Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I remember public education in the 90s...

About 8 students out of 90 could barely manage to read a dick and Jane early reader at about 10 words per minute, in my sophomore class.

More than half had great difficulty understanding how science works as a process.

More than half had significant problems with reading comprehension.

It was terrible, and the school system spent the vast majority of its time stuck in remedial hell trying desperately to pull the core competency scores up out of the toilet. This was boring and tedious, for students and teachers alike.

What useful curriculum that was presented was loaded with enough candy fluff from congress that only superficial exposure to things like civics and world history were possible, while we spent 2/3 of PE class trapped in health related studies about how penis goes in vagina. (No, really. 2/3 of the year.)

[Shadowlord]

American public education is a piss poor excuse of an education system. YOU LITERALLY CANNOT FAIL THERE. You cannot kick students out because of bad grades. Most parents think school is just an extension of daycare all the way to the teenage years.

Honestly. They have no respect for school because graduation all the way to highschool literally means nothing.

I went through a poor southern middle school and half of an even more poor high school (before my parents moved back up north, and I transferred to a much better high school).

Things I noticed:
1. Classes were designed for the kids who were doing the worst. English class, for instance, was identical from 5th or 6th through to 9th grades.
2. There were students who failed repeatedly, were held back each year, and eventually dropped out at 18. One I knew actually made it to 9th grade.
3. As you might expect from #2, there were 17 year old bullies in middle school.
4. There was nothing resembling AP courses.
5. The math teachers could not explain how anything they were trying to teach would be useful in the future, or what the point of any of it was
6. I also had a particularly dumb math teacher in 9th or 10th grade who claimed that in the distance formula, if you wrote sqrt((x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2), it would give a different result from sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2). I think that argument started because I wrote it in the opposite way from how they did it and they went NO THAT'S WRONG and I went NO, IT GIVES THE SAME RESULT, and they went NUH UH, and I facepalmed and attempted to explain why I was right and they were wrong.

So I would agree that there are kids for whom the lessons are inadequate, and who would do better elsewhere, but generally this is because they've got a better situation at home - better nutrition, attention and encouragement from a parent, not being exposed to lead, and etc. I'd rather see a solution that helps kids who normally wouldn't have those advantages. When their parent or parents work all the time for lack of money, or can't get a job at all, can't afford to live somewhere that doesn't have lead or are locked out of homes, jobs, loans, etc, by redlining, can't afford decent food, these things have effects.

Edit: And what weird said. But none of this was the case anymore in the school district we moved to in Connecticut, which was one of the best ones in that state, with plenty of funding and no worries about failing students bringing it down, because if you were poor you probably couldn't afford to live there.

Edit #2: Shuffling everyone into private schools wouldn't work anyways, since they won't actually solve the problems plaguing the kids who have been failing, and they kick you out if you even LOOK like you're going to bring down their numbers.

[Shadowlord]

For the record, my experience was also in the 90s.

[smjjames]

In other news, shit in EC is slowly getting more real. Previously, I would say that it would be a bad idea if the result gets overturned... but given what massive garbage Trump has hired for administration, and the climate change funding disaster that they've already announced, yyyyeah I better hope they flip it. Sorry Obama, Trump is just that bad.

Is that the same Hamilton group or an independent group?

Not sure why you're saying sorry to Obama though?

Trumps fast and loose style of diplomacy (if you want to call it diplomacy) is starting to get him into trouble before he's even in office. Really minor trouble atm, but still.

Also, whatever happened to not screwing with foriegn relations while the current president is still in office?

Notable quote from the article:
"Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy on Friday immediately warned of dire consequences from ill-informed foreign policy moves by Trump.

"What has happened in the last 48 hours is not a shift. These are major pivots in foreign policy w/out any plan. That's how wars start," Murphy said on Twitter. "And if they aren't pivots - just radical temporary deviations - allies will walk if they have no clue what we stand for. Just as bad.""

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My only issue with that is that Trump probably doesn't understand the magnitude of it. It is nice to at least be steps to put the "scary PRC" bullshit to rest. They're not going to invade anybody over a phone call. It's all rhetoric, all of it.

[smjjames]

Still jarring to the diplomatic community who are used to formalness and carefully chosen words rather than the casual 'What's up bro! How ya doin?' talk that Trump is doing.

Though it's understandable for him to be a bit giddy about talking to world leaders as president-elect.

And I think Sen. Murphy was talking about in general, not China specifically.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I'm extremely non-liberal in my view that because the typical result of pregnancy without intervention* is a human being, abortion is sacrificing a human life (I've heard arguments about when the result of pregnancy is a "person" but never any debate that it's alive or human from the moment of conception - abortion is killing something) for personal comfort**.

I'd like to debate that. (Leftist anarcho-syndicalist, here, not some elfy weak liberal. Of course no liberal would debate whether a zygote is a person, they're too moderate for that. *tongue-in-cheek, mocking my fellow far-leftists, not serious, et cetera*)

What has rights? A person, right? What makes a person? Not human DNA, obviously - human ears aren't people. Nor are brain-dead humans that still have functioning organs. Aliens could also be people. So something being "alive" or "human" doesn't make it a right-bearing entity. But what exactly is a person?

I'd argue that personhood is the result of sapience (sentience, self-awareness, consciousness, et cetera). And what is a necessary attribute for sapience? The ability to think and perceive. AFAIK, fetuses cannot perceive, sense, etc. until they are ~30 weeks old. (This might be smaller; at week 27 fetuses can operate their limbs and such, but still... there are a few months of pregnancy before fetuses can be said to be sapient.)

Where do we draw the line? I could see the argument made that we shouldn't perform abortions on 37-week-old fetuses, but that doesn't really happen (save for medical reasons). Most abortions happen in the early months, far before fetuses can sense or move.

Is something being killed? That's also debatable - fetuses act as "parasites", mostly, until the latest part of pregnancy. Not in the "augh infection kill it with fire" sense, not an emotionally-loaded term, just describing how they are not viable. But what if you don't consider them to be "parasites"? Are they a "bud" of the mother? I disagree - fetuses are separate organisms, so yes, something is being killed.

But we kill animals, we kill bacteria, we kill plants. Killing isn't in and of itself bad. Murder is bad because it's killing people. Killing animals might be bad because it is killing entities with the ability to perceive and (somewhat) think. Embryos can't do either.

Furthermore, abortion is a difficult decision. You don't have mothers thinking "eh, I'll just pop off to the doctor's and murder this baby in me." Why should the government do this - if the embryo is not a person, which it isn't, why should the government control and limit a medical procedure?

As for stem cell research, the zygotes/embryos are at that stage definitely not people, and stem cell research offers tons of possibility, so it's unethical to prevent stem cell research.

I don't take the view that birth control is equivalent to abortion (because preventive methods do not alter the physical progression of gametes, and gametes are not humans).  And I can't think of any other "progressive" view that says it acceptable to sacrifice another person (maybe another person's profits, sure, but not their person) for your own comfort (there are views that say it's laudable to sacrifice yourself for the comfort of others).

Ah-ah-ah. You said before that liberals argued that fetuses weren't people, but never that they weren't alive, and now... now you're saying that liberals think that fetuses are people.

Birth control is equivalent to stopping people from having sex is equivalent to early abortion. They all prevent a human life from forming. Is that undesirable? Perhaps. But it is the choice of the mother, just like it is the choice of the mother to not have sex, and its difficult one. She doesn't need the government to tell her how to choose.

It is indeed a quirk of the universe that males don't have any equivalent kind of physical condition like pregnancy, so there is an inherent inequality there, and I don't have a good answer for that.  I don't think physical inequality is sufficient reason to sacrifice people for personal comfort though.

Indeed, inequality alone could not justify abortion if embryos were people.

*I'm fully aware that not all pregnancies result in a live birth.

This doesn't affect your argument, though - people die sometimes, but that doesn't make killing right.

**Sometimes this isn't even the comfort of the woman; sometimes it's family culture crap like "you'll bring shame to our family" or whatever.

And sometimes it's for medical reasons, or rape.

Still jarring to the diplomatic community who are used to formalness and carefully chosen words rather than the casual 'What's up bro! How ya doin?' talk that Trump is doing.

Though it's understandable for him to be a bit giddy about talking to world leaders as president-elect.

You need to be serious bro, you're the goddamn President.

[Rockphed]

The impression I have gotten of conservatives over the years wrt the sanctity of human life is that believe that:
1. Birth control should cost too much for the poor to afford
2. Abortion should be illegal for the poor (the well-off can afford to fly to a country where it is legal)
3. The poor should get no government assistance with their children
4. Public schools need to die, and ensuring that private schools teach "our traditions" (Christianity and obedience to authority) would be ideal
5. All the poors whose parents lacked the money to raise them well, with shit educations, indoctrinated into obedience and self-sacrifice, with no government assistance, will have no choice but to join the military.
6. This is how we will build a huge army with which to knock over any countries we feel like, without infuriating the people with conscription.

1. No.  The most effective birth control, physical barriers, cost less per month than going to the movies twice.  The pill costs about $20 per month.  IUDs cost about $250 and last 3-5 years, which averages to about $7 a month. They just don't think that making other people pay for your birth control is compatible with various claims that "I'm an adult and should be able to do what I want."  Especially in light of various campaigns to convince the world that "my body is not your business", they balk at paying for things that aren't their business.
2. No, they believe that abortion should be illegal, full stop.  Or they concede that there should be exceptions for (possibly rape and incest) and saving the mother's life.
3. Nobody should get government assistance.  They are at least as up in arms about corporate welfare as the left ostensibly is, they just point out that Tesla, GM, and Solyndra all got corporate welfare on the industrial scale.
4. Public schools should be accountable for how effectively they teach children.  Their current kick is to encourage the formation of charter schools in an effort to increase the effectiveness of schools.  They take as an example of this working New Orleans after Katrina.  Also, school achievement is hardly correlated with school spending.  For example, Utah ranks about 40th for education, but spends dead last.
5. Not particularly.  They expect people to provide for themselves, not have the government provide for them. This goes back to 1 where it is hard to claim to be an adult if you aren't supporting yourself.
6. Hah!  I suppose that that is one use for a large army.  Another is that you can go in and actually put a stop to the killing fields of Sudan or Rwanda or Syria.

[nenjin]

Also, school achievement is hardly correlated with school spending.  For example, Utah ranks about 40th for education, but spends dead last.

This is flat out preposterous. When schools actually spend on decent teacher salaries, good facilities and invest in their curriculum, you get better performance. When schools allot massive amounts of their budget for a stadium and a state of the art rec room (what my school did while simultaneously slashing the budget on every humanities program), this is when academic performance goes no where despite the money spent. Like, what, does good education just spring from the ether, channeled through underpaid but committed teachers? Like private and religious schools don't survive because their alumni funnel shit loads of money to them?

This is like saying there is "hardly" correlation between spending and having an effective military.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

1. No.  The most effective birth control, physical barriers, cost less per month than going to the movies twice.  The pill costs about $20 per month.  IUDs cost about $250 and last 3-5 years, which averages to about $7 a month. They just don't think that making other people pay for your birth control is compatible with various claims that "I'm an adult and should be able to do what I want."  Especially in light of various campaigns to convince the world that "my body is not your business", they balk at paying for things that aren't their business.

What do you mean, "paying for birth control"? Are you referring to governmental funding of PP? Or are you talking about insurance covering birth control?

2. No, they believe that abortion should be illegal, full stop.  Or they concede that there should be exceptions for (possibly rape and incest) and saving the mother's life.

Still, the poor tend to have a harder time planning their families, and a harder time dealing with larger families... abortion access helps the poor most.

3. Nobody should get government assistance.  They are at least as up in arms about corporate welfare as the left ostensibly is, they just point out that Tesla, GM, and Solyndra all got corporate welfare on the industrial scale.

Ahaha, this is some nice conservatism you've got, it's a shame most Republicans aren't True Conservatives. Tax cuts for all the rich guys!

4. Public schools should be accountable for how effectively they teach children.  Their current kick is to encourage the formation of charter schools in an effort to increase the effectiveness of schools.  They take as an example of this working New Orleans after Katrina.  Also, school achievement is hardly correlated with school spending.  For example, Utah ranks about 40th for education, but spends dead last.

You've shown a single example. I am incredibly doubtful that school funding doesn't correlate with success. You need more than one example, or you're not statistically significant.

5. Not particularly.  They expect people to provide for themselves, not have the government provide for them. This goes back to 1 where it is hard to claim to be an adult if you aren't supporting yourself.

Support net and shit, you know? And besides, they expect people to provide for themselves, well why don't we set people on an even playing field? Or just let the poor fail, I guess they don't see a problem with that.

6. Hah!  I suppose that that is one use for a large army.  Another is that you can go in and actually put a stop to the killing fields of Sudan or Rwanda or Syria.

Or you can wage wars of oil, or fuck up the Middle East...

[smjjames]

Still jarring to the diplomatic community who are used to formalness and carefully chosen words rather than the casual 'What's up bro! How ya doin?' talk that Trump is doing.

Though it's understandable for him to be a bit giddy about talking to world leaders as president-elect.

You need to be serious bro, you're the goddamn President.

Tell that to Trump, not me.

Besides, normal procedure would be that he'd have a bunch of aides and advisors nearby, but I have no idea if he'll stick to that protocol or not.

[Neonivek]

How many times do we have to go over it. Trump won the elections. That means he is excellent at global politics.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar Liberal who won him the election with their lies.

Didn't you read enough of those articles?

[wierd]

The notion that all people perform equally is an absurdity.
There will never be an "equal" playing field when it comes to wealth. In 50 years, we will be right back here again, even if you took every dollar, every house, and every acre of land in the country, and allocated each adult an equal portion of it with no overheard.

The vast majority of lotto winners are poor again in 10 years. Contemplate that reality.  That is why the notion of "leveling the playing field" is nonsense.

Instead, assure the game is winnable for those with the skills needed.

[nenjin]

Instead, assure the game is winnable for those with the skills needed.

And, you know, everyone else that pays their taxes and flips your burgers, go get fucked.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The notion that all people perform equally is an absurdity.
There will never be an "equal" playing field when it comes to wealth. In 50 years, we will be right back here again, even if you took every dollar, every house, and every acre of land in the country, and allocated each adult an equal portion of it with no overheard.

The vast majority of lotto winners are poor again in 10 years. Contemplate that reality.  That is why the notion of "leveling the playing field" is nonsense.

Instead, assure the game is winnable for those with the skills needed.

Of course it's absurd that all people would be equally good at everything. That's not what I said.

Let's make it so that class, sex, ethnicity, and all those other things (orientation, gender, location) don't affect your lot in life significantly. Impossible? Probably. But we could get pretty damn close.

Let's make it so those with the skills needed, regardless of class, sex, or ethnicity, can win the game. Let's also make it so that "losing" doesn't throw people into an inescapable hellpit. Help people out, and keep the poor at a decent living income and low unemployment.

Instead, assure the game is winnable for those with the skills needed.

And, you know, everyone else that pays their taxes and flips your burgers, go get fucked.

His post does seem a little elitist...