Re: School Choice Makes No Sense

Bob LeChevalier · Bob LeChevalier

Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals:

I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they
are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see
only one as being true, more or less.

>1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They
>are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even
>though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white
>slave owners.
>2) A bigger section of American history books are given to
>black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant,
>than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing
>and teaches the wrong message.
>3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school.
>4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't
>want to damage his self esteem.
>5) They teach diversity is good.
>6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact,
>and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen.
>7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes.

WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it
"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court
decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity
unquestionably passes constitutional muster.

Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are
good.

>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete
>education than the kids today.

You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are
receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a
gifted student, and they are not).

lojbab

Herman Rubin · Herman Rubin

In article <gk3cfv4uchu8oh8hc2htvk27n2hn4kn3pv@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>>Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals:

>I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they
>are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see
>only one as being true, more or less.

>>1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They
>>are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even
>>though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white
>>slave owners.
>>2) A bigger section of American history books are given to
>>black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant,
>>than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing
>>and teaches the wrong message.
>>3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school.
>>4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't
>>want to damage his self esteem.
>>5) They teach diversity is good.
>>6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact,
>>and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen.
>>7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes.

>WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it
>"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court
>decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity
>unquestionably passes constitutional muster.

I do not see how diversity passes anything, if looked at
intelligently. To allow those of equal ability to have
equal access, regardless of which group they belong to,
makes sense. To REQUIRE the groups to mix on a social
level, or anything in that direction, does not.

>Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are
>good.

School taxes TO SOME EXTENT are necessary, but they should
be used for education, not socialization or propaganda.
But the liberals, free with other people's money, want to
tax to impose their "values" on everyone.

>>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete
>>education than the kids today.

>You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are
>receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a
>gifted student, and they are not).

I agree to some extent about 40 years ago. The texts had
not yet been converted by the Marxists, who are rife among
the "social scientists" of today. Literature had declined,
but the emphasis on modern politically correct writers, and
the stuff they produce, was far less. The education of 40
years ago had already declined; the elementary school decline
was almost complete 60 years ago, and the high school decline,
delayed by WWII, mainly took place in the 50s.

Teaching better trivial pursuit is not an improvement.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Bob LeChevalier · Bob LeChevalier

hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it
>>"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court
>>decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity
>>unquestionably passes constitutional muster.
>
>I do not see how diversity passes anything, if looked at
>intelligently. To allow those of equal ability to have
>equal access, regardless of which group they belong to,
>makes sense. To REQUIRE the groups to mix on a social
>level, or anything in that direction, does not.

It keeps this country from turning into a Bosnia. Segregation cannot
be tolerated as a social force, much less enabled or encouraged by the
government.

>>Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are
>>good.
>
>School taxes TO SOME EXTENT are necessary, but they should
>be used for education, not socialization or propaganda.
>But the liberals, free with other people's money, want to
>tax to impose their "values" on everyone.

You said in another post that you think wee shouldn't be trying to get
agreement as to what education is about. Society doesn't agree with
you as to the purpose of public education. You lose.

>>>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete
>>>education than the kids today.
>
>>You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are
>>receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a
>>gifted student, and they are not).
>
>I agree to some extent about 40 years ago. The texts had
>not yet been converted by the Marxists, who are rife among
>the "social scientists" of today. Literature had declined,
>but the emphasis on modern politically correct writers, and
>the stuff they produce, was far less. The education of 40
>years ago had already declined; the elementary school decline
>was almost complete 60 years ago, and the high school decline,
>delayed by WWII, mainly took place in the 50s.

Education in the 60s was superior to that in the 30s, as evidenced by
my collection of textbooks from the earlier period. Education of
today is similarly superior, as evidenced by the textbooks (which have
unfortunately grown too heavy to be easily carried to and from school,
and hence are used less than they could be.

lojbab

Stuart Grey · Stuart Grey

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>>Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals:
>
>
> I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they
> are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see
> only one as being true, more or less.
>
>
>>1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They
>>are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even
>>though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white
>>slave owners.
>>2) A bigger section of American history books are given to
>>black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant,
>>than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing
>>and teaches the wrong message.
>>3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school.
>>4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't
>>want to damage his self esteem.
>>5) They teach diversity is good.
>>6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact,
>>and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen.
>>7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes.
>
>
> WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it
> "good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court
> decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity
> unquestionably passes constitutional muster.

Why are they teaching values in the first place? They
teach that it is okay for minorities to gather and have
clubs, but it is FORBIDDEN for white people to do so, as
if they are somehow dangerous if allowed to form groups.

When your "diversity" tramples an individual's right to
freedom of assembly and freedom of association, then your
"right" to diversity ends.

As for your acceptance of absurd court rulings that are clearly
contrary to the Bill of Rights, one can only point out that your
lack of critical thinking skills is due to negligence on the
part of your educators.

> Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are
> good.

Sometimes school taxes are squandered on kickbacks.
We all hope that school taxes are necessary, but it is
not always true that they are.

>>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete
>>education than the kids today.
>
>
> You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago.

LOL! Sure I was.

> I was. My kids are
> receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a
> gifted student, and they are not).

Well, that explains a lot, like how you can jump to
the prior false conclusion. :-) You say your kids are being
better educated than you; but the whole thread is about
why the education they are getting now isn't worth spit.

Bob LeChevalier · Bob LeChevalier

Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>>WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it
>>>>"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court
>>>>decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity
>>>>unquestionably passes constitutional muster.
>>>
>>>Why are they teaching values in the first place?
>>
>>
>> Because we the people, through our legislative representatives, told
>> them to.
>
>This is a constitutional republic, not an absolute
>democracy,

That's why I said "through our legislative representatives"

>so kindly abide by the constitution and
>keep your values out of the public schools

Nothing in the constitution forbids values from being taught in the
public schools; probably some state constitutions even explicitly
require it.

>and teach
>just reading, writing, math, science, history and
>Geography.

The electorate and the legislature feel differently, and as you said,
we are a constitutional republic.

>>>When your "diversity" tramples an individual's right to
>>>freedom of assembly and freedom of association, then your
>>>"right" to diversity ends.
>>
>>
>> You have full freedom of assembly and association in the private
>> sector. In public facilities, all people have equal right of access,
>> and your freedom to associate does not give you the right to exclude
>> others.
>
>"Diversity" is that white people and men should be ashamed
>because of things that happened a hundred years ago.

Nope. Straw man alert.

Diversity is "the condition of being diverse". "Diverse" is
"composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities"
(Merriam Webster)

>It means
>that certain groups can have rights that white people or men
>cannot have.

Nope.

And there are no "white people".

>>>As for your acceptance of absurd court rulings that are clearly
>>>contrary to the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> I've read those rulings, and they are NOT contrary to the Bill of
>> Rights (which BTW does not list a "freedom of association")
>
>The right to assemble means the right to associate with
>whom you chose.

Nope. It means the right to meet together.

>Do you really intend to argue that the
>government can tell me who I can associate with and who
>I can't, without first subjecting me to due process of
>law?!!

I intend to argue no such thing, but it is not in fact in the Bill of
Rights.

(Actually it can - depending on what you mean by "due process". If
you are drafted, you get to associate with who you are told to
associate with. Also, if you intend to use some benefits, like the
right to attend public school, you are required in doing so to
associate with every one else that attends that school.)

lojbab

toto · toto

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:09:43 GMT, Stuart Grey <user@example.net>
wrote:

>> You have full freedom of assembly and association in the private
>> sector. In public facilities, all people have equal right of access,
>> and your freedom to associate does not give you the right to exclude
>> others.
>
>"Diversity" is that white people and men should be ashamed
>because of things that happened a hundred years ago. It means
>that certain groups can have rights that white people or men
>cannot have.

diversity (n) - A situation that includes representation of multiple
(ideally all) groups within a prescribed environment, such as a
university or a workplace. This word most commonly refers to
differences between cultural groups, although it is also used to
describe differences within cultural groups, e.g. diversity within the
Asian-American culture includes Korean Americans and Japanese
Americans. An emphasis on accepting and respecting cultural
differences by recognizing that no one culture is intrinsically
superior to another underlies the current usage of the term.

Note: there is nothing about white folks or men being ashamed.
It's about the fact that other races and genders no longer acknowledge
that you are superior by virtue of your race and/or gender.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Bob LeChevalier	[1] Posted by Bob LeChevalier 06-22-2003, 05:39 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: >Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals: I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see only one as being true, more or less. >1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They >are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even >though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white >slave owners. >2) A bigger section of American history books are given to >black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant, >than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing >and teaches the wrong message. >3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school. >4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't >want to damage his self esteem. >5) They teach diversity is good. >6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact, >and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen. >7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes. WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it "good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity unquestionably passes constitutional muster. Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are good. >The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete >education than the kids today. You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a gifted student, and they are not). lojbab
Posts: n/a

Herman Rubin	[2] Posted by Herman Rubin 06-23-2003, 01:11 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote In article <gk3cfv4uchu8oh8hc2htvk27n2hn4kn3pv@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: >>Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals: >I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they >are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see >only one as being true, more or less. >>1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They >>are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even >>though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white >>slave owners. >>2) A bigger section of American history books are given to >>black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant, >>than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing >>and teaches the wrong message. >>3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school. >>4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't >>want to damage his self esteem. >>5) They teach diversity is good. >>6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact, >>and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen. >>7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes. >WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it >"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court >decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity >unquestionably passes constitutional muster. I do not see how diversity passes anything, if looked at intelligently. To allow those of equal ability to have equal access, regardless of which group they belong to, makes sense. To REQUIRE the groups to mix on a social level, or anything in that direction, does not. >Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are >good. School taxes TO SOME EXTENT are necessary, but they should be used for education, not socialization or propaganda. But the liberals, free with other people's money, want to tax to impose their "values" on everyone. >>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete >>education than the kids today. >You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are >receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a >gifted student, and they are not). I agree to some extent about 40 years ago. The texts had not yet been converted by the Marxists, who are rife among the "social scientists" of today. Literature had declined, but the emphasis on modern politically correct writers, and the stuff they produce, was far less. The education of 40 years ago had already declined; the elementary school decline was almost complete 60 years ago, and the high school decline, delayed by WWII, mainly took place in the 50s. Teaching better trivial pursuit is not an improvement. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Posts: n/a

Bob LeChevalier	[3] Posted by Bob LeChevalier 06-23-2003, 03:15 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote: >>WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it >>"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court >>decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity >>unquestionably passes constitutional muster. > >I do not see how diversity passes anything, if looked at >intelligently. To allow those of equal ability to have >equal access, regardless of which group they belong to, >makes sense. To REQUIRE the groups to mix on a social >level, or anything in that direction, does not. It keeps this country from turning into a Bosnia. Segregation cannot be tolerated as a social force, much less enabled or encouraged by the government. >>Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are >>good. > >School taxes TO SOME EXTENT are necessary, but they should >be used for education, not socialization or propaganda. >But the liberals, free with other people's money, want to >tax to impose their "values" on everyone. You said in another post that you think wee shouldn't be trying to get agreement as to what education is about. Society doesn't agree with you as to the purpose of public education. You lose. >>>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete >>>education than the kids today. > >>You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. I was. My kids are >>receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a >>gifted student, and they are not). > >I agree to some extent about 40 years ago. The texts had >not yet been converted by the Marxists, who are rife among >the "social scientists" of today. Literature had declined, >but the emphasis on modern politically correct writers, and >the stuff they produce, was far less. The education of 40 >years ago had already declined; the elementary school decline >was almost complete 60 years ago, and the high school decline, >delayed by WWII, mainly took place in the 50s. Education in the 60s was superior to that in the 30s, as evidenced by my collection of textbooks from the earlier period. Education of today is similarly superior, as evidenced by the textbooks (which have unfortunately grown too heavy to be easily carried to and from school, and hence are used less than they could be. lojbab
Posts: n/a

Stuart Grey	[4] Posted by Stuart Grey 06-25-2003, 10:26 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: > >>Evidence that the people who run the schools are liberals: > > > I'd like to see evidence of each of the following points, and why they > are signs that the people running the schools are liberals. I see > only one as being true, more or less. > > >>1) Chosen textbooks downplay the founding fathers. They >>are not even "fathers" anymore because that is sexist, even >>though they were all men. They are depicted as evil white >>slave owners. >>2) A bigger section of American history books are given to >>black poets and authors, who are completely insignificant, >>than to the American revolution, which liberals find embarrassing >>and teaches the wrong message. >>3) They don't allow one to defend oneself in school. >>4) The school bully is allowed free rein as they don't >>want to damage his self esteem. >>5) They teach diversity is good. >>6) They teach that CO2 causes global warming is a fact, >>and that the kids evil parents allow this to happen. >>7) Taxes are always good, especially school taxes. > > > WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it > "good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court > decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity > unquestionably passes constitutional muster. Why are they teaching values in the first place? They teach that it is okay for minorities to gather and have clubs, but it is FORBIDDEN for white people to do so, as if they are somehow dangerous if allowed to form groups. When your "diversity" tramples an individual's right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, then your "right" to diversity ends. As for your acceptance of absurd court rulings that are clearly contrary to the Bill of Rights, one can only point out that your lack of critical thinking skills is due to negligence on the part of your educators. > Likewise WRT 7, school taxes are necessary, whether or not they are > good. Sometimes school taxes are squandered on kickbacks. We all hope that school taxes are necessary, but it is not always true that they are. >>The students of 40 years ago had a far more complete >>education than the kids today. > > > You obviously were NOT in school 40 years ago. LOL! Sure I was. > I was. My kids are > receiving a FAR superior education than I got (and I was considered a > gifted student, and they are not). Well, that explains a lot, like how you can jump to the prior false conclusion. :-) You say your kids are being better educated than you; but the whole thread is about why the education they are getting now isn't worth spit.
Posts: n/a

Bob LeChevalier	[5] Posted by Bob LeChevalier 06-27-2003, 12:54 AM
Posts: n/a	Quote Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: >Bob LeChevalier wrote: >> Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: >>>Bob LeChevalier wrote: >> >>>>WRT 5, diversity is necessary whether or not someone considers it >>>>"good". Equal protection under the law, coupled with the court >>>>decisions against "separate but equal" mean that only diversity >>>>unquestionably passes constitutional muster. >>> >>>Why are they teaching values in the first place? >> >> >> Because we the people, through our legislative representatives, told >> them to. > >This is a constitutional republic, not an absolute >democracy, That's why I said "through our legislative representatives" >so kindly abide by the constitution and >keep your values out of the public schools Nothing in the constitution forbids values from being taught in the public schools; probably some state constitutions even explicitly require it. >and teach >just reading, writing, math, science, history and >Geography. The electorate and the legislature feel differently, and as you said, we are a constitutional republic. >>>When your "diversity" tramples an individual's right to >>>freedom of assembly and freedom of association, then your >>>"right" to diversity ends. >> >> >> You have full freedom of assembly and association in the private >> sector. In public facilities, all people have equal right of access, >> and your freedom to associate does not give you the right to exclude >> others. > >"Diversity" is that white people and men should be ashamed >because of things that happened a hundred years ago. Nope. Straw man alert. Diversity is "the condition of being diverse". "Diverse" is "composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities" (Merriam Webster) >It means >that certain groups can have rights that white people or men >cannot have. Nope. And there are no "white people". >>>As for your acceptance of absurd court rulings that are clearly >>>contrary to the Bill of Rights, >> >> I've read those rulings, and they are NOT contrary to the Bill of >> Rights (which BTW does not list a "freedom of association") > >The right to assemble means the right to associate with >whom you chose. Nope. It means the right to meet together. >Do you really intend to argue that the >government can tell me who I can associate with and who >I can't, without first subjecting me to due process of >law?!! I intend to argue no such thing, but it is not in fact in the Bill of Rights. (Actually it can - depending on what you mean by "due process". If you are drafted, you get to associate with who you are told to associate with. Also, if you intend to use some benefits, like the right to attend public school, you are required in doing so to associate with every one else that attends that school.) lojbab
Posts: n/a

toto	[6] Posted by toto 06-27-2003, 09:46 AM
Posts: n/a	Quote On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:09:43 GMT, Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote: >> You have full freedom of assembly and association in the private >> sector. In public facilities, all people have equal right of access, >> and your freedom to associate does not give you the right to exclude >> others. > >"Diversity" is that white people and men should be ashamed >because of things that happened a hundred years ago. It means >that certain groups can have rights that white people or men >cannot have. diversity (n) - A situation that includes representation of multiple (ideally all) groups within a prescribed environment, such as a university or a workplace. This word most commonly refers to differences between cultural groups, although it is also used to describe differences within cultural groups, e.g. diversity within the Asian-American culture includes Korean Americans and Japanese Americans. An emphasis on accepting and respecting cultural differences by recognizing that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another underlies the current usage of the term. Note: there is nothing about white folks or men being ashamed. It's about the fact that other races and genders no longer acknowledge that you are superior by virtue of your race and/or gender. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. Outer Limits
Posts: n/a

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Re: School Choice Makes No Sense	no ...	Politics	5	07-13-2003 04:18 PM
Re: School Choice Makes No Sense	Herman Rubin	Politics	4	07-05-2003 09:15 PM
Re: School Choice Makes No Sense	Stuart Grey	Politics	11	06-28-2003 04:21 PM
Re: School Choice Makes No Sense	Stuart Grey	Politics	1	06-26-2003 01:26 AM
Re: School Choice Makes No Sense	Herman Rubin	Politics	0	06-23-2003 11:59 AM