?
Its easier than figuring out what is really going on.
Its as stupid as basing international relations on the idea states are unitary, rational actors, only no-one listens to IR scholars anyway, limiting the damage.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 19, 2009, 10:59:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:56:37 PM
That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"
Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.
Risks of methanol poisoning are highly overstated, just because of the retardedness of prohibition, they need some kind of scary half-truth to stop people from distilling their own alcohol. In order to get an actual risk of methanol poisoning, you almost need to do it wrong on purpose in order to get a distillate that does not contain a smaller methanol:ethanol ratio than the original brewed liquid. So if you consume equal amounts of alcohol (a double shot moonshine versus a pint of homebrewn cider), you're gonna go equally blind.
Basically in order to risk blindness you need to consume moonshine or homebrewn vodka like a Russian alcoholic. And even then those guys more often die because they don't feel the cold anymore and drink vodka below freezing at a temperature of -10C (14F).
Come to America. Go to WalMart. Look around.
Then explain that to me again.
they all look like that because they've been drinking too much badly distilled moonshine?
or in the horrorstories about the humanoid creatures scuttling about in their carts in WalMart, I missed the parts about where they are all blind from methanol?
no but seriously, if you say there's a lot of moonshine methanol poisoned people at WalMart (or wherever the moonshine gulping crowds gather), I will do some additional research to see how that's possible.
It's just that I once spent an afternoon with a chemist friend working out rough estimates on methanol content after distilling (assuming full distillation, aka Doin' It Wrong), cause I couldn't figure out how the methanol:ethanol ratio would actually increase significantly due to distillation. Long story short, it turns out that it in fact does not. However "the poison is in the dosage", so it is indeed easier to get methanol-poisoned from the concentrated stuff cause you can consume more of it in one go before you get sick. But we also worked out that you'd still need to go to rather extreme alcoholic levels before this becomes an issue. But methanol does in fact get broken down by the body (causing bad hangovers in the process), even drinking a few shots a day doesn't make you blind.
At least, that was what we could figure out from our knowledge. If reality differs, we must have overlooked something, and I will try to find out what this is.
Perhaps the drinking habits of the American public? I have no idea if binge drinking is as big there as it is in the UK, but I wouldn't be too surprised to find out it was the case. Depending how big a dose is in the drink, and how much they themselves drink, that could be sufficient to bring it on, yes? Probably not that commonly, as you said, but maybe more so than it would in Holland, or most other places where they seem to be able to intoxicate themselves without going crazy about it.
:lol: BAI, that's pretty much a nationwide standard.
Cain, I think most of the binge drinking happens in college towns/with the college crowd. I'm betting the 16-25 crowd has the most incidences, and RWHN can probably throw some stats at us on that one.
Over here, its the middle age crowd, drinking at home, because their life sucks and their boss hates them and they've worked in a cubicle manipulating numbers for the past 20 years and they're trapped in a loveless marriage "for the sake of the children" and because beer was on special at Lidl.
As a former employee of Lidl, I highly suggest no-one EVER buy alcohol from them.
Or indeed anything. Because I hate their guts and hope they go out of business. I have only ever hated two jobs, and that was one of them. But also their alcohol selection sucks, I had never even heard of their scotch before. Or since.
There seems some evidence to suggest that's the case here, too:
http://www.allbusiness.com/population-demographics/demographic-groups/12672137-1.html
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/binge_drinking.htm
So yeah, we have a lot of those, too. But I guess it's this statistic that I was remembering:
QuoteThe proportion of current drinkers that binge is highest in the 18- to 20-year-old group (51%).3
(from that second link)
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 04:20:00 PM
:lol: BAI, that's pretty much a nationwide standard.
Cain, I think most of the binge drinking happens in college towns/with the college crowd. I'm betting the 16-25 crowd has the most incidences, and RWHN can probably throw some stats at us on that one.
Yeah, that's about right. Right now the big push is to address the 18-24/25 crowd. The rates of underage drinking in high school aged youth and younger have been declining somewhat, as well as binge drinking. The one thing I'm seeing is that whatever it is that is bringing down drinking among our youth seems to be more effective on males than females. At least, that's how the numbers look in Maine, I'm assuming they are similar across the country. So now the focus is on those college aged/young adults. And they are a very difficult population to work with.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 22, 2009, 04:38:33 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 04:20:00 PM
:lol: BAI, that's pretty much a nationwide standard.
Cain, I think most of the binge drinking happens in college towns/with the college crowd. I'm betting the 16-25 crowd has the most incidences, and RWHN can probably throw some stats at us on that one.
Yeah, that's about right. Right now the big push is to address the 18-24/25 crowd. The rates of underage drinking in high school aged youth and younger have been declining somewhat, as well as binge drinking. The one thing I'm seeing is that whatever it is that is bringing down drinking among our youth seems to be more effective on males than females. At least, that's how the numbers look in Maine, I'm assuming they are similar across the country. So now the focus is on those college aged/young adults. And they are a very difficult population to work with.
Yeah, they're "let loose" so why be square and not party? Plus the parents don't really want to put a big leash on them (which I agree with in the main unless you're a fucktard parent who didn't give your kid the necessary tools to make good decisions), either. So influence on that age group tends to be predominately peer-based.
Present company excluded, of course. I realize a lot of posters on this board are in that age group.
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 04:20:00 PM
:lol: BAI, that's pretty much a nationwide standard.
Cain, I think most of the binge drinking happens in college towns/with the college crowd. I'm betting the 16-25 crowd has the most incidences, and RWHN can probably throw some stats at us on that one.
same here, at least a few years ago I saw shit about it on the news, "coma drinking". it may be one or two years younger though, cause kids are allowed to drink beer at 16 (and strong liquor at 18).
I just wonder, see. The way you hear about methanol generally, is that you shouldnt even as much as *try* home distilling without quality expensive equipment or you will create pure poison. And basically what I figured out is that, if I'm just a tad bit sensible about it myself, there is no risk whatsoever.
And my problem is that it goes for a lot of shit that isn't outlawed just the same. OTC drugs anyone?
And then I dont get to experiment with making all sorts of interesting liquors, which is a creative craft that I am sure I would enjoy a lot.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 22, 2009, 03:54:10 PM
they all look like that because they've been drinking too much badly distilled moonshine?
No, those are the people that will
make it.
Quote
There HAVE been cases of methanol poisoning during U.S. Prohibition, all (most?) cases were either of legal methylated spirits being used as a cutting agent or someone attempting to "de-methylate" meth. spirits.
This led to a perception that distillation produced a dangerous product in the hands of an amateur (which, obviously, the ATF hasn't killed itself trying to disprove). In reality, it'd be hard to produce a dangerous liquor, though the first and last portions of distillate should always be tossed as good operating procedure.
also probation era moonshine was very high proof i am guessing alcohol poisoning (the regular kind) happened as well
i looked at home stills years ago and it seemed to me the distillation tower's they were selling then were not outrageously expense, and were the only professional part you needed for consistent quality distillation. plans for how to build a professional tower were also on line and wouldn't be to hard if you had the materials and some skills..
another quote from the libertarian:
"For those of you who enjoyed cigarettes with candy, fruit and clove flavors. They are banned now. You can thank Uncle-Fucking-Sam and his big-ass nose that doesn't belong in the economy. ;D Sacrifice the principle and you will lose more than you bargained for."
I'm seeing a trend here.
Tell me, does your libertarian friend ever get upset about shit that matters? You know, torture, Guantanamo Bay (now Bagram airbase), warrantless wiretapping, the President having the ability to order the murder of suspected terrorists...things which some people might consider actually totalitarian?
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 11:38:06 PM
Tell me, does your libertarian friend acquaintance ever get upset about shit that matters? You know, torture, Guantanamo Bay (now Bagram airbase), warrantless wiretapping, the President having the ability to order the murder of suspected terrorists...things which some people might consider actually totalitarian?
No, as far as I can tell.
I haven't asked, but he's never mentioned it.
Still, it seems rather telling.
We need a word for people who are economically libertarian and socially apathetic, if not actively totalitarian. I mean, other than "fucktard".
I thought that that was what the word "glibertarian" meant.
"Torture? I feel if someone is proven to have killed one or more persons, they have given up their basic humanitarian rights. Torture them."
His response.
:lulz:
I should've asked this earlier, it explains so much.
And yeah Iason, true, but there has to be a proper word for it, as well.
"You assume I don't care about that other stuff. I have already bitched about it. Small things lead to big things. Thats why I mentioned sacrificing the principle. Give them an inch and they will take a mile, ... Read Moreits only a matter of time.
Its like liberals and conservatives. Libs want gay rights and abortion rights, but want to suspend 2nd amendment rights, which conservatives want. STOP them both from suspending any rights and bam. You can feel secure in knowing your rights aren't being violated and can't be."
My response:
"As a liberal, I can say that the 2nd amendment argument is bullshit, I don't agree in suspension in the least. Not that there are any liberals in this country, just a mass of conservatives and conservative leaning centrists (and the idea that Obama is socialist leaning is laughable).
As for the first part, thanks for showing you have absolutely no credibility and worth as a person. And I STILL wouldn't wish or condone torture on you, or anyone. Asshole."
Guess it's time to resign exec board of that organization.
Edit: I just did. So much for increasing my social circle and doing good things. I won't have anything to do with an organization who's president condones torture.
To further explain: there are people I have to deal with on a regular basis. Those are the people I work with, the people I work for, the people I live with, and the like. I have no choice but to get along with them or at least show the semblance of getting along with them to continue doing what I'm doing and living the way I'm living.
There are then people who with I don't have to interact. These are friends, acquaintances and the like. I choose to interact with them in my spare time out of some sort of want or need for sociality or enjoyment, or to increase my ability to communicate and connect with others, or do some small deed in making the world not such a fucking nasty place to live. Such as a particular organization I was a part of.
Since I don't have to deal with those people, I won't if I don't want to. I won't have anything to do with bigots, ignorami or unfunny assholes. There is some shit that I just won't eat.
Also, apparently I am discriminiitory and intolerant and should not be part of such an organization. Furthermore, this could have brought to the student board of ethics.
Fuck humans. Fuck all humans, fuck them, and may Palin win in 2012 and nuke the end of this planet.
How does all of this make you intolerent? :?
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 01:58:29 AM
Also, apparently I am discriminiitory and intolerant and should not be part of such an organization. Furthermore, this could have brought to the student board of ethics.
Fuck humans. Fuck all humans, fuck them, and may Palin win in 2012 and nuke the end of this planet.
Kai: You are not a huge guy, but a baseball bat will offset that.
In tha nads, Kai. In tha nads.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 23, 2009, 02:01:00 AM
How does all of this make you intolerent? :?
It's that whole conservative Orwellian shit again.
You know, you're a racist if you don't hate Blacks, you're intolerant if you won't stand by and watch a homosexual get stomped, etc, etc.
also, apparently, the ironic thing.
This is a gay straight alliance. Thats an organization working to illiminate intolerance and discrimination against gays and the like.
I happen to be one of those tranny-ish bisexuals.
apparently I am a bi tranny bigot. against glibertarians who condone torture.
Theres some humour in there among the screaming.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/clue.gif)
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 02:45:06 AM
also, apparently, the ironic thing.
This is a gay straight alliance. Thats an organization working to illiminate intolerance and discrimination against gays and the like.
I happen to be one of those tranny-ish bisexuals.
apparently I am a bi tranny bigot. against glibertarians who condone torture.
Theres some humour in there among the screaming.
Ah, I see. You have run afoul of a primate heirarchy.
Fuck 'em, Kai. You don't need those people. They aren't your people. I mean, think about it. Do they DRESS like real people, or have facial expressions like real people or even TALK like real people? You are obstensibly supposed to be allied with them because of gender issues, but do you really WANT to be allied with "people" who condone torture?
They are swine, Kai, and they are most definitely
not on your side.
Also, "glibertarians"? WTF is a "glibertarian"?
a glib libertarian. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Essentially a randroid with a hard on for "fuck you get your own" and other beloved political platitudes.
I wrote a letter to the vp, which I'm not going to send.
QuoteDear M-,
To be completely honest, I've been thinking about resigning for weeks now, as I am in a high stress environment and truly do not have time to be an exec board member for any organization. Considering this is my (scarce) free time, and I haven't particularly enjoyed the meetings this semester, having to interact with someone I didn't want to interact with tipped the scales. Just like not going to a particular bar on a saturday night because it's full of drunken fratboys. And I will say, I got tired of the socialist hating about that time. Talk about intolerance, I remember last semester when J- got up and said "I hate socialists", one of the first things I ever heard him utter. I don't see why it's so wrong for me to say something back. Am I required to stay quiet? In any case, I won't interact with someone in my free time who I don't like on principle. Which, incidentally, is the word you're looking for, /principle/, not intolerance or discrimination. As far as I know, political opinions are not holy relics that must be guarded and protected, not innate objects of identity, unchangable, free of moral consideration. Heaven forbid I respond in an honest and forward way. This is one of the many reasons that "important" things should not be done over facebook.
Also, opposing torture isn't discrimination nor is it intolerance. It's /principle/. Oh, and you lost your only bi token tranny, so thanks for the backhanded "compliments". I know I won't be missed. You'all never liked me anyway.
Fuck you, Kai
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 03:16:20 AM
a glib libertarian. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Essentially a randroid with a hard on for "fuck you get your own" and other beloved political platitudes.
I wrote a letter to the vp, which I'm not going to send.
QuoteDear M-,
To be completely honest, I've been thinking about resigning for weeks now, as I am in a high stress environment and truly do not have time to be an exec board member for any organization. Considering this is my (scarce) free time, and I haven't particularly enjoyed the meetings this semester, having to interact with someone I didn't want to interact with tipped the scales. Just like not going to a particular bar on a saturday night because it's full of drunken fratboys. And I will say, I got tired of the socialist hating about that time. Talk about intolerance, I remember last semester when J- got up and said "I hate socialists", one of the first things I ever heard him utter. I don't see why it's so wrong for me to say something back. Am I required to stay quiet? In any case, I won't interact with someone in my free time who I don't like on principle. Which, incidentally, is the word you're looking for, /principle/, not intolerance or discrimination. As far as I know, political opinions are not holy relics that must be guarded and protected, not innate objects of identity, unchangable, free of moral consideration. Heaven forbid I respond in an honest and forward way. This is one of the many reasons that "important" things should not be done over facebook.
Also, opposing torture isn't discrimination nor is it intolerance. It's /principle/. Oh, and you lost your only bi token tranny, so thanks for the backhanded "compliments". I know I won't be missed. You'all never liked me anyway.
Fuck you, Kai
1. Send it.
2. Why can't they just say "libertarian"? Why does EVERYTHING have to have the GLBT label on it? Oh, yes, because they're attention whores.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:02:27 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 02:45:06 AM
also, apparently, the ironic thing.
This is a gay straight alliance. Thats an organization working to illiminate intolerance and discrimination against gays and the like.
I happen to be one of those tranny-ish bisexuals.
apparently I am a bi tranny bigot. against glibertarians who condone torture.
Theres some humour in there among the screaming.
Ah, I see. You have run afoul of a primate heirarchy.
Fuck 'em, Kai. You don't need those people. They aren't your people. I mean, think about it. Do they DRESS like real people, or have facial expressions like real people or even TALK like real people? You are obstensibly supposed to be allied with them because of gender issues, but do you really WANT to be allied with "people" who condone torture?
They are swine, Kai, and they are most definitely not on your side.
I have no clue whether they all condone torture, but in my experience someone that doesn't speak up against such topics in their company is rather spineless. GASP, SOMEONE ACTUALLY STOOD UP FOR PRINCIPLE AND WALKED OUT ON PRINCIPLE, WHAT AN INTOLERANT THING. Maybe it is intolerant. Maybe thats a GOOD thing. Sure, there are a few people there who I'm friends with, but they support my decision. I really do have more important things to do than hang out with undergrads. Considering the organization is basically a social event despite some intentions by previous people. Meh. Probably will put me in bad standing at the UU fellowship too. Meh to that as well. If I'm not allowed to walk out on principle, then what are my allowances as a person?
Oh, and this organization hasn't done shit for anyone. Really fucking disappointing.
The worst part about it is feeling bad about it afterwards, like I did something wrong. Maybe I did. Maybe I'm a horrible bigot for harassing a poor prerich glibertarian about morality....yeah, I can't even hold a straight face. Still, I hope this doesn't all sour for me because of the mess.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:02:27 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 02:45:06 AM
also, apparently, the ironic thing.
This is a gay straight alliance. Thats an organization working to illiminate intolerance and discrimination against gays and the like.
I happen to be one of those tranny-ish bisexuals.
apparently I am a bi tranny bigot. against glibertarians who condone torture.
Theres some humour in there among the screaming.
Ah, I see. You have run afoul of a primate heirarchy.
Fuck 'em, Kai. You don't need those people. They aren't your people. I mean, think about it. Do they DRESS like real people, or have facial expressions like real people or even TALK like real people? You are obstensibly supposed to be allied with them because of gender issues, but do you really WANT to be allied with "people" who condone torture?
They are swine, Kai, and they are most definitely not on your side.
I have no clue whether they all condone torture, but in my experience someone that doesn't speak up against such topics in their company is rather spineless. GASP, SOMEONE ACTUALLY STOOD UP FOR PRINCIPLE AND WALKED OUT ON PRINCIPLE, WHAT AN INTOLERANT THING. Maybe it is intolerant. Maybe thats a GOOD thing. Sure, there are a few people there who I'm friends with, but they support my decision. I really do have more important things to do than hang out with undergrads. Considering the organization is basically a social event despite some intentions by previous people. Meh. Probably will put me in bad standing at the UU fellowship too. Meh to that as well. If I'm not allowed to walk out on principle, then what are my allowances as a person?
Oh, and this organization hasn't done shit for anyone. Really fucking disappointing.
The worst part about it is feeling bad about it afterwards, like I did something wrong. Maybe I did. Maybe I'm a horrible bigot for harassing a poor prerich glibertarian about morality....yeah, I can't even hold a straight face. Still, I hope this doesn't all sour for me because of the mess.
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:20:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 03:16:20 AM
a glib libertarian. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Essentially a randroid with a hard on for "fuck you get your own" and other beloved political platitudes.
I wrote a letter to the vp, which I'm not going to send.
QuoteDear M-,
To be completely honest, I've been thinking about resigning for weeks now, as I am in a high stress environment and truly do not have time to be an exec board member for any organization. Considering this is my (scarce) free time, and I haven't particularly enjoyed the meetings this semester, having to interact with someone I didn't want to interact with tipped the scales. Just like not going to a particular bar on a saturday night because it's full of drunken fratboys. And I will say, I got tired of the socialist hating about that time. Talk about intolerance, I remember last semester when J- got up and said "I hate socialists", one of the first things I ever heard him utter. I don't see why it's so wrong for me to say something back. Am I required to stay quiet? In any case, I won't interact with someone in my free time who I don't like on principle. Which, incidentally, is the word you're looking for, /principle/, not intolerance or discrimination. As far as I know, political opinions are not holy relics that must be guarded and protected, not innate objects of identity, unchangable, free of moral consideration. Heaven forbid I respond in an honest and forward way. This is one of the many reasons that "important" things should not be done over facebook.
Also, opposing torture isn't discrimination nor is it intolerance. It's /principle/. Oh, and you lost your only bi token tranny, so thanks for the backhanded "compliments". I know I won't be missed. You'all never liked me anyway.
Fuck you, Kai
1. Send it.
2. Why can't they just say "libertarian"? Why does EVERYTHING have to have the GLBT label on it? Oh, yes, because they're attention whores.
lol no, it has nothing to do with GLBT. Its like saying Republitard, except in this case it represents a particular type of idiot.
and not going to send it. I have a feeling this person would follow up on the ethics case if given any reason. While no where in my career will anyone ever give a shit about some little diversity club, they will care if I had an student ethics group deal out punishment on me even for stupid reasons.
Better to write it, and share it here, write it, vent, and then be done with it. put it behind me. write and write till I've exhausted all my anger and bile and frustration, until I pass out from hate shitting exhaustion.
RARRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFUCK these people. Who the hell do they think they are? a bunch of social rejects, is what I see, but the most of them even without the skills of horrormirth, and none of them understanding the lulz. fuck them. fuck them hard. and all their bullshit, because see, we never really DID anything. nothing has changed in this town, it's still a bigoted shitpile. Always has been, always will be, and we are not gonna change fucking anything because people are SHIT and they will tear you down.
You know, that shit head has been making stupid political remarks from the beginning. Seriously. I should have seen this coming. I should have known I would have gotten pissed off at some point and resigned cause I can barely stand to stay in the same room as the guy. Really. I couldn't stand him at all. all the dumb fucking libertarian bullshit. ARGG it makes my mind melt how meltingly stupid the whole shitpilemess of it is, the steaming dump of randroidism on the doors of the political science building, like a filthy stained and ugly version of martin luther's scrawl.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 02:45:06 AM
also, apparently, the ironic thing.
This is a gay straight alliance. Thats an organization working to illiminate intolerance and discrimination against gays and the like.
I happen to be one of those tranny-ish bisexuals.
apparently I am a bi tranny bigot. against glibertarians who condone torture.
Theres some humour in there among the screaming.
Can't you take horrible revenge? Like in a way they don't know it was you? Cast that Golden Apple and watch them bash eachother's head in? (just for feeling better)
Also, I love the signoff in your letter :)
And, I don't understand, what's this got to do with a student ethics group dealing out punishment on you? How are they gonna spin that? What did you do? You said "I don't wanna be on board with you cause you condone torture", and this is a case for a student ethics group, how? [What does a student ethics group normally do btw? deal with cases of racism and such?]
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 23, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
And, I don't understand, what's this got to do with a student ethics group dealing out punishment on you? How are they gonna spin that? What did you do? You said "I don't wanna be on board with you cause you condone torture", and this is a case for a student ethics group, how? [What does a student ethics group normally do btw? deal with cases of racism and such?]
Apparently not wanting to interact with someone because of their political beliefs is some sort of discrimination and intolerance. Notice how the word beliefs slipped in there, and how it makes some people stupid/crazy. And yeah, and furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest any sort of racism, sexism, homophobia or religious bigotry from me, which is what such a group usually deals with, since I've never given any indication of any of those things (and it would be personally abhorent for me to do so). This is a simple matter of me not wanting to interact with someone I don't have to interact with, and leaving an organization over it. If I did it because he was black, or a jew (which he is, not that I care), or gay (which he also is, and would be ridiculous to pose) or because I was sexist in some way then that would be something else.
It was a simple moral imperative with no bigotry involved. And it's wishywashy to assume people shouldn't discriminate who they choose to hang out with, and be intolerant of those who have morally abhorent political opinions. I was all ready just to tease him forever, but that sorta changes when important things like honoring the first principle of unitarian universalism, which is respecting the dignity and worth of every person, even "criminals", comes up.
Sometimes a person just has to stand up against this shit. I for one will wear the badge of bigot if thats what I am, if refusing to interact with people that hold such morally disgusting views is what makes me that.
I see. So this student ethics committee is made up of students, right? Any chance you could perhaps cut them to the chase and (informally) have a talk with one of the members of that committee, just to check whether they even take this sort of thing seriously (and subtly bring up your case in a favourable way).
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 23, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
I see. So this student ethics committee is made up of students, right? Any chance you could perhaps cut them to the chase and (informally) have a talk with one of the members of that committee, just to check whether they even take this sort of thing seriously (and subtly bring up your case in a favourable way).
That won't be an issue, because I've cut all ties. They don't seem like they are going to pursue unless I make any "problems" in the future, which I won't. It's complete fact that I don't have to interact with these people at all, so there won't be any future confrontations.
Glibertarian means glib libertarian. Its a pejorative, used out of recognition than not all libertarians are war-mongering, torture loving, sociopathic property-rights absolutists - just most of the vocal ones on the internet are. Some libertarians actually care about things like liberty and other people, though unfortunately because of the vocal nature of the aforememtioned glibertarians, most of them won't use that name to describe their beliefs anymore.
I still think those sort of libertarians can be a little kooky at times, but they're generally reasonable people, who differ on means as opposed to ends. The glibertarians, however...well they're the enemy.
Also, from the little I know about student gender/sexuality politics, transsexuals and bisexuals frequently get shafted by the lesbian and gay communities. Most gays and lesbians don't care, obviously, but political organisations, on the other hand...well, lets put it this way, there was, for a while, a popular lesbian feminist conspiracy theory that transsexuals were male infiltrators of the feminist movement, seeking to overthrow it from within. Exactly.
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 03:29:09 PM
Glibertarian means glib libertarian. Its a pejorative, used out of recognition than not all libertarians are war-mongering, torture loving, sociopathic property-rights absolutists - just most of the vocal ones on the internet are. Some libertarians actually care about things like liberty and other people, though unfortunately because of the vocal nature of the aforememtioned glibertarians, most of them won't use that name to describe their beliefs anymore.
I still think those sort of libertarians can be a little kooky at times, but they're generally reasonable people, who differ on means as opposed to ends. The glibertarians, however...well they're the enemy.
Also, from the little I know about student gender/sexuality politics, transsexuals and bisexuals frequently get shafted by the lesbian and gay communities. Most gays and lesbians don't care, obviously, but political organisations, on the other hand...well, lets put it this way, there was, for a while, a popular lesbian feminist conspiracy theory that transsexuals were male infiltrators of the feminist movement, seeking to overthrow it from within. Exactly.
Yes and yes. It's the whole oppressed minority hierarchy again, with the ones above oppressing the ones below.
"Give me three monkeys and I'll show you a hierarchy."
-The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 11:43:00 PM
Still, it seems rather telling.
We need a word for people who are economically libertarian and socially apathetic, if not actively totalitarian. I mean, other than "fucktard".
Skipping the last page to offer my suggestion:
Bread-and-Circus Libertarian
The government's job is to make sure they can buy all the nice (and/or not-so-nice, depending on your opinion) things they want. All else is tangential.
The children of the rich will have good education and therefore will remain rich if they play their cards right. The children of the poor won't get education, so they'll remain poor and stupid
Quote from: DALEKK on September 23, 2009, 05:05:31 PM
The children of the rich will have good education and therefore will remain rich if they play their cards right. The children of the poor won't get education, so they'll remain poor and stupid
Poor and ignorant. Stupid is a universal trait.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
They still don't count.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 12:46:21 PM
Apparently not wanting to interact with someone because of their political beliefs is some sort of discrimination and intolerance.
That's the GOP playbook right now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
They still don't count.
They don't, and it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
They still don't count.
They don't, and it doesn't matter.
Still, they should be punished.
I say we start a movement to torture common criminals. For speeding tickets, maybe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:43:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
They still don't count.
They don't, and it doesn't matter.
Still, they should be punished.
I say we start a movement to torture common criminals. For speeding tickets, maybe.
I think that's disgusting.
Kai,
is better than them.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 06:17:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:43:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 04:17:20 AM
I don't get it. Since when does "tolerance" apply to fucking NAZIS? Tolerance is, AFAIK, the principle of live and let live, accepting other peoples' behavior and traits, provided they do not directly harm others. Torture perverts don't count.
Because people who condone torture are in the majority.
They still don't count.
They don't, and it doesn't matter.
Still, they should be punished.
I say we start a movement to torture common criminals. For speeding tickets, maybe.
I think that's disgusting.
Kai,
is better than them.
Kai, Kai, Kai...Monkeys have to learn things the hard way. Usually that used to mean having a war every generation. WWII was so awful that we learned a thing or two about inhumane treatment of prisoners.
But it's been a while, and the monkeys have forgotten. So perhaps it's negative reinforcement time again. The best part is, all we have to do is give them what they clamor for...what they've been DEMANDING.
Once a few of them get their fingernails torn off, they'll learn what we learned at the German and Japanese war crime trials. Hell, Kai, we've even abandoned the concept that "just following orders" is no excuse.
No, Kai. It's time to step back and let the monkeys pound some sense into each others' heads.
Then I refuse to have any part of it.
There is some shit I just won't eat.
Jesus, Kai. They sound pretty awful, and I'm glad to hear you're out of there.
While I agree that getting back at them isn't worth your career, I don't think you ought to let them get away with shit like this. You could file your own complaints. If they can nail you with walking out, you can nail them for being socialist-hating ass holes and if you really wanted to get back at them, you could possibly use the gender/sexuality politics issue to get them. You said you were the token bi tranny? You could claim they discriminated against you for what you are, in addition to your politics.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 06:50:47 PM
Then I refuse to have any part of it.
There is some shit I just won't eat.
I don't think he was suggesting you get involved. More like step back and watch.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 09:38:57 AM
Well that is the failing of neoclassical economics.
Strangely enough, most of the original classical economists were well aware of these problems, and made it clear they were (The Wealth of Nations, where Smith talks about how much more those who own the means of production are paid compared to the worker, who does the majority of the work, for example. Or the degrading nature of some of those types of work, which would reduce the craftsman into a relic of a bygone era).
^ This. And I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who's aware of that. I keep pointing that (and other things) out to a libertarian I've been arguing health care with, but she seems to ignore it.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 06:50:47 PM
Then I refuse to have any part of it.
There is some shit I just won't eat.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to do a thing.