Societal collapse of Oklahoma!

[Northern Davincia]

The creator of a documentary doesn't matter, only the information presented in the documentary itself.

It kind of does?

If zed creator is an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible, then why should I watch zed documentary?

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

[Neutraligon]

It kind of does?

If zed creator is an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible, then why should I watch zed documentary?

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

If the creator has a history of not telling the truth or of fudging the data why should they be believed at all?

[Uiiop]

It kind of does?

If zed creator is an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible, then why should I watch zed documentary?

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

I'm sure you'll actually follow through on that advice when someone links to say a leftist youtube video or buzzfeed article.

Don't get me wrong that's the ideal but when pushing that you can at least be aware of hypocrisy.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It kind of does?

If zed creator is an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible, then why should I watch zed documentary?

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

Even so, russian YT video, as with all youtube videos, are not good sources.

Even if he wasn't an apparent an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible.

[New Raffica]

This is the outcome if NationStates issues were real life

[Uiiop]

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

Even so, russian YT video, as with all youtube videos, are not good sources.

Even if he wasn't an apparent an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible.

That's only lazy forum etiquette.
It's not like it's impossible for a view to link to sources and have good argument. It's just easier to assume all videos are shitposts since any quality can crop up.
Foreign language without subtitles is kinda dumb source to use tho.

[Northern Davincia]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html

Federal mail fraud is not child abuse or abuse of any kind.

Do you not honestly consider it to be an abuse of power?
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/01/20/fm ... orruption/
He did a lot more than mail fraud.

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

If the creator has a history of not telling the truth or of fudging the data why should they be believed at all?

If there is proof that the creator is lying on the subject of education, I think we would have seen it by now.

Because there still might be information worth looking at. Otherwise, it can be debunked through reasoning instead of bias against the creator.

Even so, russian YT video, as with all youtube videos, are not good sources.

Even if he wasn't an apparent an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible.

The video is on a Russian channel, yes, but the documentary was not made by Russians. If it is inaccurate, let us know.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Even so, russian YT video, as with all youtube videos, are not good sources.

Even if he wasn't an apparent an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible.

That's only lazy forum etiquette.
It's not like it's impossible for a view to link to sources and have good argument. It's just easier to assume all videos are shitposts since any quality can crop up.

Not impossible, but unlikely.

You kinda just learn to write off YT videos once you see people try to say that "Pizzagate was totz real!" or "The EU and the UN are run by actual satanists!".

[Internationalist Bastard]

That's only lazy forum etiquette.
It's not like it's impossible for a view to link to sources and have good argument. It's just easier to assume all videos are shitposts since any quality can crop up.

Not impossible, but unlikely.

You kinda just learn to write off YT videos once you see people try to say that "Pizzagate was totz real!" or "The EU and the UN are run by actual satanists!".

In all my years with the UN, the only evidence of satanic influence was that Mr. Ban would take his tea with sugar

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Federal mail fraud is not child abuse or abuse of any kind.

Do you not honestly consider it to be an abuse of power?
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/01/20/fm ... orruption/
He did a lot more than mail fraud.

I don't think that was the type of "abuse" you or I were talking about when I asked for a citation.

Yeah, he was a dick. He sucked. He stole money from his fellow workers. However, he was also in FL. OK laws should be based on shit that happens in OK, not other states.

If the creator has a history of not telling the truth or of fudging the data why should they be believed at all?

If there is proof that the creator is lying on the subject of education, I think we would have seen it by now.

Even so, russian YT video, as with all youtube videos, are not good sources.

Even if he wasn't an apparent an asshole with an agenda that's uncredible.

The video is on a Russian channel, yes, but the documentary was not made by Russians. If it is inaccurate, let us know.

"Related videos:
TruthTube1111"

I'm sure whatever contents are in zed movie must be really good for yt's algorithms to put it right next to an esteemed educator of the masses like "TruthTube1111".

Also, it's 10 pm and you want me to watch a 1:30 docc? No thanks.

BTW, that was also linking to a pirated video.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Actually, "tout what's good enough for everyone else's kids as not being good enough for yours" is a context-sensitive statement. It doesn't require that it be "objectively" better (that depends on what you prioritize in education, obviously) just according to the very people advocating private schooling in the first place.

But even if it did, it'd only require comparison to how the USA is right now. Not to how it could be.



"Small" is a meaningless point. Yes, there are fewer people on whom to spend. There are also fewer people from whom to collect taxes, so the point is moot.

So what is it, then? Homogenity? Are you blaming America's problems with education on diversity?

1. Objectivity is irrelevant. If private schools provide something better, it is wrong to deny parents the chance to help their children.
2. Finland isn't grossly irresponsible with government spending as the US currently is. And yes, diversity poses unique challenges to education, because the greater the diversity, the more you must tailor education to suit every different group of people who come from different backgrounds and have different experiences. "One size fits all" is dangerous thinking.

1. Not if that chance comes at the expense of everyone else's.

2. Oh, so you ARE saying it's about diversity, making your meaningless sidenote about country size utterly pointless.

In any case, I would say it would be more meaningful to tell newcomers "this is American education, take it or leave it" before they arrive than screw over locals to accommodate them. Assuming that even is the choice, that is. Which, being that many newcomers prefer American education to that of their home country, might not necessarily be the case.