Originally Posted By RC Collins Talk radio dalmatians. Kar2oonMan >>California is attempting to (gasp) get rid of discrimination!<< I agree *bigotry* and *hatred* are wrong, but it depends on what the criteria is whether discrimination is bad or good. I'm sure you discriminate all day long every day. We all do. You discriminate when you pick which threads to read. Laws like this are presented under the guise of preventing bullying. A better way to prevent bullying would be... to ban bullying (property destruction, pushing, shoving, throwing things a people). What a concept. The fact is, males and females are different. The fact is, children are only produced naturally through the joining of a man and a woman. To pretend that there is no difference between males and females, or that they can switch from one to the other by what clothes they wear, or that two women or two men is the same thing as one man and one woman is lying and is a disservice to the majority in an attempt to protect the feelings of a few. jonvn >>Ah, so now we are talking about some random senate bill, and then one extreme way as to how it can be interpreted.<< Oh yes.., "random" bills... what do laws mean anyway? I mean, we can just ignore them and nobody will enforce them, right? Who cares about the force of law? And of course they are NEVER interpreted to their full possible extent! No, that *never* happens. Activists wouldn’t do that. >>One example, please. Show me where a school teacher escorted a minor child without parental permission across state lines as you said happened.<< Haven't you ever heard of the all-important Right to Privacy? What matters is... is this possible? In California, anything they want to do can be done right here, so there's no need to go across state lines. Attempts to pass laws requiring notification (not even permission) except in the case of abusive parents are fought vigorously. Now why would anyone fight that proposal, unless they do those things or want to be able to do those things? Dabob2 >>Democracy ain't perfect. But it's the best we've got.<< We have a constitutional representative republic that supposedly has free enterprise. Let the free market work. Let people have their liberty and self-determination. >>If it wasn't elected people sitting on school boards, it would have to be someone. Better they should be accountable people than unaccountable, no?<< Right. If people could take their kids AND their money to whichever schools would accept them, those schools WOULD be accountable. They wouldn’t pretty much get any children automatically living in their boundaries. >>Newsflash: in most American communities, liberals live next door to conservatives, who live next door to moderates. How would your system work, exactly? In the real world, I mean. Liberal parents get together and create liberal private schools (since we're "getting government out of the education business") to teach liberal philosophy along with the 3 R's, while conservative parents get together and create conservative private schools to teach conservative philosophy along with the 3 R's? Great. Hard to think of a better way to create permanent divisiveness.<< There is divisiveness now. There will always be divisiveness. The country used to be more homogenous, and perhaps government schools made more sense then. But we are a very diverse society now, with diverse ideals and standards and priorities and more opportunities and specialties. It is interesting, though to go back and read what the Northwest Ordinance had to say about schools: (See Article 3) <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava lon/nworder.htm</a> Right now, fewer people have a real option of putting their children in private schools. Under "my" system, people would have real choices. And yes, some people will send their kids to bad or fringe schools. That's life. >>We all have an interest in educating the young generation. Yes. In the broad sense, that's in everyone's interest.<< You can replace the word "educating" with any number of other things. But the bottom line is, the children do not belong to "us" - they belong to their parents. Unless those parents are abusing or actually neglecting their children, they should be free to raise them as they see fit, and any of us should be free to try to persuade them to raise well-rounded children. >>On this narrow subject, do you really feel you have an interest in making sure that a kid who has a friend with gay parents and wants to learn more CAN NOT read a particular book? That's a strange "interest."<< I'm against government schools, so the point is moot. But as far as children go, I do care about their well-being. I feel bad enough for a kid who has been intentionally deprived of a good mother or father. >>It prohibits negativity, or "reflecting adversely."<< And what that exactly means will be left up to courts? >>This new addition to the law would say to me that you couldn't have an idiot Jr. High history teacher (like I did) making fun of a sort of obviously gay kid, lisping and mincing and making him feel like dirt, while making the un-obviously gay kid (me) terrified that I'd be found out one day and treated like dirt too.<< What a jerk. >>This shows that RC's post, if not blatantly plagiarized, at least hits most of the right-wing talking points.<< I'm sure all of your posts are entirely original thoughts and have no parallels in any media.
Originally Posted By jonvn "what do laws mean anyway? " Nothing at all. So let's just make them out to be as crazy as possible because...well...just because. By the way, a bill is not a law. "Haven't you ever heard of the all-important Right to Privacy?" OK, so you haven't got an example. I didn't think so. You know, you really should stick to reality. It works a lot better.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I agree *bigotry* and *hatred* are wrong, but it depends on what the criteria is whether discrimination is bad or good. I'm sure you discriminate all day long every day. We all do. You discriminate when you pick which threads to read.<< Oh brother. It's too tedious to get into this kind of nitpicking. Thanks for the English lesson. Try looking up "comprehension" next.
Originally Posted By DAR <<By the way, a bill is not a law.>> Exactly, it appears someone never watched Schoolhouse Rock.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dabob2 >>Democracy ain't perfect. But it's the best we've got.<< <We have a constitutional representative republic that supposedly has free enterprise. Let the free market work. Let people have their liberty and self-determination.> Do you believe in compulsory education for children? I'm assuming you do, as every democracy I know of has that, and it is in the general public welfare to have an educated populace. If you do believe in compulsory education, there must be some form of public education, or not every family will be able to afford education. Of course, if you don't like the public education, you can send your kids to private school. If you have a qualified parent, you can even homeschool. Gee - just like we have now. >>If it wasn't elected people sitting on school boards, it would have to be someone. Better they should be accountable people than unaccountable, no?<< <Right. If people could take their kids AND their money to whichever schools would accept them, those schools WOULD be accountable. They wouldn�t pretty much get any children automatically living in their boundaries.> That's a separate question. My words were a response to your complaining that school boards can be less than perfect. Yes they can, but there have to be school boards setting policy if there are schools. And they can be elected and thus ultimately accountable, or unelected. The former seems preferable. >>Newsflash: in most American communities, liberals live next door to conservatives, who live next door to moderates. How would your system work, exactly? In the real world, I mean. Liberal parents get together and create liberal private schools (since we're "getting government out of the education business") to teach liberal philosophy along with the 3 R's, while conservative parents get together and create conservative private schools to teach conservative philosophy along with the 3 R's? Great. Hard to think of a better way to create permanent divisiveness.<< <There is divisiveness now. There will always be divisiveness.> If we create a "liberal school system" and a "conservative school system," with these kids not even interacting, it would be far worse. <The country used to be more homogenous, and perhaps government schools made more sense then. But we are a very diverse society now, with diverse ideals and standards and priorities and more opportunities and specialties.> All the more important, I'd say, that we interact with all those people rather than retreating to our little bubbles. <It is interesting, though to go back and read what the Northwest Ordinance had to say about schools: (See Article 3) <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava</a> lon/nworder.htm> It's interesting. It was also written in 1787, and it's interesting that it mentions "free male inhabitants" for voting rights... 1787 ain't today. <Right now, fewer people have a real option of putting their children in private schools. Under "my" system, people would have real choices. And yes, some people will send their kids to bad or fringe schools. That's life.> Who's paying for your "liberal" and "conservative" schools? Who enforces the dogma, for crying out loud? Your system is unworkable in the real world. >>We all have an interest in educating the young generation. Yes. In the broad sense, that's in everyone's interest.<< <You can replace the word "educating" with any number of other things. But the bottom line is, the children do not belong to "us" - they belong to their parents. Unless those parents are abusing or actually neglecting their children, they should be free to raise them as they see fit, and any of us should be free to try to persuade them to raise well-rounded children.> That's a non-sequitur to my point. You cannot replace the word "educating" with anything else. It's compulsory for a reason. It's in your interest that the kids in neighborhoods far from your own, geographically and socio-economically or both, receive a good education. The alternative is more illiteracy, greater crime rates, fewer job opportunities for those people, etc. We all have an interest in all our kids being educated. And if education is compulsory, there has to be some sort of public system. We already have enough inequality between various school systems based on funding as it is. You should read "Savage Inequalities," still the best book on the subject. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=UEJ3QAukj9oC&dq=" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books? id=UEJ3QAukj9oC&dq=</a>%22savage+inequalities%22&pg=PP1&ots=ExxmK_OlU3&sig=S65sYvNGp8zCgidK3Kt6u1AaG8s&hl=en&prev=<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h l=en&q=</a>%22savage+inequalities&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail >>On this narrow subject, do you really feel you have an interest in making sure that a kid who has a friend with gay parents and wants to learn more CAN NOT read a particular book? That's a strange "interest."<< <I'm against government schools, so the point is moot. But as far as children go, I do care about their well-being. I feel bad enough for a kid who has been intentionally deprived of a good mother or father.> I was talking about the kid with opposite-sex parents who had the friend with same-sex parents. That's who the book was written for, actually. The kid with the same-sex parents knows his family already. >>It prohibits negativity, or "reflecting adversely."<< <And what that exactly means will be left up to courts?> All laws are ultimately left up to the courts, so you don't have much of a point here. Have you any examples of the law as it existed previously (no reflecting adversely on anyone's national origin, for example) producing any weird court decisions or any real negative effects at all? Real examples, please, not "could be's." >>This new addition to the law would say to me that you couldn't have an idiot Jr. High history teacher (like I did) making fun of a sort of obviously gay kid, lisping and mincing and making him feel like dirt, while making the un-obviously gay kid (me) terrified that I'd be found out one day and treated like dirt too.<< <What a jerk.> Is there a prose version of crocodile tears? But if you really feel that way, that's what the law addresses. >>This shows that RC's post, if not blatantly plagiarized, at least hits most of the right-wing talking points.<< <I'm sure all of your posts are entirely original thoughts and have no parallels in any media.> I try. I thought it was interesting that all the examples you brought up about what the new law "could" mean were mentioned in that article. It's pretty clear they're echoing through the right wing echo chamber already. But they all reflect a fevered apprehension and irrational fears of what this law "could" be, rather than what the law, you know, actually says. And the fear is instructive.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sorry about that. The tinyurl for Savage Inequalities. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2a9dvm" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2a9dvm</a>
Originally Posted By RC Collins Dabob2 >>Do you believe in compulsory education for children?<< I believe the in the separation of state and school. If a child is not being educated at all, then a case can be made that the parents/guardians are engaging in neglect. Otherwise, I think the government should stay out of it. Compulsory education is laughable when you consider the people who have “free†schooling offered to them now, and were enrolled in “free†schools, yet reach the age of 18 and are ignorant about a great many things, or can’t even think the least bit critically. But we don’t need everyone to be thoroughly educated, not with some of the jobs we need to have filled. >>I'm assuming you do, as every democracy I know of has that, and it is in the general public welfare to have an educated populace.<< Ah, the “general welfare†argument. First of all, there would still be an educate populace, probably a better educated populace, with the separation of state and school. Secondly, I can say that certain physical acts two people engage in the privacy of their bedrooms goes against the “general welfare†because they are more likely to spread diseases. The Constitution was very specific in limiting government. Otherwise, anything could be considered “general welfareâ€. >>Of course, if you don't like the public education, you can send your kids to private school. If you have a qualified parent, you can even homeschool. Gee - just like we have now.<< Except now, the homeschoolers, private schoolers, and people with no kids at all are forced to support “free†education. >>If we create a "liberal school system" and a "conservative school system," with these kids not even interacting, it would be far worse.<< So we should just keep the compulsory liberal school system and force everyone to support it? I’m sure that sounds great to liberals, but it isn’t liberty. >>All the more important, I'd say, that we interact with all those people rather than retreating to our little bubbles.<< And we can do that - and we do - even without government schools. >>Who's paying for your "liberal" and "conservative" schools? Who enforces the dogma, for crying out loud? Your system is unworkable in the real world.<< There are many, many examples of free markets working. >>Have you any examples of the law as it existed previously (no reflecting adversely on anyone's national origin, for example) producing any weird court decisions or any real negative effects at all? Real examples, please, not "could be's."<< There’s no point in wasting my time because you are likely to agree with the decisions, so it is futile. >>Is there a prose version of crocodile tears? But if you really feel that way, that's what the law addresses.<< I’m sincere. Why should my tax dollars support teachers like that? Instead of passing laws restricting his expression, though, I’d rather people be able to switch schools more easily. Back to the original point: Talk radio listening/support is voluntary. People don’t have the same liberty when it comes to education, and academia usually has a Leftist bent. **Talking** about illegal aliens (that's a legal category) being lawbreakers is bad, but forcing me to subsidize their college education (Cal State, University of California) is a-okay!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dabob2 >>Do you believe in compulsory education for children?<< <I believe the in the separation of state and school. If a child is not being educated at all, then a case can be made that the parents/guardians are engaging in neglect. Otherwise, I think the government should stay out of it.> You didn't really answer the question, then. Countries without compulsory education typically have lots of kids that don't get an education. Is that what you want to move towards? And if you have compulsory education, by definition the government will be involved. If you don't think we should have compulsory education, you should say so. <Compulsory education is laughable when you consider the people who have “free†schooling offered to them now, and were enrolled in “free†schools, yet reach the age of 18 and are ignorant about a great many things, or can’t even think the least bit critically.> Happens to kids in private schools too. And I would guess most of the denizens of these boards, many of whom are quite intelligent, were the products of public schools. I was. If there are schools not educating our kids as well as they could be, address that problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. <But we don’t need everyone to be thoroughly educated, not with some of the jobs we need to have filled.> Interesting. Who doesn't get the education, then? Who decides THAT one? Are some of us created more equal than others? And do you not believe in education for its own sake? Why teach literature at all if someone's not going to be a writer? Why teach history if someone's not going to be a historian? Do you not see the value in education in itself? Should everything be just one big vocational school? >>I'm assuming you do, as every democracy I know of has that, and it is in the general public welfare to have an educated populace.<< <Ah, the “general welfare†argument. First of all, there would still be an educate populace, probably a better educated populace, with the separation of state and school.> How? If some people couldn't afford school for their kids, at the least we'd have a less educated populace as a whole. <Secondly, I can say that certain physical acts two people engage in the privacy of their bedrooms goes against the “general welfare†because they are more likely to spread diseases. The Constitution was very specific in limiting government. Otherwise, anything could be considered “general welfareâ€.> Educating the young has been considered part of the general welfare by most Americans for a couple of centuries. It's not some arcane, "let's see what kind of weird corollary I can come up with that doesn't really fit" sort of thing. It's a basic. I'm sorry you don't feel that it is. >>Of course, if you don't like the public education, you can send your kids to private school. If you have a qualified parent, you can even homeschool. Gee - just like we have now.<< <Except now, the homeschoolers, private schoolers, and people with no kids at all are forced to support “free†education.> I would fit into that last category. I'm fine with that. I'm forced to support military programs like the Osprey that have never worked and thousand-dollar toilet seats too. I don't like it, but I understand that I can't just opt out of it. And the reason I support education as a childless adult is not only because I benefited greatly from it when I was a kid, but because it really is in the general welfare to have an educated populace. >>If we create a "liberal school system" and a "conservative school system," with these kids not even interacting, it would be far worse.<< <So we should just keep the compulsory liberal school system and force everyone to support it? I’m sure that sounds great to liberals, but it isn’t liberty.> I'm sure you see the current system as irredeemably liberal, but that's your skewed view, frankly. As I said earlier, my cousin's kids in some southern states have what I see as a very conservative system. But in both cases, elected school boards set policy - that's democracy. >>All the more important, I'd say, that we interact with all those people rather than retreating to our little bubbles.<< <And we can do that - and we do - even without government schools.> But far less so if we're going to put our kids in little bubble schools filled only with other people just like them. >>Who's paying for your "liberal" and "conservative" schools? Who enforces the dogma, for crying out loud? Your system is unworkable in the real world.<< <There are many, many examples of free markets working.> Lame. Tell me how these parallel "liberal" and "conservative" school systems would work in the real world of 2008 America. How would they be paid for? What happens to people who can't afford them? Are there schools for moderates? Who defines these terms? >>Have you any examples of the law as it existed previously (no reflecting adversely on anyone's national origin, for example) producing any weird court decisions or any real negative effects at all? Real examples, please, not "could be's."<< <There’s no point in wasting my time because you are likely to agree with the decisions, so it is futile.> Perhaps I would, perhaps I wouldn't. How can I know if you won't provide an example? CAN you? >>Is there a prose version of crocodile tears? But if you really feel that way, that's what the law addresses.<< <I’m sincere. Why should my tax dollars support teachers like that? Instead of passing laws restricting his expression, though, I’d rather people be able to switch schools more easily.> There was one Jr. High in my town. In your scenario, I have to go to another town, and why? Because I had one jerk teacher? When the rest of the education was very good? Doesn't it make more sense to have guidelines for the teacher, especially since we already have others pretty much everyone can agree on (no getting romantically involved with students, for instance)? Do you really consider a simple guideline like "no making fun of someone's nationality or religion or (gasp!) sexual orientation" so onerous? <Back to the original point: Talk radio listening/support is voluntary. People don’t have the same liberty when it comes to education, and academia usually has a Leftist bent.> According to you. In college perhaps, but of course that's not compulsory. But even if you accept the premise that most grade school and high school teachers are "leftist" (which is a stretch, but let's just say it's true)... hey, why limit their freedom of expression? And if you don't like your local schools' policies, you're free to join the school board. Perhaps you don't want to be bothered. But that option exists. <**Talking** about illegal aliens (that's a legal category) being lawbreakers is bad,> Since when? I remember having that discussion in high school social studies.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Do you really consider a simple guideline like "no making fun of someone's nationality or religion or (gasp!) sexual orientation" so onerous? << Yes, such things "destroy the family", don't you know. It's funny -- to me it's teaching basic values of manners, respect and civility -- three things sorely lacking in our world. But to some, apparently, it's a wild liberal agenda.
