**** Elections thread *****

[oskar]

Socialism is not communism, dumbo. Finnland, Germany, Denmark and the UK are socialist countries and socialism and capitalism are not polar opposites.

[OngBonga]

Socialism is not communism, no. But socialism is the workers owning the means of production. It's between communism and capitalism.

The UK is not a socialist state. It might be a welfare state, but socialism? Not if I can set up a business, employ people, and profit. My employees do not own the means of production, I do. That's not socialism, that is capitalism, which might not be the polar opposite, but it is distinct.

[OngBonga]

I mean I'm reading up on this, and it seems the modern idea of "socialism" in the context of nations like Finland, is basically capitalism with a healthy does of equality and welfare.

So the word "socialism" in Finland has a completely different meaning to what it does in Laos.

[CoccoBill]

Owned or regulated. You know like government regulations on businesses and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

[OngBonga]

Regulated? So every nation on earth is socialist? Gotcha.

[CoccoBill]

Obviously not a single country in the world is either 0% or 100% socialist, there's always some private businesses and government owned entities in each. It's about nomenclature that best describes the situation.

socialism
/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[OngBonga]

"regulated by the community"

I see, so the government is the community in a socialist state?

[CoccoBill]

In democratic states yes, as opposed to dictatorships/monarchies. Of the people, by the people, for the people.

[OngBonga]

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

If you think this is how the British economy works, you're living in a different world to me. Maybe Scandanavia truly works like that, and if so, that's great. But here the system is set up for the benefit of the wealthy.

An important aspect of western socialism is the dismantling of class. You can't have equality if being born into a rich family gives you a better chance of securing high income employment in the future. But what do you do? Punish rich families by not letting them send their kids to world class schools?

Capitalism and socialism might not be polar opposites, but they are at odds with each other. Capitalism is a system that revolves around individual inequality. Someone smarter, or harder working than I am, will be more successful. Someone wealthier than me will be too, I'm not for a minute suggesting capitalism is perfect. Capitalism rewards inequality, while socialism strives for equality. There's the conflict, and it's why it's pretty much impossible for a country with a free market economy to be truly socialist.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...as_pointed_at/

What you're seeing and what you're hearing is not what's happening.

These guys are going on their feelings, not little inconsequential things like facts.

[CoccoBill]

^^Well my personal view is that both socialism and capitalism have their pros and cons, we should use what works best and not get stuck on ideologies and labels. Regarding schools, a good solution to what you described is tuition free public education. Everyone still needs to compete, you need to be smart to get in, but your background and wealth should not affect it in any way.

[Poopadoop]

Or, they're just getting 'enhanced' facts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rate-chop.html

[OngBonga]

We have free public education, certainly at high school level. The difference being, of course, is these schools don't perform nearly as well as elite schools. Is that a problem? It is if you want your kid to go to an elite school but you can't afford it.

Don't get me wrong. Our system isn't that bad. Pretty much anyone can go to Oxford or Cambridge if they're smart enough, and that will trump any shitty school you happened to be in for your GCSEs. But an education at Eton will certainly give you a good start in life, a luxury not afforded to most.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Economic systems do not exist in isolation of each other. They coexist and interact.
Families are socialist economies in most families, even when embedded in a capitalist society.
Mom and Dad don't charge the kids for their food. They share. Sharing is great on that scale.
Forced sharing on the grandest scale is taxation paying for schools and roads. Public services are socialist by nature, even though the greater economy is capitalist.

[Poopadoop]

Haha, this is brilliant.

[oskar]

They got distracted by Jim Acosta raping and murdering a woman on live TV.

[Jack Sawyer]

It seems to be that time of the year again

[Jack Sawyer]

^^Well my personal view is that both socialism and capitalism have their pros and cons, we should use what works best and not get stuck on ideologies and labels. Regarding schools, a good solution to what you described is tuition free public education. Everyone still needs to compete, you need to be smart to get in, but your background and wealth should not affect it in any way.

This +100

[MadMojoMonkey]

This +100

It's pretty good, but the, "your background and wealth should not affect it in any way." is misleading.

I went to a public high school in a school district that had 2 public high schools, and was directly adjacent to a school district with 3 public high schools. My high school was primarily serving the rural community to the west of the suburban area where I lived. In order to keep school sizes similar, the districts were drawn with this one long arm reaching into suburbia for my high school. So that's where I went.

Literally all the kids that lived near me went to a different school. Brutal for a nerdy kid. None of the relationships I could build at home transferred to the classroom.
Whatever.

My point is that my high school served a lot of farmers... those farmers weren't doing too bad for themselves. My school's fundraisers raised considerably more than the other school in my district or any of the schools in the adjacent district. My school had 2 excellent indoor gymnasiums, an awesome indoor amphitheater, an Olympic track around the football field, and plenty of musical instruments to loan to any student who wanted to join the band.

Income "shouldn't" matter, but it always will. IMO, this is not a bad thing. I'm in favor of a UBI for the same reasons. Give everyone a fighting chance, and no more. Let them make of it what they will. If they want to invest more into it than the bare minimum provided, then kudos to them. We shouldn't punish children by giving them sub-standard, inadequate education, but we can't level the playing field by simply giving equal money per student. Which is OK. We don't need to level the playing field... just truncate the bottom of the bell curve a bit more.

[oskar]

It seems to be that time of the year again

I'm positively surprised John King followed up on that question. It would be really sad if you guys go through 4 years of Trump just to end up with Kamala Harris.

[oskar]

Income "shouldn't" matter, but it always will. IMO, this is not a bad thing. I'm in favor of a UBI for the same reasons. Give everyone a fighting chance, and no more. Let them make of it what they will. If they want to invest more into it than the bare minimum provided, then kudos to them. We shouldn't punish children by giving them sub-standard, inadequate education, but we can't level the playing field by simply giving equal money per student. Which is OK. We don't need to level the playing field... just truncate the bottom of the bell curve a bit more.

I'll say it's a bad thing. I don't think private schools should exist and everyone should start on equal footing. Why do you say you can't equal the playing field by spending equal money on each student? Of course you can.

[Poopadoop]

I'll say it's a bad thing. I don't think private schools should exist and everyone should start on equal footing. Why do you say you can't equal the playing field by spending equal money on each student? Of course you can.

You can in principle, in terms of what the state spends. I think he was referring (in an oblique way) to the fact that some kids will always be at an advantage because of their parents' income.

But I can't see how we'd control that apart from giving everyone an equal income. And that's communism damnit! And even then some kids would be at an advantage 'cause their parents feed them properly, whereas the other kids have parents who are fatties and are raising their kids on junk food.

Also some would have a genetic advantage, which at least in the UK the state tries to balance out by giving dyslexic kids a leg up....cause you want kids who struggle to communicate in writing to have every opportunity to land a job that involves a lot of reading writing I guess.

Eventually I see a day where they just ask kids what they want to be and where they want to go to uni, and then put all the names in a lottery. We could have our first mentally retarded doctor!

[OngBonga]

Private schools shouldn't exist? So education should be limited to what the state can provide? What if the state doesn't pay competitive wages and the best teachers decide to go abroad to work where they can work privately? What about private Islamic schools? Should the state provide schools exclusively for Muslims?

[OngBonga]

everyone should start on equal footing

This simply isn't possible. Many people are richer than others because they work harder. I think we can all agree that's fair enough. But both have children, and the children of wealthy families are at an advantage, because their parents are better placed to provide, and serve as better role models. Sure both children are equal in law, but the rich kids will have nicer toys, better health care, and better education, no matter how much you try to level the playing field. And you have to ask the question... why level the playing field? Why remove the incentive for a parent to work hard to provide a better life for their children?

[oskar]

... when it comes to public schools. No I don't think everyone should have the same temperature bath water. Are you completely incapable of having an honest argument?

[oskar]

I've already covered islamic schools when I said private schools shouldn't exist. Obviously islamic schools should not exist. And yes, everyone should be "limited to what the state can provide" quite simply because if the public school system is so bad that private schools are needed, then you should increase funding for public schools.
If the state doesn't pay competitive wages, then campaigning for higher wages would be my first option... before I consider building a whole separate school system.

[OngBonga]

No I don't think everyone should have the same temperature bath water. Are you completely incapable of having an honest argument?

The irony here didn't go over my head. Nice one.

Obviously islamic schools should not exist.

Ok, glad we agree.

And yes, everyone should be "limited to what the state can provide" quite simply because if the public school system is so bad that private schools are needed, then you should increase funding for public schools.

But what if I'm a rich guy and I pay for private tutoring after school? Are you saying such tutors shouldn't be available for hire? What if I want my kid to learn, let's say, the trombone? Should my child be restricted to school instruments, and the state paid music teacher? What's the difference between after hours trombone lessons, and a private medical teacher?

Anyone with money who wants their child to have an advantage will be able to do so. Pretending you can somehow put a stop this this is naive and quite frankly wrong.

[OngBonga]

I mean, this is about capitalism in a sector it has no business being. I'd prefer it if the state could provide a world class education for everyone free of charge, but it's too much of a burden to the taxpayer, and it removes a key incentive to be successful in the first place... to create a better life for you and your family.

[Poopadoop]

Private schools shouldn't exist? So education should be limited to what the state can provide? What if the state doesn't pay competitive wages and the best teachers decide to go abroad to work where they can work privately? What about private Islamic schools? Should the state provide schools exclusively for Muslims?

Believe it or not, not everyone chooses their profession based on how much it pays. If that were true, there wouldn't be a single clinic or hospital open in the UK 'cause all the doctors and nurses would have fucked off a long time ago.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll say it's a bad thing. I don't think private schools should exist and everyone should start on equal footing. Why do you say you can't equal the playing field by spending equal money on each student? Of course you can.

My point has been helped along by others, but I should answer.

What's the consequence for not sending your kids to public schools?
How would it be enforced such that rich people can't buy their way around it?

Why no equal playing field?
Because we can't mandate the amount spent on each student, only the amount spent by the state on each student.
Because in the scenario I described, the 2 high schools in my district were receiving equal state funding per student (I assume), but that one of the schools nonetheless had a lot better equipment and facilities. This is because the community in one school's district invested more heavily in their high school than the community in the neighboring districts. It had nothing to do with the state and everything to do with people's freedom to spend their money where they want. They wanted to spend it on the high school in my district.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And you have to ask the question... why level the playing field? Why remove the incentive for a parent to work hard to provide a better life for their children?

The argument is a bad one. It assumes parents need to be incentivized to work for the betterment of their children.

[OngBonga]

Believe it or not, not everyone chooses their profession based on how much it pays. If that were true, there wouldn't be a single clinic or hospital open in the UK 'cause all the doctors and nurses would have fucked off a long time ago.

If you're offered two jobs doing the same thing but one pays more than the other, you obviously take the higher paid job. Maybe there's circumstances that play a role, but how much of a role almost always has a value. Like... £2k a year more to work private? Nah, £10k a year more? Go on then.

People are mostly motivated by family. People don't fuck off abroad because their families live here.

[OngBonga]

The argument is a bad one. It assumes parents need to be incentivized to work for the betterment of their children.

I'm trying to get your point, but I'm failing. I mean, are you arguing that it's not the parent's job to create the better life? That it's the job of the state?

The problem is the state is hampered by equality. And that is a burden. Parents treat their children like they are the most important people on the planet. The state treats everyone equally. So who has the best interests of a child at heart? Who is better placed to provide for a child? Parent or state?

Of course parents need an incentive. A better life is an incentive.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm trying to get your point, but I'm failing. I mean, are you arguing that it's not the parent's job to create the better life? That it's the job of the state?

I'm saying that your argument that without the state to incentivize, parents wont work toward the betterment of their children is a bad argument because it assumes that parents need to be incentivized to do so.

[OngBonga]

Well they do need to be incentivised. I guess the point you're making is the motivation comes naturally, which of course is correct. But there still needs to be a reward. That hard work has got to be for a reason. If the state is telling you that no matter how hard you work, you can't use your wealth to give your kids an advantage, then what is the role of the parent?

[OngBonga]

The real problem with the left is that they can't tolerate good fortune.

Everyone can agree that a doctor deserves more money than a bin man, and everyone agrees that someone who works 40 hours deserves more than someone who works 15.

But some people really have a problem with others simply getting lucky in life. How many times has a child said "It's not fair" and the adult replies "Life isn't fair"? It's like there's half a world of people who didn't get that lesson.

You can't make life fair. Fairness is subjective.

[Poopadoop]

Well they do need to be incentivised. I guess the point you're making is the motivation comes naturally, which of course is correct. But there still needs to be a reward. That hard work has got to be for a reason. If the state is telling you that no matter how hard you work, you can't use your wealth to give your kids an advantage, then what is the role of the parent?

I'd reckon > 99% of good parenting is about what you teach the kid about life and not about how you spend your money on them.

[Jack Sawyer]

Private schools shouldn't exist? So education should be limited to what the state can provide? What if the state doesn't pay competitive wages and the best teachers decide to go abroad to work where they can work privately? What about private Islamic schools?

Look at it this way: public education should be so good and free (and the only reason it isn't is lack of funding and priority) that private institutions would have no reason to exist

Should the state provide schools exclusively for Muslims?

Dude, you have some problems

[Jack Sawyer]

Also, this virulent crap



I mean, monopolies baby! Good ol' capitalism rearing its head once again

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...ishing-2018-12

[Poopadoop]

The real problem with the left is that they can't tolerate good fortune.

The real problem with the right is they have no empathy for anyone whose fortune is worse than theirs. And even for some whose fortune is better.

You can't make life fair.

No, but you can make it fairer than it is now.

Fairness is subjective

Maybe if you're talking about the overall balance of advantages/disadvantages and how they might be weighted. In terms of things like opportunity, it's pretty straightforward to understand what is fair and what isn't.

[OngBonga]

Look at it this way: public education should be so good and free (and the only reason it isn't is lack of funding and priority) that private institutions would have no reason to exist

But this is an impossible aim.

Dude, you have some problems

Separation of church and state. That applies to all religion. The state has no business funding religious schools of any nature.

[Jack Sawyer]

The irony here didn't go over my head. Nice one.



Ok, glad we agree.



But what if I'm a rich guy and I pay for private tutoring after school? Are you saying such tutors shouldn't be available for hire? What if I want my kid to learn, let's say, the trombone? Should my child be restricted to school instruments, and the state paid music teacher? What's the difference between after hours trombone lessons, and a private medical teacher?

Anyone with money who wants their child to have an advantage will be able to do so. Pretending you can somehow put a stop this this is naive and quite frankly wrong.

A tutor ≠ a school. Would you agree?

[OngBonga]

The real problem with the right is they have no empathy for anyone whose fortune is worse than theirs. And even for some whose fortune is better.

On the contrary. I have fuck all and consider myself lucky. That's because I live in a safe country that looks after idle fuckers. But I'm poor as hell by British standards. I know I'm lucky precisely because I have empathy for those worse off.

No, but you can make it fairer than it is now.

Who gets to decide what's "fair"?

In terms of things like opportunity, it's pretty straightforward to understand what is fair and what isn't.

Clearly it's not clear. I think it's fair that wealthy people can pay for private education that is out of reach of most people, at least assuming its legal wealth. I might not like it, but it's fair, in my opinion. Rich folk can spend their money as they please, and teachers can charge what they can get for their services. That's free market capitalism.

[Jack Sawyer]

But this is an impossible aim.

Finland says otherwise. Or is Finland an impossible country?

Separation of church and state. That applies to all religion. The state has no business funding religious schools of any nature.

That's the thing; the discussion was about something else completely, and yet you throw in "Muslims" immediately

You really have problems Ong, get that checked out. It seems you really have teh xeno

[OngBonga]

A tutor ≠ a school. Would you agree?

There's obviously a difference, but not much of one. If private education is better than state education, and the law requires you to send your child to state education, then our children are dumber. Private education is naturally going to be better because it is better funded than state education could ever be. If wealthy people are willing to spend £100k+ a year, how the fuck is the taxpayer going to afford that for every child in the country?

[Jack Sawyer]

Word salad time!

[OngBonga]

That's the thing; the discussion was about something else completely, and yet you throw in "Muslims" immediately

We were talking about private schools. Islamic schools are an example of private schools in the UK, ones that cannot be run by the state.

[OngBonga]

It seems you really have teh xeno

Also, I appreciate you trying to use the right word... but... what country am I hating on?

[Jack Sawyer]

There's obviously a difference, but not much of one.

So you do kind of sort of agree. A tutor ≠ a school. I would have preferred if you simply agreed, as, you know, it's fact

If private education is better than state education, and the law requires you to send your child to state education

yeaaaah ...

then our children are dumber.

Quite the leap of logic there. But you are missing the important part of my statement:

Look at it this way: public education should be so good and free (and the only reason it isn't is lack of funding and priority) that private institutions would have no reason to exist

Private education is naturally going to be better because it is better funded than state education could ever be.

Why? Why why why why why why?

If wealthy people are willing to spend £100k+ a year, how the fuck is the taxpayer going to afford that for every child in the country?

Are you saying that everyone that attended a private school is a defacto genius due to the fact that "wealthy people are willing to spend £100k+ a year"?

[Jack Sawyer]

Also, I appreciate you trying to use the right word... but... what country am I hating on?

All the majority muslim ones, presumably most of the minority muslim ones too

[OngBonga]

So you do kind of sort of agree. A tutor ≠ a school. I would have preferred if you simply agreed, as, you know, it's fact

It's not really important. You can home tutor a child instead of sending to school. So what difference does it make if that private tutor is teaching one child in a home, or ten children in a classroom?

Are you saying that everyone that attended a private school is a defacto genius due to the fact that "wealthy people are willing to spend £100k+ a year"

Genius? No. Better qualified for a well paid job? Maybe. Who am I to decide if that's right?

Why? Why why why why why why?

Private education costs a fortune, an amount that the taxpayer simply cannot afford for every child in the UK. Obviously it's different in Finland, their teachers are paid more than our state teachers. But Eton's teachers will earn more, no doubt. The quality of education s improved for many reasons, not least because classes are smaller with less disruptive students.

[OngBonga]

All the majority muslim ones, presumably most of the minority muslim ones too

So if I say "fuck Jesus" I'm hating on little Malta?

[Jack Sawyer]

We were talking about private schools. Islamic schools are an example of private schools in the UK, ones that cannot be run by the state.

Now I reread your statement, I have to assume you are actually in favor of public-only schools

[OngBonga]

Now I reread your statement, I have to assume you are actually in favor of public-only schools

Why? I can be in favour of private schools while opposing religious schools.

[Jack Sawyer]

It's not really important. You can home tutor a child instead of sending to school. So what difference does it make if that private tutor is teaching one child in a home, or ten children in a classroom?

Two's company, three's a crowd right? What about ten? what about a hundred? You would need a private tutor for every subject also.

You may have every private tutor in the world to aide you with subjects you are exceptionally weak in of course, but it sounds to me you are devil's advocating to run away from schooling in general unless you are hold up with the cool kids who pay more.

If it was me, i'd put insane taxes on whomever want to put up their own Hogwarts, like $20M per student. But also, fix the public schools include making them more efficient and bringing the costs down, and fuck the 5 publishers that currently dominate the textbook market.

Just throwing money at things is usually not the solution OngBonga

Genius? No. Better qualified for a well paid job? Maybe. Who am I to decide if that's right?

This is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. Yeah, let's just give all the well paid jobs to people who went to "better" schools, no matter if they were 5.5 students (D students for you yanks). They deserve that. We are no one to argue whether or not that's right.

Private education costs a fortune, an amount that the taxpayer simply cannot afford for every child in the UK.

Which is why public education should be free and better. And this ain't pie in the sky, this can be done.

Obviously it's different in Finland, their teachers are paid more than our state teachers.

Yeah, they know wassup

But Eton's teachers will earn more, no doubt. The quality of education s improved for many reasons, not least because classes are smaller with less disruptive students.

And this has to be figured out. Why would we be content with the status quo?

Disrupt.

[Jack Sawyer]

Why? I can be in favour of private schools while opposing religious schools.

So they can be private as long as they are private in the way you want them to be private?

[Jack Sawyer]

So if I say "fuck Jesus" I'm hating on little Malta?

No, when we are arguing something and the first and best thing you can come up with is "... but the Muslims", you got defo problems

What did a muslim do to you ong? Do tell

[CoccoBill]

Ong, you're talking against equality of outcome, I was talking about equality of opportunity. Sure, being poor will probably always be a handicap, but public education should be sufficient enough to remove the need for private schools. I'm sure there will be niches to be filled, such as Steiner schools in Finland for emotionally unstable artsy fartsy parents. I have nothing against private schools, but they shouldn't be mandatory for a successful career.

Obviously it's different in Finland, their teachers are paid more than our state teachers.

Actually no, UK teachers are on average paid higher starting salaries, and roughly the same (£28500) after 10-15 years of experience.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/y...s-8673616.html
https://www.cato.org/blog/no-teacher...t-paid-doctors

[OngBonga]

Just throwing money at things is usually not the solution OngBonga

So why does anyone think increasing the education budget will mean the private and public sectors are more balanced?

Two's company, three's a crowd right? What about ten? what about a hundred? You would need a private tutor for every subject also.

A classroom of ten is better than a classroom of 30. Home schooling is one thing, but you do still want your kids to meet other children.

Yeah, let's just give all the well paid jobs to people who went to "better" schools

You think this isn't how the world works? Let's say we both go for a well paid job in the UK, we're both equally qualified but you went to the local community school while I went to Eton. I have an advantage, because my school is more prestigious. It's the same when we compare Plymouth University to Oxford, or Harvard to some crappy college.

It'snot like high paid jobs are reserved for people from prestigious schools, it's just they look better on paper so tend to have an advantage.

Life isn't fair. I'm not in the business of stamping my feet and demanding it be fair. If I had money and children, I'd be considering my options carefully, which the interests of my children at heart, fuck everyone else. That's why I'm better placed to look out for my children than the state is.

Which is why public education should be free and better. And this ain't pie in the sky, this can be done.

You keep saying free as though it doesn't cost the taxpayer. You say the solution isn't to throw money around, yet you're quite happy to burden the taxpayer while making claims it all comes for free.

And this has to be figured out. Why would we be content with the status quo?

You have solutions for tackling overcrowded classrooms and disruptive children? I'm listening.

[OngBonga]

I have nothing against private schools, but they shouldn't be mandatory for a successful career.

They're not. They're just helpful.

[OngBonga]

So they can be private as long as they are private in the way you want them to be private?

No, that's missing the point to accuse me of being prejudiced. Religious schools indoctrinate their students with too much focus on religious studies and not enough focus on academic studies. Private schools are not burdened with this.

I went to a Church of England school between the ages of 7 and 11, where they tried to teach me creationism. Is that acceptable in your world? It isn't in mine.

No, when we are arguing something and the first and best thing you can come up with is "... but the Muslims", you got defo problems

You've got problems, too, when your reflex is to accuse anyone who has moral and cultural issues with batshit religion of being some kind of bigot.

What did a muslim do to you ong? Do tell

We've been through this. They subscribe to a cultist religion that oppresses women and gays. You tolerate these aspects of their culture on the basis of equality, like the equality of women and gays is less important than the equality of crazy ideology.

[Jack Sawyer]

You think this isn't how the world works?

That is how it mostly works. That is what we intend to change.

You are finally on point.

[Jack Sawyer]

You keep saying free as though it doesn't cost the taxpayer. You say the solution isn't to throw money around, yet you're quite happy to burden the taxpayer while making claims it all comes for free.

It is free for the kid. Adults pay it in the form of taxes.

This child will then begin an adult life with no student loan to pay off. A clean slate. Then he/she can also live life without that specific burden, while contributing via taxes just like the adults did previously.

So why does anyone think increasing the education budget will mean the private and public sectors are more balanced?

I don't want there to be a need for a private sector at all

Think about why

A classroom of ten is better than a classroom of 30. Home schooling is one thing, but you do still want your kids to meet other children.

Sure you can homeschool if you so choose. The schools being free AND good should mean you have excellent options for the education of your kid.

Life isn't fair. I'm not in the business of stamping my feet and demanding it be fair. If I had money and children, I'd be considering my options carefully, which the interests of my children at heart, fuck everyone else. That's why I'm better placed to look out for my children than the state is.

Neither am I. But if I can solve that epidemic so easily, why not do it?

You have solutions for tackling overcrowded classrooms and disruptive children? I'm listening.

- More teachers and more schools
- Make teaching/education an attractive option by adding proper long term incentives for the educators
- Make pedagogy more widespread, ergo more people to aid in teaching
- More time off for mothers to take care of kids. Also, flexible work arrangements
- Increase minimum wage, making it a little more bearable to work less to have more time to take care of your devilspawn
- Never teach for tests
- Sex education

What options do you have?

[Jack Sawyer]

No, that's missing the point to accuse me of being prejudiced. Religious schools indoctrinate their students with too much focus on religious studies and not enough focus on academic studies. Private schools are not burdened with this.

So, there do not exist any private religious schools?

I went to a Church of England school between the ages of 7 and 11, where they tried to teach me creationism. Is that acceptable in your world? It isn't in mine.

Yeah, lot's of crazy motherfuckers out there. But, the name would say it all: "Church of England school"

Well if that is not a dead giveaway, what is?

But this is a decision your parents get to make as long as you are not of age yet, and that is a different discussion. Unfortunately, you can't just strip away religion from society.

You've got problems, too, when your reflex is to accuse anyone who has moral and cultural issues with batshit religion of being some kind of bigot.

"Reflex"? This is your reflex:

J -- "I'm hungry. Let's have a big mac"

O -- "Fuck muslims, they can't eat beef"

J -- "The fuck, when did I say anything about any muslim? Damn"

We've been through this. They subscribe to a cultist religion that oppresses women and gays. You tolerate these aspects of their culture on the basis of equality, like the equality of women and gays is less important than the equality of crazy ideology.

I tolerate everybody and also all cultures. My philosophy is actually quite simple: you do you boo

Fun fact: Catholicism oppresses women too apparently. http://www.lsunow.com/daily/opinion-...e8acd0743.html

Oh, not to mention gays.

All religions have their things. Can you just not live and let live? You sound like a cranky 80 year old sitting with a shotgun in a rocking chair and a spittoon nearby

[OngBonga]

It is free for the kid. Adults pay it in the form of taxes.

Ok. So obviously there is a limit to how much per child can be spent. Is that limit competing with the budgets of private schools? If not, then how can it change, and why should it change?

This child will then begin an adult life with no student loan to pay off. A clean slate. Then he/she can also live life without that specific burden, while contributing via taxes just like the adults did previously.

But what if state education doesn't compete with private education? Simply saying "it should" is hand waving without a solution. There are reasons it doesn't compete, cultural and budgetary.

I don't want there to be a need for a private sector at all

So you're removing the choice of parents to choose a higher standard of education. You want the public sector to compete with the private sector, but how can it? Do you think the taxpayer has an unlimited budget? Wealthy people practically do. The amount of money a wealthy individual can pay towards a child's education is a great deal more than the taxpayer can afford per child. That is the problem, and I don't know what you think the solution is. Pointing to Finland ignores the population and cultural problems we have here in the UK.

Sure you can homeschool if you so choose. The schools being free AND good should mean you have excellent options for the education of your kid.

Key word - options. You want to remove options.

- More teachers and more schools

Increase in tax.

- Make teaching/education an attractive option by adding proper long term incentives for the educators

Such as increased wages and perks? Increase in tax.

- Make pedagogy more widespread, ergo more people to aid in teaching

Sounds reasonable.

What options do you have?

A public and private sector, public sector funded as well as can be and at a high enough standard to give everyone a reasonable chance of success in life. Private sector for options beyond a reasonable tax burden.

So, there do not exist any private religious schools?

Yes, plenty. My problem with them is the "religious" bit, not the "private" bit. But if you're in favour of religious schools, then you must also either be in favour of private schools, or the state funding religious schools. I though we all at least agree the state has no business in religion.

Yeah, lot's of crazy motherfuckers out there. But, the name would say it all: "Church of England school"

That's besides the point. The point is, is it ok for schools to teach creationism?

But this is a decision your parents get to make as long as you are not of age yet, and that is a different discussion. Unfortunately, you can't just strip away religion from society.

No, but you can separate religion from the state. That includes state funded education.

J -- "The fuck, when did I say anything about any muslim? Damn"

It was in the context of public and private schools. It exposes a conflict in your position. Either you support private schools, or you support the state funding religious schools. Or, like me, you oppose religious schools of all sorts, including Islamic. I mentioned Islamic schools when I could easily have mentioned Catholic. Had I said Catholic, you wouldn't be outraged into calling me xeno. So yes, it's a reflex. It's a knee jerk reaction to me opposing a religion that you dare not oppose because you think it's mean to hate on a system of oppressive control.

Fun fact: Catholicism oppresses women too apparently.

Fun fact - Catholicism can go fuck itself into oblivion, too.

All religions have their things. Can you just not live and let live? You sound like a cranky 80 year old sitting with a shotgun in a rocking chair and a spittoon nearby

This is England. We walk around muddy fields with shotguns, we don't rock back on chairs.

I oppose all religion. I oppose Islam the most because it's oppressive and growing in my country.

[Jack Sawyer]

Mmm, banana style bit by bit rebuttal, haven't seen one of these in awhile

Ok. So obviously there is a limit to how much per child can be spent. Is that limit competing with the budgets of private schools? If not, then how can it change, and why should it change?

Those are details. That can always be polished once plans are made.

But what if state education doesn't compete with private education? Simply saying "it should" is hand waving without a solution. There are reasons it doesn't compete, cultural and budgetary.

Let's go back to Finland.

Going going
Back back
To Finland Finland

Finland has figured out that competition between schools doesn't get kids as far as cooperation between those schools.

One reason for that is Finland has no private schools. Every academic institution in the country is funded through public dollars. Teachers are trained to issue their own tests instead of standardised tests.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a8147426.html

God damn, I'm not pulling opinions out of my ass here. This is a real situation, deployed in the real world, with sound logic, and proven results. Can you show me your cultural and budgetary reasons at least?

So you're removing the choice of parents to choose a [b]higher[b/] standard of education.

What makes it "higher"?

You want the public sector to compete with the private sector, but how can it?

Please refer to the example I posted above.

Do you think the taxpayer has an unlimited budget? Wealthy people practically do. The amount of money a wealthy individual can pay towards a child's education is a great deal more than the taxpayer can afford per child. That is the problem,

Only in your opinion

and I don't know what you think the solution is.

Please refer to the example I posted above.

Pointing to Finland ignores the population and cultural problems we have here in the UK.

Can those problems not be easily fixed?

Key word - options. You want to remove options.

Homeschooling is an option you will always have. No one can not allow you to educate your child to the best of your abilities. Once problems arise later and you understand and assume responsibility for these, then go right ahead and do whatever you want. Your child will still not be burdened with student loans in such a case.

Increase in tax.

Spent where it should

Such as increased wages and perks? Increase in tax.

Again, spent where it should. Would you prefer to go to war with some hapless country instead? Same tax money.

Sounds reasonable.

Agreement? My god.

A public and private sector, public sector funded as well as can be and at a high enough standard to give everyone a reasonable chance of success in life. Private sector for options beyond a reasonable tax burden.

Unnecessary provided public is extremely good and free, as was my initial stance on this subject.

Yes, plenty. My problem with them is the "religious" bit, not the "private" bit.

Then that is a different subject for a different day.

But if you're in favour of religious schools, then you must also either be in favour of private schools, or the state funding religious schools. I though we all at least agree the state has no business in religion.

I'm in favor of ALL schooling, at no point I said anything about religious nada. You brought that up.

Those are details that would be ironed out in a grand plan.

That's besides the point. The point is, is it ok for schools to teach creationism?

And that is the different subject for a different day I was referring to.

No, but you can separate religion from the state. That includes state funded education.

Again, different subject.

It was in the context of public and private schools. It exposes a conflict in your position. Either you support private schools, or you support the state funding religious schools.

Why?

Are we talking about religion or about education?

Or, like me, you oppose religious schools of all sorts, including Islamic. I mentioned Islamic schools when I could easily have mentioned Catholic.

You always mention Islamic.

Had I said Catholic, you wouldn't be outraged into calling me xeno.

Because you always mention Islamic.

So yes, it's a reflex. It's a knee jerk reaction to me opposing a religion that you dare not oppose because you think it's mean to hate on a system of oppressive control.

Where do you get the "you dare not to oppose" bit from?

Fun fact - Catholicism can go fuck itself into oblivion, too.

And? What is gained?

Do you feel better now that you curse out a religion?

This is England. We walk around muddy fields with shotguns, we don't rock back on chairs.

I oppose all religion.

So you oppose all religion. Congratulations, you are a member of the antireligion movement.

Do you want everyone else to become antireligious as well? Do you want to impose your views on others, making them believe the same thing you do?

(Example being you do not want religion in schools. Shouldn't it be better to teach kids about religion in schools rather than allowing the schoold to be recruiting/indoc platforms? That shouldn't be too hard to implement logistically, the only difficulty being getting hard headed morons to understand why it's done)

Isn't that ironic?

I oppose Islam the most because it's oppressive and growing in my country.

I was missing the Islam bit. Quite a few paragraphs went by without you mentioning them.

I do not care for any other religion. I am of the firm belief that people may do whatever they want, just don't impose it on me. We may even be in agreement on that.

When it is people's time (and if they are bound to), they will wake up.

[Jack Sawyer]

I mean I'm reading up on this, and it seems the modern idea of "socialism" in the context of nations like Finland, is basically capitalism with a healthy does of equality and welfare.

So the word "socialism" in Finland has a completely different meaning to what it does in Laos.

Exactly.

Winner winner chicken dinner

[OngBonga]

Let's go back to Finland.

Population of Finland - 5.5m
Population of UK - 66m

Average student per teacher
Finland - 13.2 (2013)
UK - 27 (2016)

Finland's solutions are not going to work here. If you disagree, explain why instead of waving your hand about as though Finland is a magic word that solves problems.

Can you show me your cultural and budgetary reasons at least?

Sure. See those numbers above? Our population is more than 10x bigger, and our classrooms are twice as full. Finland doesn't have the problems with youth culture that we do, for example gang culture. Finland is a small sparse country, the UK is a large dense country.

What makes it "higher"?

The increased budget, which in turn allows for more expensive equipment and better quality teachers. Also, smaller classes with less disruptive students, allowing teachers to focus on studies rather than the unique demands of some students.

Only in your opinion

I'm not sure why you'd think this is merely an opinion. It's obvious that a rich individual can spend more money per child than the taxpayer can. Eton is roughly £40,000 per year. We've got roughly 7 million kids going to primary or secondry school... more than the population of Finland. 7m multiplied by £40k... that's £280 billion a year to give every child the same budget as an Eton child. And we haven't even started with further education such as college and university.

How is it "my opinion" that the taxpayer cannot afford to pick up this tab?

Can those problems not be easily fixed?

No. If we double the number of teachers, we'll be on a par with Finland when it comes to class sizes. Simply doubling the number of teachers is a huge expense, and only solves one problem. We still have dickheads in class, the offspring of shit parents who have no intention to learn. A bigger population has more little dickheads. That isn't so easy to fix. How do you stop parents from being shit?

Homeschooling is an option you will always have.

Why not allow the option of private schooling in a class setting? Why only allow private education at home?

Again, spent where it should. Would you prefer to go to war with some hapless country instead? Same tax money.

Now you won't hear me argue with this. I would much prefer tax money be spent on education and health rather than war and geopolitics. Perhaps we could afford to have a state education system to rival Finland if we didn't have Trident. But that's another issue. If we're not willing to make these sacrifices as a nation, and Trident has a lot of support, then we don't have the budget per capita to compete with Finland.

Unnecessary provided public is extremely good and free, as was my initial stance on this subject.

Well here in the UK it is not. It is varied, some schools in the public sector are world class while others are awful.

Where do you get the "you dare not to oppose" bit from?

You're an Islam apologist. You are more concerned about people like me being mean to people of faith than you are about the problems caused by cultural differences of natives and some immigrants.

Do you feel better now that you curse out a religion?

I'd feel better if all religion was in decline.

Do you want everyone else to become antireligious as well?

Yes please.

Do you want to impose your views on others, making them believe the same thing you do?

Not at all. I just want religion to fuck off and die a death so humans can evolve.

Example being you do not want religion in schools. Shouldn't it be better to teach kids about religion in schools rather than allowing the schoold to be recruiting/indoc platforms

I think you've misread my position on religion at school. Religious Studies is a part of the national curriculum, rightfully so. Children should be taught about religion, from a historical context. Children should not be indoctrinated to believe one religion is right and others are not.

Religious schools are school whose focus is primarily on a single religion. That's what I oppose, not a one hour lesson every week where kids find out what Islam and Buddhism are.

I do not care for any other religion. I am of the firm belief that people may do whatever they want, just don't impose it on me. We may even be in agreement on that.

We are. I just have the opinion that Islam imposes itself.

[Poopadoop]

I just have the opinion that Islam imposes itself.

Have you been asked to follow Islamic customs and rules, or join their religion?

I've had Jehovah's witnesses and Christians come to my door here to tell me about Jebus; never a Muslim to tell me about Allufah. Which religion is imposing itself here?

[OngBonga]

Have you been asked to follow Islamic customs and rules, or join their religion?

I've had Jehovah's witnesses and Christians come to my door here to tell me about Jebus; never a Muslim to tell me about Allufah. Which religion is imposing itself here?

This would be a fantastic argument if we had Christian immigrants attempting to impose themselves on a non Christian society.

I'm resigned to the fact Christianity is imposed on my culture. It has been for a very, very long time. Fortunately, we had a crazy king who told the Catholic Church to fuck off, so we're not as batshit as we could be. I'd like Christianity to be a relic of history too, but I tolerate it more than Islam because for the most part Christianity is not in conflict with British cultural values. Our values evolved from Christian values, so of course there's little conflict. And the Christian Church has shown itself of recent to be more flexible, that it is willing to embrace equality.

[Poopadoop]

This would be a fantastic argument if we had Christian immigrants attempting to impose themselves on a non Christian society.

I'm resigned to the fact Christianity is imposed on my culture. It has been for a very, very long time. Fortunately, we had a crazy king who told the Catholic Church to fuck off, so we're not as batshit as we could be. I'd like Christianity to be a relic of history too, but I tolerate it more than Islam because for the most part Christianity is not in conflict with British cultural values. Our values evolved from Christian values, so of course there's little conflict. And the Christian Church has shown itself of recent to be more flexible, that it is willing to embrace equality.

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

[Poopadoop]

This would be a fantastic argument if we had Christian immigrants attempting to impose themselves on a non Christian society.

I don't stop and ask the Jebus people who come to my door about their immigration status. They're still attempting to impose themselves on a non-Christian.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You OK, ong?
You seem pretty negative lately.
It kinda feels like you're just looking for an argument.
That's fine if it's fine.

but if it's not fine - if it's indicative that you need a bit of recognition from someone who knows you - if things are slipping IRL,
then don't sweat it, man. Ups and downs.

If you're feeling on the outs, work on the big 3 check-boxes that you can directly quantify:
get enough sleep
eat healthy foods
do something physical for at least 10 minutes each day... even if it's just a trip to the store to pick up food or whatever.

It wont make you feel better in the head, but it at least decouples the body feelings from the head feelings and allows things to gain a bit more focus.


Cheers. Argue all you like. Just trying to look out for ya.

[OngBonga]

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

You can take it as you please. I don't need to be asked to join Islam for it to be imposed upon me. Is Sharia Law active in the UK? If so, then it's imposing itself.

[oskar]

...

I'll be happy to hand the school stuff off to Jack. I typed up a reply, then I realized everything I was going to say was already covered.

My point has been helped along by others, but I should answer.

What's the consequence for not sending your kids to public schools?
How would it be enforced such that rich people can't buy their way around it?

Why no equal playing field?
Because we can't mandate the amount spent on each student, only the amount spent by the state on each student.
Because in the scenario I described, the 2 high schools in my district were receiving equal state funding per student (I assume), but that one of the schools nonetheless had a lot better equipment and facilities. This is because the community in one school's district invested more heavily in their high school than the community in the neighboring districts. It had nothing to do with the state and everything to do with people's freedom to spend their money where they want. They wanted to spend it on the high school in my district.

My worry with a system like that is that you exacerbate the socioeconomic differences between communities. Poorer communities have less money to spend on schools, the kids get a worse education and you create a perpetual feedback loop.

Word salad time!

Does she have any chance? She's just cashing in on corporate panic reaction money after they saw how Bernie's campaign took off, right?