Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

957108 Posts in 63186 Topics- by 15444 Members - Latest Member: majapat26
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 484
61  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Oct 01, 2014, 10:45AM
Acceptance of public funds is a major issue.

Using public funds in such a way as to benefit the greater public is also a part of that.

The voucher program really shows no real improvement over current performance public schools, nor is that it's aim. At best, vouchers are a market based solution to a non-existent problem. At worse, they have the potential to cripple public services at the public expense, because market based solutions don't and can't serve the greater public. They serve their market.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

The above is a list of states that have passed voucher laws, not those that are actually enforced. NC for example has a state constitution that bars public funds from being funneled into private hands to provide public services. If you look through the list, three things stick out to me:

1) basically all of them happened while under GOP rule
2) they serve a very limited population in order to try to sneak it in
3) there is almost no quality or abuse checks in any of the existing systems

So yes, they have been minor issues because the voucher systems themselves have only been minor players.
Educating kids well benefits the greater public.
All happened under GOP rule.  Of course.  Most dems (all?) are in the NEA's pocket.
Very limited population to sneak it in.  Huh?
Quality or abuse checks?  Are they failing to educate kids?  Abuse?
You're complaining about things that have yet to and may never happen.  You're against them and you'll find reasons why even if they are not substantiated.
62  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 08:28PM
In small quantities, sure. Though in that respect, they immediately contribute to the tax base, most move in the summer, and once there they stay there for years. Not an in and out, or switching, or trying to making public schools the dumping grounds for the unwanted kids, while the private schools take the cream.
They are also optional. In my state, schooling is compulsory for kids of age between 7 and 16.
Well we don't know.  Do we?  Your guessing that these things will happen.  I'm guessing they will be minor issues.  At least they have been in states that have vouchers.
I thought your issue was that schools receive public funds.  Compulsory or not.  It's still public funds.
63  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 06:37PM
Public schools are not nearly as flexible as say manufacturing. They plan the year ahead to make sure they have staff, materials, structures and such to support their numbers. And private schools recruit to a quota. Trying to get money back to public would be too little to late, and then would also hurt the private in turn.
Except that money went to the private school through a voucher.

A bigger question would be could the private schools still kick out students? If a public school can't, then why could a private school accepting public money?
I disagree.  It may hurt the private school. And kids move into new school districts all the time and public school accommodate them easily.  It's a minor issue.  And how often will it/does it happen?  I don't know.
Public colleges kick students out of school all the time.  And they receive public funds.
64  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 06:21PM
Reply #537. Not that it matters, just clarifying.

I'm hoping you weigh in with an opinion on the role of Old Testament law in contemporary Catholicism.
Whoop!  Wrong quote.  Sorry.  Meant for "the great one".
The new covenant is what counts as Jesus said.  Not the old covenant.  The old testament is still important to Catholics as two passages from the old testament are read at every Mass.  Plus there about 7 or 8 books in the old testament that the Catholics use and Protestants don't.
65  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 05:59PM
Just to clarify, you're quoting me but addressing BvB.
Where did I "quote" you?
I don't know if one could actually address bvb.  He's an enigma inside a paradox surrounded by a straight jacket.
66  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 05:11PM
If you want to change the topic back to how much you and B0B dislike BvB and how stupid the topic is, I'm not going to play along. I was commenting on the article he linked to, not on him.
Look at the posts from Tim, Bob, PM and myself.  That was the topic of conversation.  Not the pseudo psychoanalysis of the posters you disagree with. You see.  We're not talking about each other but about the subject.  Can you do that?  I haven't seen your input on religious schools yet.  Look at your last six posts.  Not even close.  Just ad hominem attacks.
67  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 04:06PM
Lets just change this topic to bvb's anti-Christian matters or bvb's Christianity is full of hypocrites or bvb's Christians are silly or bvb's Fairy believers. What a joke.
Then what can be posted here will be much clearer to eveyone.
68  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 03:02PM
I read part of the article, and it was pretty interesting. The opening section on the 50's space alien cult was interesting. The gist of the article was more descriptive than critical--it was just pointing out that our minds are wired so that emotional reactions arise faster that logical ones, so it's human nature to believe we are reasoning when we are actually rationalizing.

It reminds me of the William James quote:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."

I ran across that at an early age, and took it to be a challenge. As I got older, I realized that it was an insurmountable challenge, but still one worth engaging. It was interesting to read the scientific basis for that.
It's bvb stomping his feet and demanding that everyone play the game his way and that you guys should just ignore the ones who don't play by his rules.  He wants to control how people think. Maybe not what they think.  Just how. It's pretty obvious
And he doesn't think he's whining at all when he is actually whining the loudest.
69  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 02:41PM
No, but it does display a rather lack lack for forethought.

If you use public money to then send the kid to private school.... that's where the money went! ;-)


No funds to support that kid in public school. Those things like books, teachers, water, lighting, maintenance, etc.... they cost money. Public school isn't a fall back or backup that exists without any money needed.

So either that would have to change and the private school accepting the funds couldn't kick out that kid for the year of the funds, or the funds should stay public and those that choose and can afford can go private.
I don't think you're thinking this through, speaking of lack of forethought. You do realize that that safeguards can be built in.  Right?   The money goes to the school.  Can the govt get it back or a portion of it?  You pay per semester.  I don't know. Should the parents pay back the government?  Maybe.  And the parents already paid for public school so they don't have to pay anything. Assuming they paid their taxes. Like everyone else does. The govt wastes way more money in other areas.  So don't get all bent out of shape that they may not get the money back.
70  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 01:40PM
If they get in via voucher and are booted out, where pray tell are they supposed to go?
Public school.  Is that a trick question?
71  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 12:51PM

Vouchers would inherently weaken self-selection, because they would reduce the sacrifice required of the parents of applicants.
No they wouldn't.  Parents are held responsible.  Kids can be booted out.  Parents are very involved in the Catholic school education.  Still a sacrifice.  If that were the case, the kids who get scholarships would have weakened the pool.
My kids went to Catholic school k-8.  I was there.

72  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 12:35PM
Not only do Catholic Schools select who gets in, but the applicants themselves are self-selected. I'm not dead-set against vouchers--it would allow parents who were more interested in education than are their peers to keep their kids from being dragged down by their neighbors' kids. I would support a need-based system under certain circumstances. Bear in mind that giving away the free money would weaken the quality of private schools by reducing the sacrifice and self-selection of potential applicants.

Ronkny, the argument for vouchers (by Friedman, et al), is that open markets produce better schools. Your complaint is that people who 'throw money around' exercise more control over  parochial schools, but isn't that almost the definition of a market?
Yes they do select who gets in.  They can't handle all children.  And at least in k-8, anyone can get in as long as the school has the facilities to teach all those they matriculate.  And they can fit the numbers.
Applicants are self selected??
Parents send their kids to these schools because academically, they are better.  Free money would not weaken the quality of the schools because parents are held responsible for their children in the Catholic schools.  Whether they pay full price or get a needs based scholarship or get "free money" from the gov't. 
73  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 10:52AM
I think the bigger danger is handing over to the government all the power in running our education system. The government simply can't be trusted in taking care of everybody's interest. The government is too busy pushing their own agenda into the classrooms.

Private schools is the better option. Allowing tax breaks for needy parents to send their kids to what they consider a better school is closer to the liberal ideology, if liberals really do care for the needy, like they claim.


i don't agree that private schools are the best option for everyone.  My kids attended parochial school through most of the first 8 years but we pulled them because the politics  and money.  It seems that the more you through money around the more you had influence in how the school was operated.  Which was unfair to the poorer kids and those who just didn't  want to play that game such as myself.  
Having said that, vouchers paid by the taxpayers are nescessary for many, not all, children, to recieve a decent education.  It should be need based.  If those against vouchers were genuinely concerned with our children's education then they would support vouchers.  But it seems they are more interested in politics and supporting the left wing agenda and the teachers union that supports the left wing agenda.
http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.php
Teachers in Catholic schools make less than public school teachers.  Yet their product is superior.  We spend more "educating" public school kids than Catholic school kids.  
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/educating-children-catholic-schools-doing/
Think of the kids for a change.  There are many great public school teachers but the system doesn't allow them to teach.  It makes them babysit and doesn't hold parents responsible for their own children.  The pubic schools need the competition.  For the kids sake.
74  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 10:51AM
I thought we weren't name-calling anymore.
I wouldn't call that name calling.  Would you describe his post as adding anything to the discussion?  Or is it just another "below the radar" attack?  I call it trollish behavior.  I think others here would also.
75  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 30, 2014, 07:51AM
troll
76  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Psychology Today on Trolls on: Sep 29, 2014, 02:05PM
Sigh.
He doesn't get it, BH.  Will he ever?
77  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 29, 2014, 08:13AM

You apparently only read a few selected words there ... apparently in a selected context.
No.  He's just finally figured you out too. 
78  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 26, 2014, 01:30PM
Hey Bob, I'd really like your thoughts on the flag in church, that's what we're discussing now. 


Tim.  You realize that bvb has not addressed it in a while either, right?
79  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 26, 2014, 10:44AM
Ronkny, if I thought you had the ability or even just the slightest inclination to reason through or past your personal sentiments I might actually engage you there, but experience tells me quite the contrary. With a degree of certainty that's quire rare when dealing with humans, in your case there's definitely no point to such an attempt.
 
I found that post too oblivious of the world outside of your own bubble to warrant comment, and I still do, although that has a lot to do with the above, because I'd have no trouble going into that stuff with someone who's not going to be utterly unwilling to honestly consider the points I make, as you've consistently demonstrated time and again you are. This is why meta-commentary is the only thing I find worthwhile, at least occasionally, regarding you and rest of my fan club.
 
Note:
Meta means beyond or looking in from outside, basically. So yeah ... really.
Then don't comment at all.  It's easy.
80  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Religion Matters on: Sep 26, 2014, 10:09AM
You can't get much more ironic than that.
 
The problem in your understanding is (well, after the fact you clearly just don't want to understand) is that you're choosing to see meta-commentary as off topic, when in fact the kinds of meta-commentary I'm doing are inherently on topic--they're about how discussion works on a fundamental level, which is relevant to any and all discussion in which what I'm commenting on is happening (it's kinda my nature to cut right to the chase like that)). Your inability to understand that is probably mostly about your zealous anti-BvB bias, and also anger over the suggestion that such pure belligerence and obstinance and such are unworthy of adult forum behavior and your forum behavior would have to dramatically change if anyone succeeds in advocating an adult level of discourse here.
 No, you didn't answer a question, you twisted things around to suit your own ends, preventing genuine discussion as usual.
meta-commentary?  Really?
And this sentence?
"The problem in your understanding is (well, after the fact you clearly just don't want to understand) is that you're choosing to see meta-commentary as off topic, when in fact the kinds of meta-commentary I'm doing are inherently on topic--they're about how discussion works on a fundamental level, which is relevant to any and all discussion in which what I'm commenting on is happening (it's kinda my nature to cut right to the chase like that))."
what the heck
It would fail in any college level composition course.  That's bloviating.  It's not concise.  It's not pithy.  It rambles.  I know it inflates your ego.
Bob sees it too and I rarely agree with him.

Here's your statement and my response;


"Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 09:18 AM


Until about 30 years ago or so most conservative protestants were staunchly separationist, so many remaining members of The Greatest Generation, and probably many of their kids, will fall under that same umbrella.
 
As a believer and non I think it cheapens religion to mix it with politics--trivializes it--introduces a character of pettiness into it ... etc.

I disagree.  I'd like to see the research.  There was no internet and polling for stuff like that was not as often if at all for those kinds of things.  And no one complained about chaplins and crosses and prayers in the military.  And there was no call for a "humanist" Chaplin whatever that is.
I don't want and most reasonable people don't want a state religion, like the Constitution expressly forbids.  The anti religious, separation it's or whatever you want to call them have expanded the meaning.  And they're wrong in my opinion.  Justice Black's ruling was also an opinion."

Twisted?? No.

Try to stay on topic.  You don't need to talk about others here. 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 484