Re: |[IRL] Didn't we already win this fight?

On Nov 22, 11:26 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"David Klassen" <klas...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Your definition of "most" seems stuck in hyperbole mode.

say 95%

Yep, just as I thought.

No. Many of them (in under-performing school districts) have only one
parent working double shifts---and no other parent.

they should have stopped at one kid unless the partner proved to be reliable
or they should have requested tubes tied.

A) Who are you to decide what they "should" do? B) Why are you only
pinning this on women? How about a law that says all men have to
have a vasectomy until/unless they have enough income to support
children? C) Good luck getting this much control over folks.

A better path is education. Statistics show that if you provide a
woman with education and the means for reasonable birth control,
they use it and birth rates decline. This is a good argument for
actually educating them instead of just focusing on their kids
welfare.

the public schools are simply a lost cause. the more money you throw in the
pit, the more you waste.

That's your belief. I don't think you are right. Based on the Edison
Corp experiment, if you do throw more money at them, they do work.
Just don't expect to make a profit. But then, those who think it
ought
to be profitable need to expand their ideas of what constitutes the
return on that investment.

We are *all* liable for each other. Not just the kids.

their parents are 80% more liable. they are 100% liable for time spent with
kid. that is nobody else's responsibility but the parents or who they can

Again, you state a belief. Another belief is that we are ALL 100%
responsible for each other. Period. It's called Christianity.

muster up to do it - and no one need be forced to spend time on someone

Who said anything about forcing anyone?

else's kid. funding could be spent on supplies for homeschooling by the
parent instead of wasting on public education. again they offer no social
program other the model base on jail [complete with metal detectors].

You are conflating problems.

I am liable time wise only for myself and those I choose to spend it on.

That's your belief. OK.

Define "unwanted". I'm sure there are folks in this world that
would define my birth as unwanted to them...

if their parents did not plan to have them and cannot adequately support
them, they are not wanted. they could have been aborted. not doing so even

That's a BIG assumption.

for some religious reason puts all burden on said parents. if they use faith

Sure. But not all burdens are insurmountable. Especially if you live
within a community that supports you and your decisions.

legitimate excuse. using religion as an excuse is a cop out. you chose not
to abort or not use contraception while you breed like rabbits, you assume

Most non-use of contraception is due to difficulty to get or education
on where/how to get/use it and not an active choice per se.

Why not? It's not the kids fault so why should the kid suffer?!

why let parents off. 1. when using public subsidizing of kids, their parents
must have tied tubes. 2. parents get no free time away from kids [work or
spend time on kids only].

You're still all about controlling the women... Interesting.

And also, just because one needs help, why should the experience
be the most severe/austere imaginable?! Why punish them (and
their kids)?! Are you trying to "teach 'em a lesson"?! That's just
petty.

That's either a REALLY bad idea (because they *will* find trade
partners willing to arm them or take them in as soldiers) or it's
simply a crueler, longer, more suffering version of execution.

suffering of prisoners is not our concern, only their cost.

I'm starting to see a personality issue here...

Sure, but a good fraction of the folks pushing for home-schooling
laws are fundies a-scared of what their kids are being exposed to.

many oppose kids not being taught basics like reading, writing, math, etc.

Parsing the double negative... so you're saying that many *want*
their kids taught the basics? Well, yeah, I'd say that's pretty much
universal. Of course, I'd put science, art, history, music, and
literature
into your "etc."

too much teaching a social agenda like such and such history month [as
opposed to just teaching history itself].

What's wrong with taking 28 days to focus on the achievements
of one group? Especially when it is a group that is traditionally
ignored in most history books. Those books would claim that they
are focusing on "big" events and the "big" people who drove them
and they just *happen* to be all white males. That's a cop out and
thus the desire for focused times for other kinds of history---you
know, to counter the agenda in those textbooks.

*Some* homeschooling. And based on what objective measures?

standardized testing. SATs, ACTs.

Which are pretty much bull*** measures. Since you can drill on
practice tests and improve your scores without gaining ANY
additional education in the traditional sense, that tells me that
the assessment tool is hosed.

academically they do, but public schools always bring up social programs
like they had something of value in that department denying the fact that

I seriously have no clue what you're going on about here.

Nobody is preventing parents from educating their kids. Even if their
kids are forced to go to public or sanctioned private schools, there is
NOTHING stopping the parents from teaching their kids ANYTHING.
My mom taught me to read before I even went to school---the fact that
the school was going to do it too meant nothing nor did it stop her.

why pay public schools to do something parents could do themselves? why

My mom could only teach me so much. She had the knowledge
for most of the stuff I learned up through about my sophomore year
but I doubt she had the skills necessary to effectively pass that on
to me and my siblings or to effectively assess if we were learning
from reading stuff outside her areas of personal knowledge. Now,
I considered her to be pretty bright so I don't have a lot of hope for
the average parent out there.

And the there are those who have to simply keep working because
the only jobs they can get pay only $8/hr and will only give 39 hr/
week
so they have to work two shifts.

If a family wants to opt out, go for it---but you will have to prove
you
are providing a real education (have your curriculum approved,
be assessed on your ability to teach it, and be monitored) and that
also costs the state money---thus, you don't get your tax money back
just because you opt out.

subsidize negligent parents? why not yank those kids away from said lazy
parents?

Again, it's not always about negligence---there are only 24 hr/day!

Better how?

better performing teachers get jobs at private schools than those working
public schools.

Werebat covered this.

That's sorta what *I've* been saying. But the problem can be fixed
without tearing it all down. Start by equally funding all public schools
and making the starting pay of teachers a level that will compete with
other options the better college kids have at graduation.

the public schools are a lost cause and money not wasted on it is money
saved. the schools cannot be saved. the sooner we just accept that, the more
money we can save.

That doesn't stand up to reality. Those public schools with more
money do quite will; the ones that are failing are those that are
seriously underfunded. That would imply more money is a good
start for fixing things.

we can save money making sure anybody on welfare having a 2nd child gets
those tubes tied fast! if they resist, cut them off public subsidizing

Yep---all about controlling the women...

immediately and permanently and yank those kids away as they are clearly
irresponsible.

And some sort of weird "retribution" personality... Uff da!
.