Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not just about my freedom, and I do hate. I am not hateful towards others, which is something I cannot say for the figure I am referencing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not only irrational to begin with, but also inconsistent with the idea that "religious freedom" can be equated with hate. That is, unless you hate freedom of religion.Observing the Sabbath is not hateful.Feeding the homeless is not hateful.Praying for gods grace is not hateful.Only excluding and shaming people for non-criminal behavior is hateful.
If you stop hating, then you can do whatever else you want and nobody will object.
You know what else is hateful? The idea behind presuming that someone is hateful before you understand what happened, over and over, even when you are informed to the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not only irrational to begin with, but also inconsistent with the idea that "religious freedom" can be equated with hate. That is, unless you hate freedom of religion.Observing the Sabbath is not hateful.Feeding the homeless is not hateful.Praying for gods grace is not hateful.Only excluding and shaming people for non-criminal behavior is hateful.
If you stop hating, then you can do whatever else you want and nobody will object.
You know what else is hateful? The idea behind presuming that someone is hateful before you understand what happened, over and over, even when you are informed to the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't just say that a law symbolizes "play nice everyone", and therefore there are no actual problems with it.
I'm not speaking about this specific legislation. I'm distilling the idea down to its essential core concept.Imagine for a moment that you have a room full of diverse toddlers.You say, "everyone play nice".One kid starts making fun of another kid's clothes, and other kids start joining in.You say, "everyone play nice".You tell the mean kids to find a toy or play a game.
It's really that simple. No hitting. No bullying. Take turns with the toys that are available.This is a civil society.If you want to live in "the jungle", go to the jungle.
I am satisfied with imagining autonomous afults
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.
You can't say that a law symbolizes "everybody play nice", and therefore actually has no problems.
It is not only irrational to begin with, but also inconsistent with the idea that "religious freedom" can be equated with hate. That is, unless you hate freedom of religion.
Created:
Posted in:
You can't just say that a law symbolizes "play nice everyone", and therefore there are no actual problems with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is irrational.Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is divorce sexual immorality? Where did legality come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In other words, under the terms of this proposal, ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition’ shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions,” Perkins wrote.“Under this big new umbrella of ‘discrimination,’ any American who doesn’t want to fund, offer, perform, or participate in abortion on demand will have no real choice. They can conform — or they can be punished.
To my knowledge, this is a questionable take since the Equality Act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act, a law designed against segregation. I would think that it means you can't discriminate against people for going through with an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Equality Act, starts at section 3
Proposed Amendments to the Equality Act
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Okay, I have a short critique for you. All of the examples you provided in the OP do not demonstrate any sort of privilege based on "white" but rather nods to injustice on the basis of "black". Skin tone does not make one more prone to violence or necessitate that one lives in a ghetto. Either someone perceives a need to shoot you or they don't, and that is generally where getting shot comes from as it pertains to crime.
In this context you contend that "white people" are categorically "privileged", not just that "white privilege" is exhibited in existing social constructs under specific circumstance.
What kind of policy are the people who contend "white privilege" as a national phenomenon interested in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
My mother taught me more than I learned from school while working full time, partly because she is a good mom, and partly because my educational system didn't afford very efficient use of my time. Music is encouraged in my family traditionally, but we usually work and learn something that is naturally of interest over sport.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Why isn't this in the science forum? I haven't seen any indication of religious conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not referring to a portion of tax though. What I have been saying is an apportionment of funds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem with that to my way of thinking is that not everyone pays in the cost of education in any given year in taxes. I would call it a form of social security.
Created:
Posted in:
The state should not be pressuring people into public schools to begin with. It should be enabling them, not holding them back.Sounds like "states shouldn't insist on public schools."
Yep
532:
When the state government takes money and dictates how people and their community account for their educational interest that is absolutely a coercive policy. It undermines natural interest and causes dependency too. If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.Read it as "taxes [state government taking money and creating educational system for all to use = taxes] are coercive and cause dependency.
No, that is asinine. The public school that the local community created, and the state funded is not at issue, per se. The manner in which the state does so is coercive.
534:the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options. If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.Read as "State should tax then refund the portion for education to people who don't want to use public education."
Nope, no refund mentioned.
536:
allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion. Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education.Again, refunding taxes for services not used...should I get a refund every year my house doesn't catch on fire because shit, I don't use the fire department! Or maybe if I never report a crime, should I get my portion of the police funding back? This is not how taxes work, nor am I being coerced by paying them.
Nope, not sure what the context was at that point, but that's a generalized statement, referenced to educational funding. No refund.
543:
We are never going to improve our education systems until the people actually want to take the initiative themselves.Sounds like "do your own education." Presumably with the money you paid then got refunded.Repeated requests for clarification were less than illuminating. Sorry if I read you wrong, I mean I can continue but...
Everyone pays into it, but only some people have to educate their children at any given time. What I am referencing here is people being able to themselves into educational reform, rather than waiting for people with a number of issues on their plate to get around to it, complaining. And also, it truly does have to come from a genuine interest, or its just not going to happen. Just saying "oh we need better education" around election time doesn't do anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".Who determines what is better education?Test scores. Test scores determine better education.
Not really, and you didn't answer the question. Who determines what is "better" education?
Funding is still equal per child, regardless.Equally lean for poor areas and equally fat for rich areas. Not what I normally call "equal".They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like. This is ridiculous.
Wouldn't that be something.Ok, (IFF) every child in the country actually gets the exact same voucher dollar value, (THEN) I'm on board 100%.HowEVer, this is NOT the case and there are ZERO school districts where this EGALITARIAN OPTION is being seriously discussed.
Duh, its how it always should have been, but I am only speaking towards the state, not from school districts. Local communities obviously would tend to give public schools the initial funding advantage when the state starts to treat the poor fairly. I don't like the idea of partial vouchers. That doesn't make any sense to me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm completely lost on what you are trying to accomplish: you started out with you don't want coercion, dependency on the state, abuse, bad schools, and you wanted to be able to opt out of paying taxes
No I never said this.
and maybe have vouchers but you definitely don't care about special needs kids or poor children, because public education is advocating for idiocy or something,
No, I never said that. Someone else did.
and if public schools want your tax dollars, they can earn them through better results even though they have no textbooks, teachers or technology. Got it. Please let me know which state you plan to run for governor of as soon as possible :).
No, I said the opposite, that I would support increased funding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you think this has anything to do with tax breaks or cuts, you haven't been reading anything.
Taxes do not change at all. If you would like, we can raise them to increase funding. I'd be cool with that.
Plus, public schools are still funded by local taxes, so they will have a funding advantage, particularly if participation declines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But that one option may be miles and miles away and more expensive than the voucher and won't accept special needs kids.
For the first part, yeah, that's true. For the second part, are you advocating for idiocy? I mean, is that your policy?
That's just backwards. What the hell are you thinking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".
Who determines what is better education?
Funding is still equal per child, regardless.Equally lean for poor areas and equally fat for rich areas. Not what I normally call "equal".
They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like. This is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
Would the total pool for public education then be reduced by the number of kids who take the vouchers? If the answer is yes, it does sound like a way to defund public school while providing the more affluent with better options than the more vulnerable.This has been the plan from day one.The poor deserve nothing.FREE-MARKET ALL THE WAY BABY!!
Do not associate me with such tomfoolery, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x
So then how would that give poorer parts of the country or state access to nominally equal educational options?
If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?
Funding is still equal per child, regardless.
what exactly is your option as the parent of this child? Take the handout and what, exactly?
Some neighborhoods will still only have one option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yep, public schools would lose funding if their attendance goes down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, you sound like a union rep. You are suggesting that the public school might actually have some competition. That's a good thing. If they want to keep their job, they'll have to earn it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Who decides the more fitting manner?
Parents, teachers etc...
And how would they be apportioned, according to what criteria?
Basically, an equal slice for each child
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I am not advocating for specific system. The funds are already available to being apportioned to children in the current system, but only if they are used to prop up the public school, while the poor have limited options. I'm saying that those state funds, which are substantial, could be apportioned in a more fitting manner. Why it is being assumed otherwise against all good sense and reason, I am not aware.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
individualizing that burden immediately puts people at the lower income levels at a severe disadvantage.Well stated.
It makes absolutely no sense because the financial burden in a social security system is shared. That person is presuming that I'm an imbecile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you take money from them to help them?
Well, you'd better have a good reason for doing so, right?
When you say basically I want to take advantage and meddle, are you talking about climate change and evolution in textbooks?
No, I wasn't intending to refer to a curriculum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would you take the money in the first place then?
To help people in need, unlike your state. Your state's goal is to take advantage of desperation, and meddle in people's lives.
It seems ridiculous to take people's money and then just give it back to the same people.Why not simply close all public schools and just cut everyone's property taxes?
I'm not saying that. I want my community to have good public education.
We can go back to the days when we had PRIVATE firefighters and PRIVATE police officers too!!Hey, if you can't afford your monthly firefighter and police bill, then they won't take your call!!This system works out great for the rich but probably not so great for everyone else.
Its a form of social security, like it should have been in the first place. You are contending that I am mandating the abolition of state coercion. I am only demanding decency from you, by giving people the dues that are already apportioned if they don't find that state subsidized education best suits their interest. I could say something more specific, like school vouchers, but I want to emphasize that the system without such consideration should be considered an injustice, not normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All schools should have equal funding on a per student basis.Basing school funding on local real-estate taxes is clearly in violation of Title 9.
All communities should be able to have their own public education in a free country. Lack of state funding is not necessarily an issue. The state funding bad teachers could be an issue. The state funding based on standardized curriculum could be an issue. People feeling like their only option is to vote is an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, its common sense.
We are never going to improve our education systems until the people actually want to take the initiative themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature. You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.BY FORCE.
Only if you resist arrest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No I'm not talking about UBI, but allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion. Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature. You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Social security would be personal apportionment. At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options. If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it. The funding is an issue, but we aren't going to get better education until we truly want it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have absolutely nothing against public education, not arguing against it at all. When the state government takes money and dictates how people and their community account for their educational interest that is absolutely a coercive policy. It undermines natural interest and causes dependency too. If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back. Now if you are assuming that I don't appropriate a program of social security in this interest, that would be without warrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The state should not be pressuring people into public schools to begin with. It should be enabling them, not holding them back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I heard a hunting story once where it was claimed the deer was spooked, ran right into a tree and broke its neck without having to be shot. The next easiest way to go is probably freezing to death, like not from starving but falling in a stream or something. Its hard to tell how they process pain. Other than that, I think the wild would tend to be more brutal than an ethical kill. They will try to keep going through whatever they face, so anything that just overwhelms them is about as good as can be expected.
Domesticated animals can have an easier death, but on the other hand the living conditions of bacon you buy from a supermarket could have been pretty inhumane. There is no easy way to die, and I kind of resent people's problems with killing to the extent that it detracts from living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure how it seems crazier to say ideally there we would acknowledge that people are equal and there's no inherent to treat one differently than the other, than it does to say "Ideally there would be no government, only a state of universal grace." Is NOT discriminating really that insane?
Yeah, actually I think that not discriminating would literally result in insanity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Or ideally, there would be no one left believing in anything unprovable to use as a wedge of discrimination, like some magic voice in the sky who says "Don't make cakes for those gross queers I made for you to torment." Instead we'd just recognize that people are equal regardless of faith, sexual orientation or skin color and no one would be going around to funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, employing conversion therapies, or telling people who love each other their love is inferior AND they're going to burn for it, forever, so you can't have a cake otherwise I'm going to burn in hell for making it.
Whoa, where did that come from?
Created:
Posted in:
The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.I'm pretty sure the next stage of our cultural development is going to be an AI council with it's own autonomous enforcement arm.
That sounds so far out to me. Are you serious, like our lives are going to be calculated by computers? Do you mean our children are going to use AI for consistency and impartiality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Governments became necessary when humans figured out how to cultivate wheat.If you'd like to live as part of a nomadic tribe, please exit the internet.
The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.
Created:
Posted in:
So ideally, he'd be okay to discriminate against other faiths, too
Obviously not. Ideally, there would be no need for men to institute government.
Sounds like what Jesus would do to me! Gotta say, it sounds like you're talking out of two sides of your mouth: ideally he's okay to discriminate against religions so long as it isn't yours, and you support civil rights. How do you square that?
I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You don't know if they're real in your view? How's that possible?
Its not up to me, and I'm ignorant of their circumstance.
Consider the question. What's the matter? Should the baker be allowed to decline doing businesses with Hindus because they're not his religion?
Ideally, yes, but the Civil Rights Act is justifiable, and something I continue to support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So you just ignore Leviticus 20:13? Or are you making the argument that it's cool to be gay, just don't ACT on being gay.
I don't ignore how the behavior is addressed in the bible. We should be wary not to mix committing a sin in one's heart, like lust, with predisposition. I don't mean to say we aren't born into sin, and need salvation either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I can hate the Supreme Court but I can't use that as a reason to disobey the laws and expect to get away with it.
Yeah, I never implied this.
Can you explain why you're asking, I'll gladly answer?
This doesn't answer my question. I will restate. I presume you are CHristian. Are Hindu marriages 'legitimate' in your view? Are they real?
I don't know.
I mean they're denying your god exists, and are in direct conflict with the ten commandments. Would it be cool of the cake guy to refuse to make their wedding cake based on that objection?
You are conflating "them" with the event. If there is a satanic marriage or something, the guy is probably going to think twice about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.Why does cake man object to gay marriage?Because the holy scripture says gay = bad.But the holy scripture also says divorce = bad and adultery = bad and violating the Sabbath = bad.How does someone justify cherry-picking just the one gay thing out of the basket?
The scriptures do not say "gay = bad"
It has been explained previously to you, that the man may refuse towards any offer, regardless of whatever "gay" is, if they do not want to implicate themselves in the actual act.
Created: