I'm talking about in the 21st century where some people support admitting (and denying admission to) certain students that would not have been admitted (or denied admission) but for their race.

Quote:

or that private schools are preferable to public education. But I do believe that taking away resources for public schools and diverting them to private schools is a very good idea. What good are tax credits if you're living below the poverty line and can afford a private school? Some have proposed vouchers, but since public education has been shown, overall, to be superior that that offered by charter schools, why would you want to privatize it?



I spent about half of my childhood educational years in a public school, and half in a private school that was much better. I was raised by a single parent who could just barely afford to send me to the private school. If I'd had siblings, or she earned a little less, it wouldn't have been an option, but even in those cases, it might have been had her tax burden (including the burden of paying for an inferior public school she wasn't using) had been reduced.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the notion that you could reject ALL such measures and not be a hypocrite.

Then I'll stop arguing the point. But I'll also submit that there's nobody on the planet would would reject all measures that would reduce the murder rate.

I was speaking specifically to the list of things that landmark posted. There are many who do, in fact, reject all of them.

On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I'm talking about in the 21st century where some people support admitting (and denying admission to) certain students that would not have been admitted (or denied admission) but for their race.

Quote:

or that private schools are preferable to public education. But I do believe that taking away resources for public schools and diverting them to private schools is a very good idea. What good are tax credits if you're living below the poverty line and can afford a private school? Some have proposed vouchers, but since public education has been shown, overall, to be superior that that offered by charter schools, why would you want to privatize it?



I spent about half of my childhood educational years in a public school, and half in a private school that was much better. I was raised by a single parent who could just barely afford to send me to the private school. If I'd had siblings, or she earned a little less, it wouldn't have been an option, but even in those cases, it might have been had her tax burden (including the burden of paying for an inferior public school she wasn't using) had been reduced.

Strongly disagree as you probably know, but that's a whole thread in itself.

On Aug 30, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, rockwall wrote:

The statement WASN'T that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence, it was, "IF it did, would you support it?"

The devil is in the details, isn't it.

Would YOU support the teaching of Christianity in the situation described?

Would you still do so if the teachers were all atheists who instructed the kids that Christianity was a bunch of fables and myths?

Sort of outside the scope of the point. The issue isn't that it (or any other particular thing) should be supported; it's that one doesn't have to be a hypocrite to reject an idea that would bring about a claimed desirable result.

Different conversation. I was just addressing the simpler question / point as stated by rockwall.

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I'm talking about in the 21st century where some people support admitting (and denying admission to) certain students that would not have been admitted (or denied admission) but for their race.

Quote:

or that private schools are preferable to public education. But I do believe that taking away resources for public schools and diverting them to private schools is a very good idea. What good are tax credits if you're living below the poverty line and can afford a private school? Some have proposed vouchers, but since public education has been shown, overall, to be superior that that offered by charter schools, why would you want to privatize it?



I spent about half of my childhood educational years in a public school, and half in a private school that was much better. I was raised by a single parent who could just barely afford to send me to the private school. If I'd had siblings, or she earned a little less, it wouldn't have been an option, but even in those cases, it might have been had her tax burden (including the burden of paying for an inferior public school she wasn't using) had been reduced.

Strongly disagree as you probably know, but that's a whole thread in itself.

I assure you that the last paragraph is entirely true.

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the notion that you could reject ALL such measures and not be a hypocrite.

Then I'll stop arguing the point. But I'll also submit that there's nobody on the planet would would reject all measures that would reduce the murder rate.

I was speaking specifically to the list of things that landmark posted. There are many who do, in fact, reject all of them.

Well, everyone can cherry-pick his or her own list. I still doubt that there are many who reject even that short list.

On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Drugs are inherently dangerous.

No, they are not. Some cultures use drugs as part of their religious rites, and they are not associated with anti-social behaviour. Alcohol in moderation can be good for you, it is only when it is overused or abused that it slips into danger territory. It is not inherently dangerous. Same with marijuana, caffine, or any of a number of other commonly used drugs.

If you had said crack cocaine was inherently dangerous, I would not dispute that. But not all drugs are.

And like other assertions on this thread, from myself and from others, I am not going to back it up with extraneous studies. Dig them out yourself.

Now you are going to play that stupid game? According to this logic guns are not Inherantly dangerous either and you have countered your whole point. This is the problem with pseudo intellectual process in action. They are not dangerous until someone loads and aims and fires or does something to cause an unintentional discharge. Thanks for proving my point.

And when you make an assertion it is up to YOU to back it up Tony not anyone to do the research. You are the one making the BS claim that somehow miraculously crime will drop by 50%. Cool back it up or it is just hot air. Heck I can drop the crime rate by 100%. Just abolish all laws. Easy as can be. If the drop in crime comes only from people not being prosecuted for that crime any more it is insignificant. Except of course to those not being prosecuted.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the notion that you could reject ALL such measures and not be a hypocrite.

Then I'll stop arguing the point. But I'll also submit that there's nobody on the planet would would reject all measures that would reduce the murder rate.

I was speaking specifically to the list of things that landmark posted. There are many who do, in fact, reject all of them.

Well, everyone can cherry-pick his or her own list. I still doubt that there are many who reject even that short list.

There are a few on this forum who definitely HAVE, at one time or another, rejected everything on that list.

On Aug 30, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Drugs are inherently dangerous.

No, they are not. Some cultures use drugs as part of their religious rites, and they are not associated with anti-social behaviour. Alcohol in moderation can be good for you, it is only when it is overused or abused that it slips into danger territory. It is not inherently dangerous. Same with marijuana, caffine, or any of a number of other commonly used drugs.

If you had said crack cocaine was inherently dangerous, I would not dispute that. But not all drugs are.

And like other assertions on this thread, from myself and from others, I am not going to back it up with extraneous studies. Dig them out yourself.

Now you are going to play that stupid game? According to this logic guns are not Inherantly dangerous either and you have countered your whole point. This is the problem with pseudo intellectual process in action. They are not dangerous until someone loads and aims and fires or does something to cause an unintentional discharge. Thanks for proving my point.

And when you make an assertion it is up to YOU to back it up Tony not anyone to do the research. You are the one making the BS claim that somehow miraculously crime will drop by 50%. Cool back it up or it is just hot air. Heck I can drop the crime rate by 100%. Just abolish all laws. Easy as can be. If the drop in crime comes only from people not being prosecuted for that crime any more it is insignificant. Except of course to those not being prosecuted.

I have not countered any of my point. Guns ARE inherently dangerous. Not so with drugs. Some are and some aren't.

And if you dispute my point that gun deaths would be halved in Ireland by legalizing pot, then produce some proofs yourself.

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Really? Who's come out in favor of overcrowding, racism, and poor schools?