Read more. Your actual quote was "Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin", not "Millions of Germans and Austrians died due to bombing during the entire war", or "Millions of Germans and Austrians died due to bombing during the entire war or other war related causes".
Seriously. You said one thing, its not true, someone called you on it, deal. I happen to agree with your OP, but blatantly wrong factual errors cant, and shouldn't be ignored.
I think i was unclear, when i said "children" i meant post birth, like 5 year olds. The point was/is that its not an argument that they use to support their beliefs, this is the core of their beliefs. Strawman in extending something beyond probability, then attacking that improbable situation. In this case it would be "Soon parents will be able to kill their 30 year old children if we allow abortion to continue".
You are confused with definitions, when they say "killing children" you assume that it means birth to 15 year olds, when they say it they mean conception to 15 year olds.
There is no strawman here, just two sides of a debate arguing over a definition.
I am not sure that I understand. What balance is there with a 5 year old and a mother? What balance is there between the feds and the states?
I get that rights arent just pulled from thin air, and that usually(always?) they come at a cost to others. . . But if abortion is illegal in the third trimester, and everyone is okay with that, how do you reconcile the rights of a 7 month old fetus with those of the mother any differently than the rights of a 5 month old fetus?
I mean, as i understand it you are saying that a fetus is taking the rights away from a mother unjustly, which i dont buy because its a deliberate choice to have those rights taken away, to become pregnant. Just as adopting a cat takes rights away from you (you cant let it starve). Now maybe that argument ends (to you) with "People didn't expect the outcome that they got based on that choice, so they shouldn't be held accountable for it". I dont agree.
In so far as the other people around them losing rights as well, i mean, i dont really see it as much more than the same rights lost by the mother being there as well. There are only a few things that a pregnant woman cant be around, cat litter and paint come to mind, but thats about it. Smoke and such are already covered by the mother herself. I mean, i agree that litigious lawyers are bad for us as a society, but the solution isnt to deny rights to people (fetuses) -just- because our legal system is ripe for abuse.
This country, every country, and every law in them are choosing what others can do and how they conduct their lives.
There is a real simple analogy here with murder. Would you support a parent killing her 7 year old child? If you saw people doing that would you say "Its okay, I shouldn't say anything or have an opinion on this because I dont get to extend my beliefs to others."
Grow up. Civilization is based on extending beliefs to others, they just happen to be -generally- agreed upon, with exceptions like abortion.
There is a difference between manslaughter, negligent homicide, and felony murder.
Your argument is silly because the world isnt black and white, find me one religious (or legal) institution that punishes or condemns random acts outside your control (manslaughter, miscarriage) in the same way as they punish or condemn deliberate acts (felony murder, abortion).
... I hate to break it to you, but there are laws protecting the health of adult people as well, and yes, there are lawyers that sue for clients that have to work in environments where people smoke. This is why public places are generally smoke free.
I really like how you somehow make a mockery of the idea of -anyone- protecting a fetus. Do you think that if a man punches an obviously pregnant woman in the stomach that he should be charged with less of a crime than punching her in the arm?
The argument isnt a straw man at all, that is what they believe.
It would be a straw man if it were applied in reverse, if someone said "Because you support abortion you support killing children". which is not what TheRaven64 was trying to say.
The whole point here is that most people that are pro-choice think that the pro-life supporters are just trying to tell them what they can (or cant) do with their body. This isnt the case, this isnt the argument, this is a secondary correlation of the position of the pro-lifers, who are arguing in support of a society that doesn't support murder, they arent arguing against what you do with your body.
Believe it or not, there is real use in metaphors, especially when the metaphor (people that think that murder is okay) has a direct correlation to the argument.
Just because you dont agree with an argument or an analogy doesnt mean that you can yell "Straw man!" The idea that there are no people that think that murder is okay is exactly the point of the pro-lifers, that abortion should be outlawed.
1) Teachers arent underpaid. public teachers make more than private teachers do. What metric are -you- using? What you -feel- teachers should be paid?
2) All teachers have this problem. the study looks at, and finds teachers that manage to teach anyway vs those that simply do not. You arent going to get a private tutor educating you for 20 years. Face reality. Some teachers are good, others are bad, the union protects them all at the expense of children learning.
3) I like how people blame the external factors when teachers fail, but not any other business/profession. When the military fails at something its "court marshal them!" when a business fails at something its "Ugh, what a shitty company, i will never buy from them again" when the government fails at something its "All politicians are corrupt", but when a teacher is a -clear- failure, objectively failing at teaching year after year when their peers are succeeding in the same circumstances, "you" people say "It cant be the teachers fault, We should pay them more".
You need to show - scientifically and statistically - that education does improve when teachers are replaced under this system.
Actually read the study on how they do these evaluations. Read the LA one. These people arent stupid, they actually do understand the factors at play, and do understand statistics.
I dont know what else to say, except that you need to inform yourself about the facts here.
Yes, i agree for a much higher degree of transparency in all elected officials, that being said, Judges and Politicians have public records, teachers do not. You can request a different judge, and you can vote out a politician, you cant touch a unionized teacher. All in all, yes, i hear you, and I do agree. It is my opinion that public records and transparency for teachers is much more important than for public transportation workers though.
Yes, homeschooling is an option that 1% of America takes, and the public school and government make it -very- hard to do such, even if you have the means to try. (Not to mention that you are still paying for the public school) But that really misses the point of the matter. Schools are public because it is is society's best interest to have an educated populace. When that isnt happening the solution is to fix the school, not cut and run with my personal kids. We have decided that we are going to give everyone an education in this country, and we are paying for it. So why are we defending bad teachers again? they not only are costing us money, but they are destroying the populace.
Look, no matter what my children will get a good education, be it private or homeschool. Thats not up for debate. I am arguing for other peoples children to get a decent education as well, and by "decent" i mean "at least -try- to have good teachers". Why are you condemning me for that?
Listening to explanations is very different than not being able to chose a different teacher. For example, if my child was in one of the classes lead by a teacher that was a miserable failure, would it matter if i listened or not when the teacher could not be removed and i couldnt move my child to a different school district?
Secondly, there is a -big- difference between the less than 20% of US hospitals that are public and the more than 80% of schools that are. Not to mention that even at a public hospital you have rights of quality care. . . you have no such rights at a public school.
I think a much easier action would be to look at your average new teacher performance, then fire everyone below that line and hire new teachers to replace them.
Education improves, plain and simple.
The thing that I think people are missing here is that this isnt supposed to be a way to show that teacher A is fractionally better than teacher B, its supposed to show that certain teachers are orders of magnitude worse than the average, for whatever reason. If you want to start talking about specific methodologies that allow teacher A to improve students 5% more in a year than teacher B, fine, but thats not what this is about. This is about getting rid of the teachers that just do not perform on any level, and thats why the teachers union in opposing it.
Poor students are not the measure of the study. They are measuring how much the delta over a year in the classroom, and comparing to other similar teachers making sure to adjust for honors classes, student level upon entry, attendance...
If you read the methodology, it was actually done very well, and a school that actually wanted to teach students would welcome that data, to test and see what methods worked and which didnt, not to mention identify teachers that simply were not imparting information to their students.
Again, Ill repeat that this isnt measuring how many students get into college, itsmeasuring how much Progress was made during a year in a classroom.
The point isnt that this is -the- final word on teachers, the idea is that we can, and should use this to identify teachers that are literally doing nothing, their students are the exact some level year to year, or actually getting worse, and yes, there are teachers that show this behavior in the LA data.
Just because its not a single 100% metric doesnt mean that it is "wrong", but a teacher that is on the bottom of these lists should be examined, as that teacher isnt even teaching the test.
Oh wait, its a PUBLIC job. Everyone is forced to pay their salaries and our children education is in their hands.
You want to see a companies tract record? Ask them for it. They dont give it to you? Use someone else. Most often there is no -viable- competition in the school system.
Read the study. They judged based on performance increases over the year, not absolute grades. Basically grade level of students coming in vs out, adjusted to only be compared vs similar starting conditions. (students)
Is that perfect? No. Is that a good indicator? Yeah, especially when you have teachers that literally did nothing all year vs some that raised -all- of their students by several grade levels, in the same school with similar starting students.
The study addresses all these points, and is very clear about saying that they are not trying for an absolute rank, they were trying to just use the data to identify teachers that were working vs those that were not.
Yes, "teaching the test" is bad, but looking at the data, it is clear that some teachers werent even doing that, their students literally learned close to nothing in that year.
Progress is all that matters. In your example of a "bad" district, it still matters that we teach the highschool dropouts as much as we can while we have them. -No- one is blaming teachers for failing students, especially this study. We (they) are blaming them when they fail to teach.
Slashdot Mirror
you do know that you can get almost any blood test online without a doctors orders.... right?
You didnt answer my questions, which i didnt expect anyway, so thats okay (for me).
And when is a fertilized egg not the result of a choice? Are you drawing out the straw man of rape cases here?
Seriously. You said one thing, its not true, someone called you on it, deal. I happen to agree with your OP, but blatantly wrong factual errors cant, and shouldn't be ignored.
Both locations need light that is brighter than LEDs can put out
And what about Martins history of theft?
Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin
Nope. Not even close. ~100 thousand were killed, not "millions"
You are confused with definitions, when they say "killing children" you assume that it means birth to 15 year olds, when they say it they mean conception to 15 year olds.
There is no strawman here, just two sides of a debate arguing over a definition.
I am not sure that I understand. What balance is there with a 5 year old and a mother? What balance is there between the feds and the states?
I get that rights arent just pulled from thin air, and that usually(always?) they come at a cost to others. . . But if abortion is illegal in the third trimester, and everyone is okay with that, how do you reconcile the rights of a 7 month old fetus with those of the mother any differently than the rights of a 5 month old fetus?
I mean, as i understand it you are saying that a fetus is taking the rights away from a mother unjustly, which i dont buy because its a deliberate choice to have those rights taken away, to become pregnant. Just as adopting a cat takes rights away from you (you cant let it starve). Now maybe that argument ends (to you) with "People didn't expect the outcome that they got based on that choice, so they shouldn't be held accountable for it". I dont agree.
In so far as the other people around them losing rights as well, i mean, i dont really see it as much more than the same rights lost by the mother being there as well. There are only a few things that a pregnant woman cant be around, cat litter and paint come to mind, but thats about it. Smoke and such are already covered by the mother herself. I mean, i agree that litigious lawyers are bad for us as a society, but the solution isnt to deny rights to people (fetuses) -just- because our legal system is ripe for abuse.
You get to choose what others believe, never.
This country, every country, and every law in them are choosing what others can do and how they conduct their lives.
There is a real simple analogy here with murder. Would you support a parent killing her 7 year old child? If you saw people doing that would you say "Its okay, I shouldn't say anything or have an opinion on this because I dont get to extend my beliefs to others."
Grow up. Civilization is based on extending beliefs to others, they just happen to be -generally- agreed upon, with exceptions like abortion.
I dont think that you really have studied Christian history.
There is a difference between manslaughter, negligent homicide, and felony murder.
Your argument is silly because the world isnt black and white, find me one religious (or legal) institution that punishes or condemns random acts outside your control (manslaughter, miscarriage) in the same way as they punish or condemn deliberate acts (felony murder, abortion).
... I hate to break it to you, but there are laws protecting the health of adult people as well, and yes, there are lawyers that sue for clients that have to work in environments where people smoke. This is why public places are generally smoke free.
I really like how you somehow make a mockery of the idea of -anyone- protecting a fetus. Do you think that if a man punches an obviously pregnant woman in the stomach that he should be charged with less of a crime than punching her in the arm?
The argument isnt a straw man at all, that is what they believe.
It would be a straw man if it were applied in reverse, if someone said "Because you support abortion you support killing children". which is not what TheRaven64 was trying to say.
The whole point here is that most people that are pro-choice think that the pro-life supporters are just trying to tell them what they can (or cant) do with their body. This isnt the case, this isnt the argument, this is a secondary correlation of the position of the pro-lifers, who are arguing in support of a society that doesn't support murder, they arent arguing against what you do with your body.
Believe it or not, there is real use in metaphors, especially when the metaphor (people that think that murder is okay) has a direct correlation to the argument.
Just because you dont agree with an argument or an analogy doesnt mean that you can yell "Straw man!" The idea that there are no people that think that murder is okay is exactly the point of the pro-lifers, that abortion should be outlawed.
You really think that there are a million and a half people in the US actively trying to bomb the president? because... no. Maybe there are 20.
You do know that film has to be developed first, right?
1) Teachers arent underpaid. public teachers make more than private teachers do. What metric are -you- using? What you -feel- teachers should be paid?
2) All teachers have this problem. the study looks at, and finds teachers that manage to teach anyway vs those that simply do not. You arent going to get a private tutor educating you for 20 years. Face reality. Some teachers are good, others are bad, the union protects them all at the expense of children learning.
3) I like how people blame the external factors when teachers fail, but not any other business/profession. When the military fails at something its "court marshal them!" when a business fails at something its "Ugh, what a shitty company, i will never buy from them again" when the government fails at something its "All politicians are corrupt", but when a teacher is a -clear- failure, objectively failing at teaching year after year when their peers are succeeding in the same circumstances, "you" people say "It cant be the teachers fault, We should pay them more".
You need to show - scientifically and statistically - that education does improve when teachers are replaced under this system.
Actually read the study on how they do these evaluations. Read the LA one. These people arent stupid, they actually do understand the factors at play, and do understand statistics.
I dont know what else to say, except that you need to inform yourself about the facts here.
Yes, i agree for a much higher degree of transparency in all elected officials, that being said, Judges and Politicians have public records, teachers do not. You can request a different judge, and you can vote out a politician, you cant touch a unionized teacher. All in all, yes, i hear you, and I do agree. It is my opinion that public records and transparency for teachers is much more important than for public transportation workers though.
Yes, homeschooling is an option that 1% of America takes, and the public school and government make it -very- hard to do such, even if you have the means to try. (Not to mention that you are still paying for the public school) But that really misses the point of the matter. Schools are public because it is is society's best interest to have an educated populace. When that isnt happening the solution is to fix the school, not cut and run with my personal kids. We have decided that we are going to give everyone an education in this country, and we are paying for it. So why are we defending bad teachers again? they not only are costing us money, but they are destroying the populace.
Look, no matter what my children will get a good education, be it private or homeschool. Thats not up for debate. I am arguing for other peoples children to get a decent education as well, and by "decent" i mean "at least -try- to have good teachers". Why are you condemning me for that?
Secondly, there is a -big- difference between the less than 20% of US hospitals that are public and the more than 80% of schools that are. Not to mention that even at a public hospital you have rights of quality care. . . you have no such rights at a public school.
I think a much easier action would be to look at your average new teacher performance, then fire everyone below that line and hire new teachers to replace them.
Education improves, plain and simple.
The thing that I think people are missing here is that this isnt supposed to be a way to show that teacher A is fractionally better than teacher B, its supposed to show that certain teachers are orders of magnitude worse than the average, for whatever reason. If you want to start talking about specific methodologies that allow teacher A to improve students 5% more in a year than teacher B, fine, but thats not what this is about. This is about getting rid of the teachers that just do not perform on any level, and thats why the teachers union in opposing it.
If you read the methodology, it was actually done very well, and a school that actually wanted to teach students would welcome that data, to test and see what methods worked and which didnt, not to mention identify teachers that simply were not imparting information to their students.
Again, Ill repeat that this isnt measuring how many students get into college, itsmeasuring how much Progress was made during a year in a classroom.
Just because its not a single 100% metric doesnt mean that it is "wrong", but a teacher that is on the bottom of these lists should be examined, as that teacher isnt even teaching the test.
If i am paying someone to do a job dont i have the right to see that they are .... you know ... actually doing it?
You want to see a companies tract record? Ask them for it. They dont give it to you? Use someone else. Most often there is no -viable- competition in the school system.
Is that perfect? No. Is that a good indicator? Yeah, especially when you have teachers that literally did nothing all year vs some that raised -all- of their students by several grade levels, in the same school with similar starting students.
The study addresses all these points, and is very clear about saying that they are not trying for an absolute rank, they were trying to just use the data to identify teachers that were working vs those that were not.
Yes, "teaching the test" is bad, but looking at the data, it is clear that some teachers werent even doing that, their students literally learned close to nothing in that year.
Progress is all that matters. In your example of a "bad" district, it still matters that we teach the highschool dropouts as much as we can while we have them. -No- one is blaming teachers for failing students, especially this study. We (they) are blaming them when they fail to teach.