Well, it's specifically about trying to circumvent numerous rulings saying "no you can't use the fact that students have to go to school to force your religion on them" by playing semantics. The semantics are different this time, but, you're right, the goal is the same.
That's a valid approach too, but we're trying to discuss respecting his(or someone else who's wrong's) beliefs, so I found it more foundational to discuss how I'd know what those beliefs are.
"Yeah, just get both parents to get new jobs in the same place, sell a house, buy a house, get children into a new school system, and go through the physical hassle of moving, just so some po-dunct theocrat can have their way, ignoring the law of the land"
Do you know how stupid what you're proposing sounds?
Because pragmatic concerns don't exist? Universal rights, like freedom of religion, shouldn't need some debate over "if you don't like your rights being trampled, move".
And yet national data doesn't endorse the notion that charter schools do any better(statistically speaking in spite of selection bias), so this is a weak-keened attempt to circumvent the first amendment's establishment clause.
I think you're underestimating how much funding is being channeled away from public schools to fund charter schools, with the "dumping money on public schools doesn't solve problems, dumping money on charter schools does." initiative.
It's actually the one thing that makes me leery of the Gates foundation, who normally does good work.
Right, but the concern is for the people who enjoy science and have some intent of being useful members of society and are going to be denied the opportunity to learn in order to protect some peoples' biases from information they disagree with.
Maybe it's because we fire 10% of our engineers in a year, but claim there's a shortage. There's multiple things going on here in the U.S. but mostly we haven't come to terms with being a post-industrial society.
Because the laws of economics suggest more productive members of society increase supply for goods a little more than they increase demand for them, and thus benefit everyone?
Here's where the assholery of charter schools come into play. They can claim charter schools are "opt-in" as they budget money away from public schools and into charter schools. They think that claim will invalidate concern from the establishment clause as no one is "forced" to use religious books.
Meanwhile, if you want to go to a school with any budget for things like teachers, the charter schools will be the only remaining option.
I hope a federal court will see this as a violation of either the first amendment or Brown vs. Board of education, but I don't have a ton of faith in the judicial process these days.
Sure, fine, but if you're going to state your case, it shouldn't be the literal opposite of the truth, which can be reinterpreted to raise valid questions.
No, no it isn't. It's what you close your eyes and imagine every time someone tells you are an idiot for claiming "x deserves what happened to them" in some sort of just-world bullshittery, and you should know it.
Slashdot Mirror
See what above? Prove to me you said anything.
Well, it's specifically about trying to circumvent numerous rulings saying "no you can't use the fact that students have to go to school to force your religion on them" by playing semantics. The semantics are different this time, but, you're right, the goal is the same.
That's a valid approach too, but we're trying to discuss respecting his(or someone else who's wrong's) beliefs, so I found it more foundational to discuss how I'd know what those beliefs are.
"Yeah, just get both parents to get new jobs in the same place, sell a house, buy a house, get children into a new school system, and go through the physical hassle of moving, just so some po-dunct theocrat can have their way, ignoring the law of the land"
Do you know how stupid what you're proposing sounds?
Really? You really want to go down the "there's no objective fact" bullshit road?
Let's start way back at the beginning then:
How do I understand what you're saying?
Because pragmatic concerns don't exist? Universal rights, like freedom of religion, shouldn't need some debate over "if you don't like your rights being trampled, move".
And yet national data doesn't endorse the notion that charter schools do any better(statistically speaking in spite of selection bias), so this is a weak-keened attempt to circumvent the first amendment's establishment clause.
The sky is not blue, because I say so, is a road only the most pedantic philosophers really bother going down.
Reality is that which when you stop believing in it is still there.
But what if I stop believing this quote?
I think you're underestimating how much funding is being channeled away from public schools to fund charter schools, with the "dumping money on public schools doesn't solve problems, dumping money on charter schools does." initiative.
It's actually the one thing that makes me leery of the Gates foundation, who normally does good work.
It's always important to let stereotypes dominate any discussion of the right thing to do.
Yeah, I know. I sometimes post things I know are untrue just to watch them get modded up as informative or insightful.
Yes, it is. Do you have some proposition to fix it?
Right, but the concern is for the people who enjoy science and have some intent of being useful members of society and are going to be denied the opportunity to learn in order to protect some peoples' biases from information they disagree with.
Here's the problem. We think we're dumb too, and can't do anything about it.
Maybe it's because we fire 10% of our engineers in a year, but claim there's a shortage. There's multiple things going on here in the U.S. but mostly we haven't come to terms with being a post-industrial society.
At some point in recent American history, we decided what we believe is more important than what is.
Because the laws of economics suggest more productive members of society increase supply for goods a little more than they increase demand for them, and thus benefit everyone?
Here's where the assholery of charter schools come into play. They can claim charter schools are "opt-in" as they budget money away from public schools and into charter schools. They think that claim will invalidate concern from the establishment clause as no one is "forced" to use religious books.
Meanwhile, if you want to go to a school with any budget for things like teachers, the charter schools will be the only remaining option.
I hope a federal court will see this as a violation of either the first amendment or Brown vs. Board of education, but I don't have a ton of faith in the judicial process these days.
My god, that's a completely reasonably conditioned state law. What is wrong with California?
Occulus Rift while doing 90
oof.
And I thought regular car sickness was bad.
Sure, fine, but if you're going to state your case, it shouldn't be the literal opposite of the truth, which can be reinterpreted to raise valid questions.
But, that's not what the GGP said. They said "not a terrorist" and "orchestrating a car bomb plot" is pretty much straight terrorism, uncut.
No, just an ordinary fraudster, not terrorist.
Hmm, not what the article says. I'm not sure what compelled you to post that.
No, no it isn't. It's what you close your eyes and imagine every time someone tells you are an idiot for claiming "x deserves what happened to them" in some sort of just-world bullshittery, and you should know it.