Masculinity: A Mental Health Issue

[seer]

Who are you as an individual to tell the education system what not to teach our children? If I don't think that children should be taught math, should schools then stop teaching children math because i'm against it, or history, or english, whatever? You can hem and haw all you want, but most of us disagree with you and are not afraid of our kids learning about reality.

Nonsense Jim, math is not sex ed, and as a tax paying citizen I get a say. But we could settle all this with vouchers.

[carpedm9587]

That is not the point Carp, it doesn't matter what the cause was, whether you agreed with it or not. King was going against the majority, you told me and my ilk to "just deal with it" and that we need to "adjust" because the majority was against us. That is a double standard.

If you interpreted "just deal with it" as "shut up and go away," then I can see where you would find it a double standard. Your responses to all of this come across, frankly, as just a bit whiny. "Tyranny of the majority" and other ways of saying, "it's not fair!" I have little patience/sympathy for whining. If you don't like something, then make changes to make it what you want. You have two ways of doing this: you can change yourself - or you can try to change everyone else. Most of the time, I change myself. I work towards changing everyone else when I see a social injustice or a community-impacting moral issue.

So, you want the world to treat homosexuals the way you do (degenerate sodomites, and all), by all means advocate for it. You're losing that battle and I think you're going to continue losing that battle. You want no homosexuality coverage in schools, by all means get going and advocate for it. You're losing and I suspect you're going to continue losing that battle. I'll be on the other side opposing you. The fact is, change IS happening here, but it's going against you. So eventually you'll have to decide what you're going to do in response: keep fighting a losing battle, or change yourself to adjust to the new reality.

Right, so why not let the money follow the student? Most people, like me back in the day, had to work two jobs just to make ends meet. I could not afford a private school nor did I have the time to do justice to homeschooling. Vouchers would prevent unwanted indoctrination from either side, you choose the school you want and I do the same. It allows more freedom. The fact that you would not support that hints at a streak of fascism in your personality.

Because it has cascade effects on the cost of schooling. It has nothing to do with fascism, but you folks do love to call anyone who wants thinks differently than you "fascists." Knock yourself out. As with suggesting I'm probably gay - it really doesn't change what I actually am. It's merely your opinion.

[seer]

If you interpreted "just deal with it" as "shut up and go away," then I can see where you would find it a double standard. Your responses to all of this come across, frankly, as just a bit whiny. "Tyranny of the majority" and other ways of saying, "it's not fair!" I have little patience/sympathy for whining. If you don't like something, then make changes to make it what you want. You have two ways of doing this: you can change yourself - or you can try to change everyone else. Most of the time, I change myself. I work towards changing everyone else when I see a social injustice or a community-impacting moral issue.

That still does not change your double standard.

Because it has cascade effects on the cost of schooling. It has nothing to do with fascism, but you folks do love to call anyone who wants thinks differently than you "fascists." Knock yourself out. As with suggesting I'm probably gay - it really doesn't change what I actually am. It's merely your opinion.

What cascading effect? More competition? More accountability? Why is a monopoly in education a good thing?

[carpedm9587]

That still does not change your double standard.

I notice you cut out the part of my post that explained that part...

What cascading effect? More competition? More accountability? Why is a monopoly in education a good thing?

As I noted in a previous post, schooling is expensive, and economies of scale can help control cost. The same thing is happening today in healthcare. When some people can say "I don't like it, I want my money back" (which is essentially what vouchers are), it drives up the cost for everyone else. The net effect of the driven up cost is cuts in educational resources. We live in a country in which certain things are offered as common services: roads, spectrum control, air quality control, water quality control, military, police, fire protection, etc. Not everyone is going to like everything about everything, but membership in a country carries with it a willingness to cooperate and compromise.

No one is forcing you to keep your child in a public schooling system. If you want to opt out of that social experiment, you are free to do so. You just don't get to "get your money back" and leave the rest of us with the inflated cost of the resulting education system.

[seer]

I notice you cut out the part of my post that explained that part...

No Carp, your "reasons" don't change the fact you applied a double standard.

As I noted in a previous post, schooling is expensive, and economies of scale can help control cost. The same thing is happening today in healthcare. When some people can say "I don't like it, I want my money back" (which is essentially what vouchers are), it drives up the cost for everyone else. The net effect of the driven up cost is cuts in educational resources. We live in a country in which certain things are offered as common services: roads, spectrum control, air quality control, water quality control, military, police, fire protection, etc. Not everyone is going to like everything about everything, but membership in a country carries with it a willingness to cooperate and compromise.

No it does no such thing. If it costs 12 grand to educate a kid, and you use that money to put the kid in private school, the public school saves money because it no longer has to educate that kid. So again, why is a monopoly in education a good thing? Is it a good thing in business?

[JimL]

Nonsense Jim, math is not sex ed, and as a tax paying citizen I get a say.

History is not sex ed either, english is not sex ed either, so what, the fact that you personally don't want schools to be teaching sex ed to your child is no different than you personally not wanting schools to be teaching Math or History. You personally don't get to decide to pull your kid out of whatever subject it is that you don't approve of as a subject. You can home school him if you want, or send him to private schools, although there is no telling that you wouldn't have the same problem in private schools. And again, our tax dollars go toward many different things, some things that you might approve of and some that you might not approve of, so as a tax paying citizen, you get a say, but you don't get the final say.

But we could settle all this with vouchers.

How so?

[seer]

History is not sex ed either, english is not sex ed either, so what, the fact that you personally don't want schools to be teaching sex ed to your child is no different than you personally not wanting schools to be teaching Math or History.
You personally don't get to decide to pull your kid out of whatever subject it is that you don't approve of as a subject. You can home school him if you want, or send him to private schools, although there is no telling that you wouldn't have the same problem in private schools. And again, our tax dollars go toward many different things, some things that you might approve of and some that you might not approve of, so as a tax paying citizen, you get a say, but you don't get the final say.

No Jim, you are on the wrong side, 70% of the population believes that parents should have the right to opt out of sex ed. And:

38 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.

Four states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.

35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...n-schools.aspx

So yes Jim, in 35 states parents can opt their kids out of sex ed.

How so?

Then parents get to choose schools, that more reflect what they want for their children.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, your "reasons" don't change the fact you applied a double standard.

As you wish, Seer. I'll let our readers come to their own conclusions.

No it does no such thing. If it costs 12 grand to educate a kid, and you use that money to put the kid in private school, the public school saves money because it no longer has to educate that kid. So again, why is a monopoly in education a good thing? Is it a good thing in business?

Unfortunately, it does not save $12 grand. The school saves the direct cost associated with that person. But the building is not smaller, so it costs the same to heat/cool. It costs the same to clean and secure. The library doesn't need fewer books. This is what I was referring to as economies of scale.

But it does open up an possibility. I would be in support of a voucher program if it was limited to the direct costs and excluded the indirect costs. So if we can determine what a school ACTUALLY saves when a student goes elsewhere, I have no problem with that amount going to a voucher. But if that cannot be determined, or that is not acceptable to those who want vouchers, then I am not in favor of a program that raises the costs of schooling for everyone else because someone "doesn't like it."

And "monopoly?" There is significant choice available, and the school system is led by citizen boards and separated into independent districts with both state and federal guidelines. I don't see "monopoly" here.

[seer]

Unfortunately, it does not save $12 grand. The school saves the direct cost associated with that person. But the building is not smaller, so it costs the same to heat/cool. It costs the same to clean and secure. The library doesn't need fewer books. This is what I was referring to as economies of scale.

Well no, as students leave they can use smaller buildings, less heat, less people needed to clean. It all eventually shrinks.

But it does open up an possibility. I would be in support of a voucher program if it was limited to the direct costs and excluded the indirect costs. So if we can determine what a school ACTUALLY saves when a student goes elsewhere, I have no problem with that amount going to a voucher. But if that cannot be determined, or that is not acceptable to those who want vouchers, then I am not in favor of a program that raises the costs of schooling for everyone else because someone "doesn't like it."

Well that is a start.

And "monopoly?" There is significant choice available, and the school system is led by citizen boards and separated into independent districts with both state and federal guidelines. I don't see "monopoly" here.

Right a choice in government schools... That is no choice at all.

[carpedm9587]

Well no, as students leave they can use smaller buildings, less heat, less people needed to clean. It all eventually shrinks.

Seer, this comment suggests to me that you haven't worked with a school system much, nor ever served on a school board (and I suspect you've never run a business either). It is standard fare that there are costs that flex with student enrollment, and there are fixed costs that don't. If a school has 200 students (our local elementary), it does not move to a new building if 10 students take their money and run, but if the cost per student is $7,000 per year, they now have $70,000 less in funding. Schools don't "change buildings," they tend to close when they hit a certain threshold, and then you have to transport students to schools that are (by definition) further away. There are many costs that simply do not scale downward. Businesses have the same problem. When they contract, they have fixed costs that don't contract and they become less profitable.

Well that is a start.

And an end...I cannot imagine a scenario that would have me go further.

Right a choice in government schools... That is no choice at all.

I have no problem with a parent saying, "I want my child to go to a different school." They'll have to pick up transport responsibilities. But a monopoly is a situation where there is only one choice. That is not true for schooling. Today you can homeschool, private school, there are online schools, and most areas have a choice of public schools (though parents have to handle the transport). So this is not a "monopoly" situation.

I'm getting the impression, Seer, that if you cannot have it exactly your way - you perceive it as unfair and whine. We call that "entitlement." Put on your big boy pants, make a choice form the available options, or get going and create new options, and stop whining, for pity's sake. The victim thing is really unbecoming.

[Tassman]

Who are you to tell parents what to teach or not concerning sex ed? And no, sex education is not a function of schools, not for the major part of US history.

[Roy]

So you won't admit that attendance at school prayer was compulsory at your school. Maybe one day you'll acquire some integrity and stop avoiding inconvenient truths.

No Roy, it is not compulsory to attend a public school. Second, saying the prayer is not compulsory.

...but clearly not today.

Nonsense Roy, attendance at school is not compulsory, one could home school.

Some-one who wasn't a hypocrite would have also noted that when claiming that school prayer isn't mandatory because parents can always home-school.

I never said that.

Yes you did. But I can understand why you would want to forget you said it.

Maybe one day you'll acquire some integrity and stop avoiding inconvenient truths.

[seer]

Yes you did.

Maybe one day you'll acquire some integrity and stop avoiding inconvenient truths.

That was not my point and you know. You suggested prayer was compulsory because public school was compulsory - both claims were false. I wasn't saying that those who did not like school prayer need to take their kids out, only that you made two false claims. Stop twisting my words for your devious purposes.

[Roy]

That was not my point and you know. You suggested prayer was compulsory because public school was compulsory - both claims were false.

I never said that public school was compulsory.

I wasn't saying that those who did not like school prayer need to take their kids out, only that you made two false claims. Stop twisting my words for your devious purposes.

Except (as can easily be seen from the quoted text) I didn't make either of those two claims.

[Cow Poke]

And it's entirely up to the state which "information" is correct.