School Damage

[Baldwin for Christ]

Maybe it could be argued against blacks etc. but the police don't go around ticketing people because they saw an anarchy book in the back seat of a car travelling at 100mph. It's more likely to be the whole "100 mph" thing.

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

You're definitely providing a sound critique of your own educational environment, just not in the way you intend...

[Bendira]

The jews had a victim mentality too. Fuck em. Damn kids and their silly notions of right and wrong.

Yes, of course, now your situation is comparable to that of the Jews. I'm sure we can bulldoze Auschwitz and replace it with a memorial to your ability to say "ass".

You do realize that your'e coming off as more and more of pissy child, right?

Its not a comparison, rather an example of how the majority always casts aside the minority because of their "victim mentality", even when the majority is wrong.

And you are coming off as a crusty neocon imperialist curmudgeon, but im willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't usually act upon my judgements of people (like insulting them personally, like you are attempting to do to me).

[Person012345]

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

Plus of course, even if we did accept the anecdotal evidence it means nothing. Maybe his friend is just more careful around cops. And donating money to the police ball does not constitute a political position. Maybe his friend dislikes police as well, but knows he won't get ticketed if he donates and so does it for that reason.

[Amaniachelmetjohnpi]

No system is without bias or fault. Therefore just because we have some, doesn't mean we should give up entirely. A basic education is fundamental to any free society and necessary to ensure a basic understanding of our country.

[Bendira]

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

You're definitely providing a sound critique of your own educational environment, just not in the way you intend...

I think the majority of your personal attacks on me have been completely anecdotal, so I will happily wait for your embarrassed apology I am sure will follow when you realize your hypocrasy.

[Xomic]

Maybe it could be argued against blacks etc. but the police don't go around ticketing people because they saw an anarchy book in the back seat of a car travelling at 100mph. It's more likely to be the whole "100 mph" thing.

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

Maybe he obeys the laws?

[Bendira]

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

Plus of course, even if we did accept the anecdotal evidence it means nothing. Maybe his friend is just more careful around cops. And donating money to the police ball does not constitute a political position. Maybe his friend dislikes police as well, but knows he won't get ticketed if he donates and so does it for that reason.

The example was just to show police bias. If they are willing to let people go who support the police department, I can only imagine what they will do to people who dont.

[Baldwin for Christ]

So not only do you present arguments indicative of an emotionally constipated kid, you don't even present a very original one.

The fact is, being "part" owner of anything doesn't give you unilateral rights, because there are other "owners". Your rights stop where other's begin. Getting that is a big, big part of growing up.

And teaching about "other's beliefs", while open dialogue and contribution is laudible, is not the same as saying that everyone around you has to listen to what you have to say when you want to say it when they are gathered for purposes that aren't entirely about you. (Again, a concept that's central to growing up).

Well thanks "Mr. Christ" for giving me the generic "you need to grow up" argument. Thats a really good argument, because it accurately refutes what I have to say, amirite? Being a part owner of something actually does give you certain rights, in the business world anyways. Which is why I am for the privitization of all public property. And the fact that I need to grow up because I think you should be able to speak freely in a classroom is lol.

Try exhibiting reading comprehension by actually demonstrating it rather than by dropping author's names of books in your back seat:

I said it part ownership doesn't give you unilateral rights, because other owners have rights as well. There is a big differnce. And moreover, guess whose courts will enforce those rights if an operating agreement or other business incorporation right is violated? The government's.

Seriously, learn to read better. That way, whether you agree or disagree, at least you'll start to grasp what you're responding to. Its a good first step to the credibility as a thinker that you clearly desperately want but aren't yet able to earn.

For someone who responded to an actual informed legal argument with "Um, uh, I don't agree with the government's interpretation" without presenting any kind of coherent dispute thereof or sound basis for a different interpretation, for you to claim what I've said is unsupported as a refutation is yet hypocrisy. I've presented plenty of evidence and reason, you've just shown no ability to respond to it.

[Person012345]

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

You're definitely providing a sound critique of your own educational environment, just not in the way you intend...

I think the majority of your personal attacks on me have been completely anecdotal, so I will happily wait for your embarrassed apology I am sure will follow when you realize your hypocrasy.

Whilst you're waiting you might want to look up the definition of anecdotal.

[Bendira]

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

Maybe he obeys the laws?

He speeds around in his Grand AM, his uncle is a cop and he got the sticker even though he didn't donate from his uncle to avoid tickets.

[Baldwin for Christ]

So, apparently your math teacher, science teacher, and/or logic teacher (if they have that in your curriculum) hasn't gotten around to explaining the difference between anecdotal observations and anything approaching a meaningful inference of any kind.

You're definitely providing a sound critique of your own educational environment, just not in the way you intend...

I think the majority of your personal attacks on me have been completely anecdotal, so I will happily wait for your embarrassed apology I am sure will follow when you realize your hypocrasy.

By all means, whine about the "personal attacks" that are basically observations about your behavior (responsibility for which is yet another part of growing up you'll run into). It only further shows your victim mentality.

They allow you to continue to avoid the actual point that was made.

[Person012345]

Maybe he obeys the laws?

He speeds around in his Grand AM, his uncle is a cop and he got the sticker even though he didn't donate from his uncle to avoid tickets.

You just said he did donate. Every year.

[Tekania]

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

your point being?

I guess his/her point would be that the police in his area will let people slide who have donated money for the police ball and display their donation sticker on their car. What this has to do with them ticketing a speeder with an anarchist book in his backseat I have no idea; other than I supposed it being likely that someone with an anarchist book in ones backseat is not likely to have a sticker displaying that they donated to a police ball.

[Bendira]

Well thanks "Mr. Christ" for giving me the generic "you need to grow up" argument. Thats a really good argument, because it accurately refutes what I have to say, amirite? Being a part owner of something actually does give you certain rights, in the business world anyways. Which is why I am for the privitization of all public property. And the fact that I need to grow up because I think you should be able to speak freely in a classroom is lol.

Try exhibiting reading comprehension by actually demonstrating it rather than by dropping author's names of books in your back seat:

I said it part ownership doesn't give you unilateral rights, because other owners have rights as well. There is a big differnce. And moreover, guess whose courts will enforce those rights if an operating agreement or other business incorporation right is violated? The government's.

Seriously, learn to read better. That way, whether you agree or disagree, at least you'll start to grasp what you're responding to. Its a good first step to the credibility as a thinker that you clearly desperately want but aren't yet able to earn.

For someone who responded to an actual informed legal argument with "Um, uh, I don't agree with the government's interpretation" without presenting any kind of coherent dispute thereof or sound basis for a different interpretation, for you to claim what I've said is unsupported as a refutation is yet hypocrisy. I've presented plenty of evidence and reason, you've just shown no ability to respond to it.

Blah blah, self righteous kid cries. Why don't you grow up, god.

Your thinking on a young childs level, thinking that the U.S. governments interpretation of things is the only possible intepretation. I already said that I think public property should be privatized, since its impossible to give people proportionate rights based on the taxes they pay on public property.

[Baldwin for Christ]

Plus of course, even if we did accept the anecdotal evidence it means nothing. Maybe his friend is just more careful around cops. And donating money to the police ball does not constitute a political position. Maybe his friend dislikes police as well, but knows he won't get ticketed if he donates and so does it for that reason.

The example was just to show police bias. If they are willing to let people go who support the police department, I can only imagine what they will do to people who dont.

One "example" doesn't by itself demonstrate anything meaningful about a broad range of people or an institution. That's why its merely anecdotal.

Observations about a specific person, by contrast, actually do say a lot about that individual. Hence, they are far closer to "empirical" than "anecdotal".

That you don't understand the difference between an inference about a group versus an observation about a person explains a lot your mentality.

[Bendira]

He speeds around in his Grand AM, his uncle is a cop and he got the sticker even though he didn't donate from his uncle to avoid tickets.

You just said he did donate. Every year.

It began as a hypothetical situation based on a real life example, and ended a real life example.

[Tagmatium]

You just said he did donate. Every year.

It began as a hypothetical situation based on a real life example, and ended a real life example.

Moving the goalposts, much?

[Baldwin for Christ]

Try exhibiting reading comprehension by actually demonstrating it rather than by dropping author's names of books in your back seat:

I said it part ownership doesn't give you unilateral rights, because other owners have rights as well. There is a big differnce. And moreover, guess whose courts will enforce those rights if an operating agreement or other business incorporation right is violated? The government's.

Seriously, learn to read better. That way, whether you agree or disagree, at least you'll start to grasp what you're responding to. Its a good first step to the credibility as a thinker that you clearly desperately want but aren't yet able to earn.

For someone who responded to an actual informed legal argument with "Um, uh, I don't agree with the government's interpretation" without presenting any kind of coherent dispute thereof or sound basis for a different interpretation, for you to claim what I've said is unsupported as a refutation is yet hypocrisy. I've presented plenty of evidence and reason, you've just shown no ability to respond to it.

Blah blah, self righteous kid cries. Why don't you grow up, god.

Your thinking on a young childs level, thinking that the U.S. governments interpretation of things is the only possible intepretation. I already said that I think public property should be privatized, since its impossible to give people proportionate rights based on the taxes they pay on public property.

Notice how you failed to respond to the point made, or how I illustrated how critical the word "unilateral" was to my statement and your distorted mischaracterization of it, other than a predictable backpedal to claim that you already knew you couldn't have "proporation rights", when you were the one that brought up rights of partial ownership to begin with. You miss the point, contradict yourself, and/or don't even to try to respond to it.

Then, you project the issue of maturity onto me, in a desperate rendition of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

I never stated the judicially educated understanding of how free speech works as the "only possible interpretation", I simply suggested that you actually learn what it is before refuting it. If all you have is the most simplistic grasp of free speech, then that's the level you will (and have) debated it at, but don't presume to put words in my mouth.

And yes, we know you go on at length about what you believe, you just never present any reasoning or evidence about why its a good idea beyond the rants of somebody who doesn't read critically and can't seem to handle the irritations of school.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It began as a hypothetical situation based on a real life example, and ended a real life example.

Moving the goalposts, much?

With this sort, the goalposts are pre-established on a conveyor belt foundation.

[Tahar Joblis]

Plus of course, even if we did accept the anecdotal evidence it means nothing. Maybe his friend is just more careful around cops. And donating money to the police ball does not constitute a political position. Maybe his friend dislikes police as well, but knows he won't get ticketed if he donates and so does it for that reason.

The example was just to show police bias. If they are willing to let people go who support the police department, I can only imagine what they will do to people who dont.

That there is police bias is clear. What your example is pointing at is that sometimes the motivation of "get more money" is at odds with other motivations, like "do a good job."

This is true for both education and law enforcement, and it's a prime exhibit of why we need to not privatize some things, and that when we do privatize a public service, we need to make sure that the way it has been privatized doesn't set up a conflict between the profit motive and the public good. A prime example is the privatization of the prison system. Private prisons have a vested interest in keeping the prison population as large as possible. This is at odds with the public goal of preventing crime from happening in the first place and rehabilitating prisoners so that they can serve a productive role in society on release.

Do you think that for-profit police will be more or less beholden to cash flows and vulnerable to corruption? My bet's on the former.

[Baldwin for Christ]

You just said he did donate. Every year.

It began as a hypothetical situation based on a real life example, and ended a real life example.

"And, and, this one time, there was this guy, and he was doing this thing, and, and, and, he wasn't even doing anything, and, and this mean bad policeman came and did this thing to him and this other time there was this one teacher and I wanted to do this thing and she wouldn't let me, and its not FAAAAIIIIIIIRRRR!!!!!!"

I heard that was actually the original speech before the big fight scene in Braveheart, but it was too intense for the test audiences so they changed it to the "they can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" bit.

[Atheimsa]

I don't know what is wrong with American teachers but in Germany one has to study the subjecy one wants to teach to master level as well as studying education to Master level to be able to teach at German schools.

[Person012345]

You just said he did donate. Every year.

It began as a hypothetical situation based on a real life example, and ended a real life example.

My friend donates to the police ball fundraiser every year and puts a sticker on his winshield labeling him a donor. Needless to say, he has never gotten a ticket since he started donating. Funny how that works.

Don't lie to me. This is why anecdotal evidence counts for nothing.

[Tekania]

Primary rule, one's rights end where another's begins... The primary purpose of the education system is to facilitate the rights of children to a primary and secondary education. As such, any other rights you may think yourself in possession of may be curtailed wherein their exercise will deprive other kids of said right; ones right to freedom of speech does not, for example, curtail the other 29 kids in the classroom's right to an education, which your exercise would deprive.

[Tekania]

I don't know what is wrong with American teachers but in Germany one has to study the subjecy one wants to teach to master level as well as studying education to Master level to be able to teach at German schools.

Most American Teachers do have Master's degrees, though it's not an absolute requirement... My wife, in fact, has two Post-Masters certificates on top of her Masters and is heading back to school this summer for a third. I think the US' largest problem, is that compared to most of the rest of the free world, we pay our teachers like shit; and treat them that way too. The teachers aren't the real problem, the parents are. Most parents in the US either treat school like day care and ignore the progress of their child and expect the teacher to do all the parenting; or are helicopter parents and second-guess their kids performance and blame their child's failures on the teacher.