[mikeh]

 mike777, on 2016-December-28, 15:49, said:

.


I would be in favor for the voucher experiment. Yes I agree as MIkeH points out there are bad parents and uniformed parents. I dont find this argument persuasive to stop the experiment. Like all experiments this one may fail. If it does destroy the program and try something else or ten something elses.

I see. Knowing, with virtual certainty, that vouchers will blight the future for millions of children, it makes sense to run the experiment. Just how are you going to deal with the educational disaster that will undoubtedly ensue? I'd like to see how you justify treating children with such contempt.

Sort of like voting for trump. Many voters apparently saw Washington as in hopeless deadlock. So they elected trump in the hope that he would destroy the government. Sort of like not liking the colour of the carpets in your house, so let's burn the house down, rather than, say, change the carpet.

Simple solutions to complex problems rarely turn out well.

Btw, the fact that something is 'legal' doesn't make it a good thing.

[Trinidad]

 mike777, on 2016-December-28, 15:49, said:

there are bad parents and uniformed parents.

Freudian typo or simply militaristic?

Rik

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-December-18, 08:54, said:

We are talking about the opinions of well-respected individuals with much more information than you (I expect) or I (definitely) at their disposal.

Perhaps BBF posters could provide you with the names of 20 or more well-respected individuals with more information than you at their disposal on the subject of climate change. But I daresay they would have less impact on your opinions than John Pilger on Ken's. We can try if it you like though...

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 16:06, said:

I see. Knowing, with virtual certainty, that vouchers will blight the future for millions of children, it makes sense to run the experiment. Just how are you going to deal with the educational disaster that will undoubtedly ensue? I'd like to see how you justify treating children with such contempt.

Sort of like voting for trump. Many voters apparently saw Washington as in hopeless deadlock. So they elected trump in the hope that he would destroy the government. Sort of like not liking the colour of the carpets in your house, so let's burn the house down, rather than, say, change the carpet.

Simple solutions to complex problems rarely turn out well.

Btw, the fact that something is 'legal' doesn't make it a good thing.

virtual certainty....blight for millions...quite a claim with zero evidence shown at this point of millions of futures blighted....wow after I advocate for an experiment wow...


btw the experiment need not involve millions or be of only one flavor.

[mike777]

 Trinidad, on 2016-December-28, 16:31, said:

Freudian typo or simply militaristic?

Rik

Indeed my spelling does seem to get worse as I age. But your main point is a fair one, perhaps a Freudian or Jungian slip but I would advocate for a uniform wearing experiment as well....need not to be millions in scope.

[awm]

It seems to me that certain people really want the "experiment" to work for reasons that have little to do with the stated goals (i.e. they want to make it easier for kids to avoid learning about things like evolution and climate change, or they want to cut taxes for rich donors). So they keep repeating the "experiment" even though experts in the field don't think the experiment will work and even though many prior attempts at the experiment have shown that it does not work. Typically running the "experiment" (especially at a national level) is quite costly and harmful.... and as predicted, does not work. But they will still try it again in a few years when they get voted back into power.

The lack of respect for science or facts is frustrating.

[nige1]

 MrAce, on 2016-December-28, 09:51, said:

Nige1 I appreciate your being brave and not agreeing with the majority in many different topics and trying to be on the same side with people who are being ganged up on.

Neither "brave" nor "on the same side".

 MrAce, on 2016-December-28, 09:51, said:

But this Jonnottowa thing is different. I know you are also one who is against racism and one who defends the free speech. With all due respect to you, you started to sound like you will take stance in the opposite direction of certain posters and you do not care anymore whether what they say is right or wrong.

They should be allowed to express unpopular opinions without abuse. Personal attacks are unjustified even if an antagonist's argument is hard to refute.

 MrAce, on 2016-December-28, 09:51, said:

If and when you do that, don't you think that your opinions are being decided by other people and where they stand? That's not the Nige1 I know. What this guy did was worse than awful and there is nothing to defend about it. Just because he did it to someone you are not fan of, should not affect where you stand on this imho.

Jonottowa was banned for what he did outside BBF? FWIW, I disapprove of what he's alleged to have done.

 MrAce, on 2016-December-28, 09:51, said:

You know I am in disagreement with you in topics not less than others. I never said anything mean or insulting to you personally. I always believed and still do that you have the right to express whatever you believe. But ask yourself "Am I reacting to X or Y or Z opinion because it is supported by Richard, Arend, Mike or am I reacting because of what I really believe" Imo in some cases you react to things just because you want to take a stance against certain people. And this is getting old.

I don't know Hrothgar or MikeH. I regard Cherdano as a friend. As a rule, I try to comment on posts not people. For example, IMO, you should up-vote what you consider to be interesting facts or good arguments, no matter who posts them.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 11:36, said:

Imo, there are solutions to at least some of the US's educational problems, but they would be massively unpopular with those who tend to vote. Delink school funding from local taxation. Pay teachers more. Increase the resources to schools in the worst economic areas, so that the schools where kids have a poor environment out of school have a good environment in school.

This is an interesting subject to me and it's too bad that I currently don't have time to research it further to discuss it intelligently.

Mike made some very good points about school vouchers. Vouchers' proponents think that the schools with good teachers and administrators will prosper and those without good teachers or administrations will die out and will eliminate the union teachers that are just putting in their time (as those promoting vouchers are likely to want to get rid of teachers' unions also.) Mike pointed out some problems - that lazy or too busy or misguided religious parents may either be stuck with an inferior school. Plus, the theory behind getting rid of the bad teachers at under-performing schools may get rid of some good ones as well; and a school may underperform for reasons other than the teachers being bad.

Mike, I support some of your ideas. If we had a way to weed out those teachers that were simply putting in their time and only keep those that aspire to teach like Elianna, I would support doubling their salaries and would be the first to volunteer to pay extra taxes to make that happen. Doubling the salaries might attract more talented teachers who have avoided the field because they wanted a higher lifestyle. I can also see the merit in increasing funds to the worst economic areas as long as real learning rather than babysitting or behavior control happens. Delinking school funding from local taxation will never happen because too many people believe that the Federal government already has too much control over education and federal money usually comes with unwanted strings.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 11:36, said:

Here is an idea I have long thought would be wonderful: require that ALL elected officials with school age kids send their kids to public schools. No private school for the children of any elected official. Want to bet that school funding improves? Ok, I am being delusional.

I hope I can convince you that it's not wonderful. Instead of helping public schools, it will greatly diminish the number of qualified candidates running for public office. Quite possibly most of the elected officials will not have children or grandchildren and won't understand what being a parent entails. Do you think that would help our education situation? (I assumed the 'delusional' comment meant that you didn't think it would ever happen, not that you didn't think it was a great idea.)

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-28, 17:05, said:

Perhaps BBF posters could provide you with the names of 20 or more well-respected individuals with more information than you at their disposal on the subject of climate change. But I daresay they would have less impact on your opinions than John Pilger on Ken's. We can try if it you like though...

Sure. Meet me on the CC thread. Always open to new info.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 11:36, said:

Here is an idea I have long thought would be wonderful: require that ALL elected officials with school age kids send their kids to public schools. No private school for the children of any elected official. Want to bet that school funding improves? Ok, I am being delusional.

MikeH's suggestion was proposed in the UK. I agree, in principle. Supporters of fee-paying schools protested that it would force officials to disadvantage their children but you can argue that these officials are in the ideal position to change that.

In the UK, a similar policy with the NHS, public transport, and state franchises would probably work overnight miracles.

[nige1]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-28, 12:21, said:

Isn't that like complaining about someone calling Charles Manson a crazed mass murderer after his conviction for being a crazed mass murderer? When you can't follow the rules of society, you lose your right to bitch about how unfairly you are being treated.

No No

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-21, 16:41, said:

Sometime back, Cherdano took me to task for something, right mnow I forget what it was, and he said I should read more TNC.
"What's that", I asked.
Ta-Nahisi Coates I learned. So I read some. I wasn't impressed, but I learned a bit.
I had NPR on while riding with Becky and he (TNC, not Cherdano) was being interviewed.
"Who is that?" asked Becky. I explained as best I could in a neutral voice, using the knowledge from BBF that he was a Black Intellectual of note.
"Maybe he writes better than he speaks" said Becky.

If you are willing to give TNC another chance, I highly recommend his look back at the reality of having a black president.
https://www.theatlan...s-black/508793/

One thing you might want to keep in mind when reading TNC is that he consciously decided to reject some of the lingo you are supposed to acquire to sound like a smart intellectual. Others who learn that trait sound (at least for a short while) smarter than they are; for TNC it is the opposite until you read more, or think more about what he wrote.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-26, 14:23, said:

Here's the list of the more prominent individuals who participated in the march

To add to this, it is worth looking up the record of some on the list for their actions regarding press freedom, such as:-

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman
Jordanian King Abdullah II and Queen Rania
Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas
United Arab Emirates foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita
Gabonese President Ali Bongo

along with one you missed:-
Egyptian foreign minister Sameh Shoukry (Egypt being the fourth largest prison in the world for journalists.)

It seems very difficult to compare Obama's record on the subject unfavourably to any of these but you are welcome to try.

[diana_eva]

 nige1, on 2016-December-28, 19:34, said:

Jonottowa was banned for what he did outside BBF? FWIW, I disapprove of what he's alleged to have done.

He is not "alleged" to have done something. He admitted to having done what Mike said. FWIW breaking another user's personal privacy (especially for destructive purposes!) is against the Forum rules, if simple common sense doesn't seem enough for you.

Jon was called out for the things he posted because people like him are a real danger to society. Not in global, abstract, terms, in immediate terms. Someone reads Jon's theories and shows up with a gun at his Muslim neighbor's door for instance. This isn't about political correctness or freedom of speech, all it takes is a brainwashed moron and a gun to cause an instant tragedy. Can anyone with half neuron sit around and think "it's not nice to tell this guy he's a crazy hateful lunatic"?

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-27, 18:27, said:

My family is German

My father taught East West German relations as well as the rise of the Nazi party.

I was taught from an early age that the greatest failure of the German people was normalizing the National Socialists and that one has an active duty to confront this sort of idiocy.

This is a great attribute of your family, and you wear it well.

The worse aspect of the Trump victory is that he has legitimized extremes. It will take more than a few scattered voices to dismantle this catastrophe.

[Kaitlyn S]

 diana_eva, on 2016-December-29, 05:41, said:

Someone reads Jon's theories and shows up with a gun at his Muslim neighbor's door for instance. This isn't about political correctness or freedom of speech, all it takes is a brainwashed moron and a gun to cause an instant tragedy. Can anyone with half neuron sit around and think "it's not nice to tell this guy he's a crazy hateful lunatic"?

As a practical matter, I don't think there is anybody on this forum that is going to show up with a gun at a Muslim neighbor's door. Banning him gives him more time to speak on sites where such a lunatic might exist.

I am not arguing against the ban; what he did to MikeH is egregious. Banning for that reason is fine. But banning because he thinks someone in the Water Cooler is going to go off half-cocked and shoot a Muslim neighbor is IMO ever so slightly going to increase the odds that it will happen.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-December-29, 02:34, said:

If you are willing to give TNC another chance, I highly recommend his look back at the reality of having a black president.
https://www.theatlan...s-black/508793/

One thing you might want to keep in mind when reading TNC is that he consciously decided to reject some of the lingo you are supposed to acquire to sound like a smart intellectual. Others who learn that trait sound (at least for a short while) smarter than they are; for TNC it is the opposite until you read more, or think more about what he wrote.

Yes, sure. Not at this moment, I have a lot of stuff going on. But I don't doubt that he has some things to say that are worth hearing. He would never be accused of lacking confidence, and this can make him difficult to listen to, but yes, I will give it a shot.

[diana_eva]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-29, 10:44, said:

As a practical matter, I don't think there is anybody on this forum that is going to show up with a gun at a Muslim neighbor's door. Banning him gives him more time to speak on sites where such a lunatic might exist.

I am not arguing against the ban; what he did to MikeH is egregious. Banning for that reason is fine. But banning because he thinks someone in the Water Cooler is going to go off half-cocked and shoot a Muslim neighbor is IMO ever so slightly going to increase the odds that it will happen.

If you quoted the whole thing you'd see that he was banned for what he did to MikeH.

The phrase you quoted is why I didn't care that people were making personal attacks against Jon while dismantling his conspiracy theories. Dismantling crazy theories like, say, Hillary is running a child sex ring in a pizza house, seemed far more important than the personal attacks.

[Trinidad]

Personnaly, I am not really worried about people who tell that Hillary is running a child sex ring in a pizza house.

I am worried that there are people who believe it.

But if critical thinking isn't taught at schools (and instead is viewed as "annoying adolescent behavior" by teachers when critical thinking is practised and mistakes are made) we are only producing brain dead adults.

Rik

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2016-December-29, 12:52, said:

Personnaly, I am not really worried about people who tell that Hillary is running a child sex ring in a pizza house.

I am worried that there are people who believe it.

But if critical thinking isn't taught at schools (and instead is viewed as "annoying adolescent behavior" by teachers when critical thinking is practised and mistakes are made) we are only producing brain dead adults.

Rik

IMO, the main problem with the idiocies such as the pizzagate child-sex ring story isn't the story itself. A few truly stupid people may fall for it but even most stupid people won't.

The problem is that it gives cover to the other, more dangerous, notions out there by allowing people such as Kaitlyn to claim to the world, and to themselves, that they aren't total whackjobs, because they don't believe this at all (unless, as K says, there is strong evidence!). No...they don't believe (well, not until the proof is there) that HRC ran a childsex ring out of a pizza joint. So they are obviously rational people.

Instead, they spout nonsense about HRC's hidden agenda to ban guns, and to create a socialist country, and so on. Their bizarre beliefs are just as unsupported by evidence as was pizzagate, but they sound almost normal, compared to pizzagate.

The point of the truly outlandish stories isn't to get people to believe them: it is to move the goalposts in such a way that almost-as-bizarre ideas start to appear middle-of-the-road.

We are in real danger of this becoming ever more present. Trump is going to be normalized. We can and should resist this, but it is already happening and he hasn't even come into office yet.

The more his brand of lying, deceit, bragging, pandering to racism and misogyny becomes 'normal', the harder it will be to prevent this becoming the new American way of life. We have to see how the worst lies are not just silly lies....they are a means of moving the boundaries of what is 'normal'.