Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Racial Segregation/Integration

13

Posts

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    Frankiedarling
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    I fear (hope?) that your argument proves more than you want it to.

    To keep it on housing currently you don't have a choice and can't get away from renting your house to a qualified black person. You as a landlord are being used as a means to end housing discrimination and help black people.

    Do you feel that is immoral?

    CambiataAngelHedgieN1tSt4lker
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    It is like Vaccines, sometimes you have to force people to do something that they dont want to do. Especially when their refusal to do so has demonstrable harm.

    This is one of those American society owes a debt to the minority population, that debt must be paid in the loss of freedom to continue being awful.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    rockrngerCambiataAngelHedgieDarkPrimusPanda4YouShadowhopeN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Something I heard the other day described it pretty well: In the 1950s, maybe some people were against general desegregation not because they felt anything negative towards black people, but just because they really wanted their child to be served lunch first. It doesn't matter, because the effect is the same.

    Yes, it's perfectly moral for the government to legislate injustice away, no matter how many moms cry about their special boy.

    Cambiata on
    rockrngerAngelHedgieLoisLaneDarkPrimusEdith UpwardsAistanShadowhopeN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Or I mean, even the original brown decision would be immoral.

    rockrnger on
    CambiataAngelHedgieLoisLane
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    So, basically you're opposed to modern society? Because:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people pay taxes so we can fix it.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to pay taxes?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people buy auto insurance.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to buy auto insurance?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people stop pooping in the streets.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to stop pooping in the streets?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or any number of similar measures. There is a cost to living in a society, payment extracted in the form of behaviour that is disallowed/mandated. We sacrifice for the greater good as part of the social contract. We can dispute what sacrifices should be made in exchange for what, but blanket opposition to any and all sacrifices as unethical is :question:

    hippofant on
    CambiataAngelHedgieDarkPrimusAiouaEdith UpwardsmilskiHakkekageFeralQuidPolaritieGnome-InterruptusCalica
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    I can't believe that anyone is making a serious faced argument where the premise is that it's inherently immoral to force someone to do something they don't otherwise do on their own. People not being allowed to do something they otherwise would like to do is the entire reason we have laws and business regulations and traffic signs.

    This American Life has had several good episodes about the segregation that still exists in our country, and this one is really good if you want to understand the problem of segregation in school (it's a two parter):

    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with
    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/563/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-two

    Edith UpwardsPanda4YouCalica
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    So, basically you're opposed to modern society? Because:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people pay taxes so we can fix it.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to pay taxes?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people buy auto insurance.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to buy auto insurance?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people stop pooping in the streets.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to stop pooping in the streets?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or any number of similar measures. There is a cost to living in a society, payment extracted in the form of behaviour that is disallowed/mandated. We sacrifice for the greater good as part of the social contract. We can dispute what sacrifices should be made in exchange for what, but blanket opposition to any and all sacrifices as unethical is :question:

    And this comes back to the core problem with the argument - morality is not universal. Trying to argue some aspect of morality without backing the argument up is a fool's errand, because if the other person doesn't hold to the same moral framework, the argument falls apart.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CambiataShadowhopeCalica
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I was surprised a few years ago to hear that zoning laws were largely developed in order to segregate rich from poor and white from black; I had naively assumed we simply use zoning laws to better organize our infrastructure

    I thought it was interesting to see the causal explanation laid out; it goes something like this:

    *Real estate prices tend to experience localized increases when you restrict land use, because you are reducing the supply of useful land without reducing short-term demand
    *The zoning restrictions in highly regulated suburbs drive up prices, which tends to price out minorities
    *You therefore tend to find, all over the country, expensive white suburbs that surround low-regulation ghettos

    Historically, this is a feature, not a bug.

    Louisville, Kentucky used an early zoning law to explicitly prohibit black people from buying homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. The Supreme Court unanimously struck the law down in 1917 because intentional racism is unconstitutional, but later ruled that zoning laws are permissible when they are "rational" attempts to promote the health and welfare of a region; generally, this has come to mean that anything goes as long as the legislators don't explicitly say they passed a law in order to discriminate against minorities.

    What kills me is that even in progressive states you see the now-traditional residential-zoning pattern: affluent white suburbs encircling ghettos, officially because middle-class homeowners want to invest in high-price homes and implicitly because lots of affluent white people feel more comfortable sending their children to school in white suburbs.

    At best, the official explanation reminds me of the broken-window fallacy—we drive supply down and prices up in localized housing markets, and then we feel good about the "value" created by inflated prices; this is nonsense. High prices are not their own reward; many people would have more stability and better lives if housing were more plentiful and cheap. We reduce the supply of a crucial good and call it wealth-creation.

    And this palatable-to-progressives zoning regime has the side-effect of perpetuating racial segregation across generations. Many white people grow up in white suburbs, hardly interact at all with non-whites during their formative years, and then grow up to be white adults who, unsurprisingly, feel uncomfortable and out-of-their-element around non-white people.

    It's maddening.

    kedinik on
    rockrngerCambiataDarkPrimusHakkekageShadowhopeN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    No. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

    Taking students from a good school and forcing them to attend a bad school to help improve the outcomes at the bad school is not ethical. Even if it is effective. Even if it is not harmful to them in anyway--which again can not be proven universally.

    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    I fear (hope?) that your argument proves more than you want it to.

    To keep it on housing currently you don't have a choice and can't get away from renting your house to a qualified black person. You as a landlord are being used as a means to end housing discrimination and help black people.

    Do you feel that is immoral?

    No I'm not. My property might be. My business might be. But I can divest myself of those.

    You and @hippofant 's string of bad examples are again missing this distinction.

    hippofant wrote: »
    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    So, basically you're opposed to modern society? Because:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people pay taxes so we can fix it.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to pay taxes?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people buy auto insurance.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to buy auto insurance?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people stop pooping in the streets.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to stop pooping in the streets?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or any number of similar measures. There is a cost to living in a society, payment extracted in the form of behaviour that is disallowed/mandated. We sacrifice for the greater good as part of the social contract. We can dispute what sacrifices should be made in exchange for what, but blanket opposition to any and all sacrifices as unethical is :question:


    You are changing the sentence and thus changing the structure.

    The issue is that the students, people, are the means. Not their money. Not a behavior you want stopped. Them, their physical persons.


    If you want a modern state example that is comparable I can think of one-- conscription. Because that is what this is. Forcing them to go to be used personally to achieve an end of the state.

    I really didn't think the idea that people should be treated as an end unto themselves not a means, was really an idea that would be so anathema to this forum-- I'm certainly not going full Kant categorical imperative here. But like I said in my initial post on this tangent, I think this thread is very okay with a level of utilitarianism utilizing a certain groups of people, that it certainly wouldn't be with others. I expect individual autonomy would suddenly be way more sacred in a discussion on abortion for example.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    FrankiedarlingKraint
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    The black kids would very much like to go to the nice school. Since some schools, historically black, are failing, and some other schools, historically white, are succeeding, isn't it then in the interest of an integrated education system that we close down failing schools and spend the money on busses and additional teachers instead? I've gone to class in expansion trailers, and it was actually quite good.

    Edith Upwards on
    CambiataCalica
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Your disanalogy fails because you can homeschool or go to a private school.

    But you still haven't answered if brown and the other busing decisions are moral.

    rockrnger on
    Cambiata
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    You and @hippofant 's string of bad examples are again missing this distinction.
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    So, basically you're opposed to modern society? Because:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people pay taxes so we can fix it.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to pay taxes?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people buy auto insurance.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to buy auto insurance?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people stop pooping in the streets.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to stop pooping in the streets?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or any number of similar measures. There is a cost to living in a society, payment extracted in the form of behaviour that is disallowed/mandated. We sacrifice for the greater good as part of the social contract. We can dispute what sacrifices should be made in exchange for what, but blanket opposition to any and all sacrifices as unethical is :question:


    You are changing the sentence and thus changing the structure.

    The issue is that the students, people, are the means. Not their money. Not a behavior you want stopped. Them, their physical persons.


    If you want a modern state example that is comparable I can think of one-- conscription. Because that is what this is. Forcing them to go to be used personally to achieve an end of the state.

    I really didn't think the idea that people should be treated as an end unto themselves not a means, was really an idea that would be so anathema to this forum-- I'm certainly not going full Kant categorical imperative here. But like I said in my initial post on this tangent, I think this thread is very okay with a level of utilitarianism utilizing a certain groups of people, that it certainly wouldn't be with others. I expect individual autonomy would suddenly be way more sacred in a discussion on abortion for example.

    Well, first, I don't think Kant goes and draws a line in the sand with people's physical bodies as opposed to people's spiritual beings, that the categorical imperative applies to physical location but not metaphysical action. I don't know that he looks at the state and says that it can't coerce you to be in a particular location, but it can coerce you to perform particular actions, that it's not okay for the military to order you go to a particular location but it is okay for the military to order you to fire a Hellfire drone at a particular location, so long as you were free to do it from wherever you wanted.

    Second, if we're talking about the education system as is, the idea that a child citizen can only receive this particular service (education) at this particular location for whatever reason doesn't seem morally egregious on its face. The same applies for all sorts of public and private services. The post office mandates that I pick up my parcel from this location and not that location. Veterans' Affairs send a veteran to this hospital and not that hospital. Hospitals say you get surgery in this room and not that room. The government says I vote in this district and not that district. My employer says I have to work in this building and not that building. Immigrants are required to stay in the country for X years or be deported. Drivers are required to drive on the right side of streets and not the left sides. Protesters are required to protest here/not protest there or be arrested. We are, all the time, eminently coerced into doing things and being in places that we would not prefer; capitalist economies are explicitly about using people to produce stuff and denying people quality of living if they refuse to produce useful stuff; what exactly is it about this particular coercion that you object to?


    I really don't understand what physical locality has to do with anything, other than being an easy delineator to declare. Say we didn't have physical schools and instead had online schools - then is it okay to force kids to attend a particular school or not, because now they don't have to physically be in one building or another?

    Edit to add: Is racial segregation/integration really about physical collocation, or is that just one/the primary manifestation thereof?

    hippofant on
    rockrngerEdith UpwardsCambiataAngelHedgieHakkekage
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    For me, forcing kids to go to X or Y school is pretty much exactly what people mean when they disparage "big government". It is an authoritarian solution to s collective action problem: "we want people to do X, they don't want to so we'll force them to." That may work on some things but there's no sell here. How do you fight the "the Federal government wants to remove your choice of where to educate your child" narrative? Simple answer is you cant. You'll never even get to the racism argument.

    Frankiedarling on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    @TychoCelchuuu

    I summon thee for moral guidance in troubled times.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    It continues to amaze me that a solution that has shown to have only good results can be argued against with a straight face. Needless to say, those arguing against it have no real opposition to give except some nebulous feeling of discomfort. And that, I suppose, it intended to be enough to block a universal moral, social and economic good.

    Edith UpwardsGnome-InterruptusZomroCptKemzikN1tSt4lker
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    For me, forcing kids to go to X or Y school is pretty much exactly what people mean when they disparage "big government". It is an authoritarian solution to s collective action problem: "we want people to do X, they don't want to so we'll force them to." That may work on some things but there's no sell here. How do you fight the "the Federal government wants to remove your choice of where to educate your child" narrative? Simple answer is you cant. You'll never even get to the racism argument.

    And yet those same people are quite happy to force other kids to go to X or Y school as long as they can blame it on economics or morality.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CambiatarockrngerLoisLaneAistanQuidPolaritieEdith UpwardsArdolLawndartCouscousZomroN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/choosing-a-school-for-my-daughter-in-a-segregated-city.html
    “All things being equal, with no history of discrimination, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes,” the court wrote in its 1971 ruling in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, which upheld busing to desegregate schools in Charlotte, N.C. “But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation. The remedy for such segregation may be administratively awkward, inconvenient and even bizarre in some situations, and may impose burdens on some; but all awkwardness and inconvenience cannot be avoided.”

    rockrngerAngelHedgiePolaritieArdolGnome-InterruptusN1tSt4lker
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    For me, forcing kids to go to X or Y school is pretty much exactly what people mean when they disparage "big government". It is an authoritarian solution to s collective action problem: "we want people to do X, they don't want to so we'll force them to." That may work on some things but there's no sell here. How do you fight the "the Federal government wants to remove your choice of where to educate your child" narrative? Simple answer is you cant. You'll never even get to the racism argument.

    And yet those same people are quite happy to force other kids to go to X or Y school as long as they can blame it on economics or morality.

    There's a large difference between that and the government doing it. You can fall on one side or the other, but government enforcement is... on another level and makes people take things super cereal.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    The government already assigns people to schools, so I really don't get what you're trying to argue.

    FeralPolaritieEdith UpwardsArdolCouscousPanda4YouZomroN1tSt4lker
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    Cambiata on
    HakkekageDarkPrimusFeralQuidPolaritieEdith UpwardsLoisLaneArdolshrykeCouscousZomroCptKemzikShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    We ran into epic backlash the first time, in the 60s. When a lot more people thought it was ok to say certain racial epithets in public, when lynching were still common, when desegregation lead to direct and open violence. It still worked and made things substantially better. Have we, as a people, actually not progressed since then? Are you saying we've actually regressed to the point that it's undoable? Nonsense.

    FeloniousmozDarkPrimusEdith UpwardsGnome-InterruptusHakkekagerockrngerShadowhope
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    CambiataQuid
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    Kind of like when we abolished slavery.

    Yes, every progressive step the United States has made to correct the festering wound that is systemic racism has been vociferously opposed by "people." Some of those people are consciously bigoted. Others aren't, but just wish it wasn't so damn inconvenient..

    Look at me playing my tiniest violin.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    CambiataDarkPrimusAistanQuidPolaritieArdolGnome-InterruptusHakkekageshrykemildlymorbidZomroN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    And If you throw away ethics when they become inconvenient, you don't actually have moral principles.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    Frankiedarling
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    And If you throw away ethics when they become inconvenient, you don't actually have moral principles.

    I submit that this is morally consistent action in a utilitarian framework. Your morals are not universal.

    The point being made is more of a "if you're going to object to my solution, present your own solution, because if there's a problem and we only have one solution well we're going.to have to use that solution"

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    CambiataFeral
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    And If you throw away ethics when they become inconvenient, you don't actually have moral principles.

    I don't consider the government forcing people to do things they don't want to to be inherently unethical.

    milskiPolaritieEdith UpwardsLoisLaneCambiataArdolGennenalyse RuebenSurfpossumGnome-InterruptushippofantHakkekageAistanshrykerockrngerFeloniousmozmrondeauDarkPrimusIlpalaFeralZomroCptKemzikShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Cambiata wrote: »
    We ran into epic backlash the first time, in the 60s. When a lot more people thought it was ok to say certain racial epithets in public, when lynching were still common, when desegregation lead to direct and open violence. It still worked and made things substantially better. Have we, as a people, actually not progressed since then? Are you saying we've actually regressed to the point that it's undoable? Nonsense.
    Feral wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    Kind of like when we abolished slavery.

    Yes, every progressive step the United States has made to correct the festering wound that is systemic racism has been vociferously opposed by "people." Some of those people are consciously bigoted. Others aren't, but just wish it wasn't so damn inconvenient..

    Look at me playing my tiniest violin.

    It doesnt matter how much you want to fight racism or how good your intentions are, you're going to have a hell of a time selling "the government wants to remove and restrict your rights as parents", because that's how it's going to be presented. And the worst part is they wouldnt even have to lie, that's what it is. You just find it acceptable because it's in service of a cause you fervently beleive in. I have my opinions on the desire to solve all problems with the federal government stepping in and smashing everything, but this isn't even relevant because your proposal is DOA.

    Also, if you want to pretend there's no conversation to be had about government legislating all aspects of life... well that's certainly a thing, but that's quite the ideology and quite a thing to hear while we have a Trump administration lol.

    EDIT: The government taking away choice from citizens is not a thing that should be undertaken lightly. That you see no problem with it is concerning to me. That you dont understand why parents might feel outraged at losing the choice of how to care for their children is just plain confusing.

    Frankiedarling on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    hippofant wrote: »
    You and @hippofant 's string of bad examples are again missing this distinction.
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's unethical because using people as means is unethical.

    Perhaps a dialectic will help clarify this:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people to go there and it will be solved.

    Q:Well what if they don't want to go there?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Q:What if they are willing to move away or pay money to not go?
    A: Make sure they can't avoid going in anyway.


    Do the answers seem particularly moral to you?

    Once it isn't about sufficient funding, or great teachers or newer faculties, but is about using the students, people, as a means. You are talking about a morally different action than something like 'decoupling school funds from property taxes'.

    So, basically you're opposed to modern society? Because:

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people pay taxes so we can fix it.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to pay taxes?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people buy auto insurance.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to buy auto insurance?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or

    Q: Here's a problem, how do you fix it?
    A: Have these people stop pooping in the streets.

    Q: Well what if they don't want to stop pooping in the streets?
    A: Well make sure they don't have a choice.

    Or any number of similar measures. There is a cost to living in a society, payment extracted in the form of behaviour that is disallowed/mandated. We sacrifice for the greater good as part of the social contract. We can dispute what sacrifices should be made in exchange for what, but blanket opposition to any and all sacrifices as unethical is :question:


    You are changing the sentence and thus changing the structure.

    The issue is that the students, people, are the means. Not their money. Not a behavior you want stopped. Them, their physical persons.


    If you want a modern state example that is comparable I can think of one-- conscription. Because that is what this is. Forcing them to go to be used personally to achieve an end of the state.

    I really didn't think the idea that people should be treated as an end unto themselves not a means, was really an idea that would be so anathema to this forum-- I'm certainly not going full Kant categorical imperative here. But like I said in my initial post on this tangent, I think this thread is very okay with a level of utilitarianism utilizing a certain groups of people, that it certainly wouldn't be with others. I expect individual autonomy would suddenly be way more sacred in a discussion on abortion for example.

    Well, first, I don't think Kant goes and draws a line in the sand with people's physical bodies as opposed to people's spiritual beings, that the categorical imperative applies to physical location but not metaphysical action. I don't know that he looks at the state and says that it can't coerce you to be in a particular location, but it can coerce you to perform particular actions, that it's not okay for the military to order you go to a particular location but it is okay for the military to order you to fire a Hellfire drone at a particular location, so long as you were free to do it from wherever you wanted.

    Second, if we're talking about the education system as is, the idea that a child citizen can only receive this particular service (education) at this particular location for whatever reason doesn't seem morally egregious on its face. The same applies for all sorts of public and private services. The post office mandates that I pick up my parcel from this location and not that location. Veterans' Affairs send a veteran to this hospital and not that hospital. Hospitals say you get surgery in this room and not that room. The government says I vote in this district and not that district. My employer says I have to work in this building and not that building. Immigrants are required to stay in the country for X years or be deported. Drivers are required to drive on the right side of streets and not the left sides. Protesters are required to protest here/not protest there or be arrested. We are, all the time, eminently coerced into doing things and being in places that we would not prefer; capitalist economies are explicitly about using people to produce stuff and denying people quality of living if they refuse to produce useful stuff; what exactly is it about this particular coercion that you object to?


    I really don't understand what physical locality has to do with anything, other than being an easy delineator to declare. Say we didn't have physical schools and instead had online schools - then is it okay to force kids to attend a particular school or not, because now they don't have to physically be in one building or another?

    Edit to add: Is racial segregation/integration really about physical collocation, or is that just one/the primary manifestation thereof?

    Okay I guess we are starting and square fucking one here.

    Say you want to build low income housing.

    Housing cost money to build so you levy a tax.

    The end is building the housing . The means is the tax.

    But, say you don't want to levy a tax. Instead you decide to use force 500 trades people to build the housing.

    In this second case the means is the trades people. So while in both cases the government forces people to do things they'd rather not do, in only one are they using the persons themselves as the means.

    So when people want to force, kids from good schools to go to bad schools, not because it's the best school for them, or because it's the nearest school or even whatever other random geographic or burocratic reason. But because by having them attend there, they can achieve some other goal, they are using the kids as means to the end (that goal).

    Now maybe you are fine with that, with people being used by the state against their wishes to achieve a greater good, again conscription is arguably the most historically common example of the state doing this.

    But I think the underpinnings of what that suggested solution to this problem is shouldn't be just hand waved away.

    Those students aren't being treated as people, they are being used as tools.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    FrankiedarlingKraintNobody
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    The best solution to the housing part of this is to require developers to mix low and mid-income units in with their market rate units anytime they create any type of development, whether that be single family exurban tract homes or especially luxury apartments in dense urban neighborhoods. I am not in favor of entire housing projects dedicated entirely to affordable housing (see: Pruitt-Igoe.)

    There are two issues we're facing:

    1) This practice needs to be greatly expanded and cities need to stop letting developers buy their way out of including the units by paying into affordable housing funds to build dedicated projects elsewhere. Just make them put the units in the "good neighborhoods".

    2) MUCH MORE needs to be done to permit increased housing development in cities in general. Squash the NIMBYs, build build build, and include affordable housing mixed in every time you do. So many of the most expensive areas in the US have TONS of room to grow in residential density. San Francisco. Brooklyn. Boston.

    We are really terrible at urban development in the US, and racism is partly why, but it's partly the way our government is constructed and just plain momentum from decades of bad policy.

    HakkekagerockrngerN1tSt4lkerSmrtnikCalica
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    We ran into epic backlash the first time, in the 60s. When a lot more people thought it was ok to say certain racial epithets in public, when lynching were still common, when desegregation lead to direct and open violence. It still worked and made things substantially better. Have we, as a people, actually not progressed since then? Are you saying we've actually regressed to the point that it's undoable? Nonsense.
    Feral wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    Kind of like when we abolished slavery.

    Yes, every progressive step the United States has made to correct the festering wound that is systemic racism has been vociferously opposed by "people." Some of those people are consciously bigoted. Others aren't, but just wish it wasn't so damn inconvenient..

    Look at me playing my tiniest violin.

    It doesnt matter how much you want to fight racism or how good your intentions are, you're going to have a hell of a time selling "the government wants to remove and restrict your rights as parents", because that's how it's going to be presented. And the worst part is they wouldnt even have to lie, that's what it is. You just find it acceptable because it's in service of a cause you fervently beleive in. I have my opinions on the desire to solve all problems with the federal government stepping in and smashing everything, but this isn't even relevant because your proposal is DOA.

    Also, if you want to pretend there's no conversation to be had about government legislating all aspects of life... well that's certainly a thing, but that's quite the ideology and quite a thing to hear while we have a Trump administration lol.

    EDIT: The government taking away choice from citizens is not a thing that should be undertaken lightly. That you see no problem with it is concerning to me. That you dont understand why parents might feel outraged at losing the choice of how to care for their children is just plain confusing.

    Again, you're taking a case where the government already fucking tells parents what to do in regards to their children and then saying "because you have to go to A instead of B, that's a bridge too far and it's complete regulation of every aspect of life!" And you and tinwhiskers sound hysterical when you try to turn it into that. It's not a huge difference. It's not a legislation of every part of life (guess what, you would still be able homeschool or send kids to private schools just exactly as you have always been able to do).

    It's not inherently immoral. It's not a huge, different step that what we're already doing. It's not regulating every aspect of life (lols). It's not monitors in your home so the government can make sure you're not saying anything against Big Brother. It's not forcing you to live in a neighborhood you don't want to live in. It's saying, "in this one, already wholly government regulated arena, we're going to make government administration of the system a little more fair than it's been." It's like if we finally make redistricting done by a fully non-partisan council instead of the current ultra-partisan methods that take place in most states - it's like if we did that and suddenly you came over here shouting, "whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not get CRAZY with government regulation!" It would make no sense, it would sound like the ravings of a lunatic. That's how you sound about desegregation.

    AngelHedgieFeralZomro
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    And If you throw away ethics when they become inconvenient, you don't actually have moral principles.

    I submit that this is morally consistent action in a utilitarian framework.
    Your morals are not universal.

    The point being made is more of a "if you're going to object to my solution, present your own solution, because if there's a problem and we only have one solution well we're going.to have to use that solution"

    Ohh that's fine. I'm 100% okay with that assertion. But again like I said in my initial post on this tangent, large parts of the school system don't really work under a utilitarian framework. ADA and Special ed cost lots of resources for a small number of students, often ones with limited upside.

    I just doubt the utilitarian knife gets brought out for those, like it does when it's trimming against nominal white kids.

    It being constant in a framework that is only selectively used makes it not really consistent.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    We ran into epic backlash the first time, in the 60s. When a lot more people thought it was ok to say certain racial epithets in public, when lynching were still common, when desegregation lead to direct and open violence. It still worked and made things substantially better. Have we, as a people, actually not progressed since then? Are you saying we've actually regressed to the point that it's undoable? Nonsense.
    Feral wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    Kind of like when we abolished slavery.

    Yes, every progressive step the United States has made to correct the festering wound that is systemic racism has been vociferously opposed by "people." Some of those people are consciously bigoted. Others aren't, but just wish it wasn't so damn inconvenient..

    Look at me playing my tiniest violin.

    It doesnt matter how much you want to fight racism or how good your intentions are, you're going to have a hell of a time selling "the government wants to remove and restrict your rights as parents", because that's how it's going to be presented. And the worst part is they wouldnt even have to lie, that's what it is. You just find it acceptable because it's in service of a cause you fervently beleive in. I have my opinions on the desire to solve all problems with the federal government stepping in and smashing everything, but this isn't even relevant because your proposal is DOA.

    Also, if you want to pretend there's no conversation to be had about government legislating all aspects of life... well that's certainly a thing, but that's quite the ideology and quite a thing to hear while we have a Trump administration lol.

    EDIT: The government taking away choice from citizens is not a thing that should be undertaken lightly. That you see no problem with it is concerning to me. That you dont understand why parents might feel outraged at losing the choice of how to care for their children is just plain confusing.

    Again, you're taking a case where the government already fucking tells parents what to do in regards to their children and then saying "because you have to go to A instead of B, that's a bridge too far and it's complete regulation of every aspect of life!" And you and tinwhiskers sound hysterical when you try to turn it into that. It's not a huge difference. It's not a legislation of every part of life (guess what, you would still be able homeschool or send kids to private schools just exactly as you have always been able to do).

    It's not inherently immoral. It's not a huge, different step that what we're already doing. It's not regulating every aspect of life (lols). It's not monitors in your home so the government can make sure you're not saying anything against Big Brother. It's not forcing you to live in a neighborhood you don't want to live in. It's saying, "in this one, already wholly government regulated arena, we're going to make government administration of the system a little more fair than it's been." It's like if we finally make redistricting done by a fully non-partisan council instead of the current ultra-partisan methods that take place in most states - it's like if we did that and suddenly you came over here shouting, "whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not get CRAZY with government regulation!" It would make no sense, it would sound like the ravings of a lunatic. That's how you sound about desegregation.

    Yes, the government already tells parents what to do in regards to your children. And increasing what the government can tell parents to do in regards to their children should be something well-considered and not just "well, we already do A so let's just to X Y and Z as well same dif!"

    But apparently this is raving lunatic talk.

    Government interference and mandates should not be considered default. The default is freedom, and the government interferes and restricts those freedoms in specific ways and for specific reasons. If we're throwing words around, you seem like the raving lunatic who sees no problem with just handing the government more and more control over our lives and choices.

    And you're still bypassing the more pressing problem, which is that your solution is pie-in-the-sky fantasy because the sell is nonexistant. I guess you can get angry forever about your impossible solutions but that hardly seems productive. Because, again, how on earth does this proposal not get instantly (and, sadly, truthfully) spun as "the government wants to take away your choices in how you raise your children"?

    Frankiedarling on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Combating the original sin of our nation and attempting to the solve the fundamental problem of our democracy is compelling fucking interest. Integration is a method we know works.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    shrykeFeloniousmozArdolFeralZomroCptKemzikN1tSt4lkerSurfpossum
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    If you can come up with no better argument against a universal good to society other than, "I'm uncomfortable about it", then forgive me if I say that still sounds like a hell of a good deal for everyone. Including you.

    Panda4YouFeralZomroN1tSt4lker
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Combating the original sin of our nation and attempting to the solve the fundamental problem of our democracy is compelling fucking interest. Integration is a method we know works.

    I don't disagree. What I disagree on is the how. "Completely remove parent's choices in where their children are educated" seems.... 1 impossible and 2 straight up distasteful.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Cambiata wrote: »
    If you can come up with no better argument against a universal good to society other than, "I'm uncomfortable about it", then forgive me if I say that still sounds like a hell of a good deal for everyone. Including you.

    Please actually read what I'm saying. We agree that integration is a universal good to our society. What I disagree with is how you intend to accomplish this.

    And yes, I'm uncomfortable ceding more and more control to the government. How do you find this option, while faced with a Trump administration and the possibility of more like this, a Good Fucking Thing?? I argued this for years here during the Obama adminsitration that the powers and freedoms we cede to the government dont just belong to the governments we like, they belong to... well... people like Trump. And you call me a raving lunatic for being uncomfortable iwth that?

    Frankiedarling on
    Kraint
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Schools themselves are government-run facilities that they force people to go against their will.

    And this is a step further. People don't like government interference. People do and will fight it. You can't argue "we already tell people what to do in cases X and Y so what's the big deal if we add A, B, C and D too?" Well you can, but you'll run up against heavy resistance.

    It's also an ideological thing... I for one am very much against solving problems by Making It A Law So That They Fall In Line and I'm worried when this is the go-to solution. "Just make it a law so that they have no recourse" is a shitty way to solve problems and will run you into some epic-level backlash.

    Unless you have a better solution, your ideology is meaningless.

    And If you throw away ethics when they become inconvenient, you don't actually have moral principles.

    I submit that this is morally consistent action in a utilitarian framework.
    Your morals are not universal.

    The point being made is more of a "if you're going to object to my solution, present your own solution, because if there's a problem and we only have one solution well we're going.to have to use that solution"

    Ohh that's fine. I'm 100% okay with that assertion. But again like I said in my initial post on this tangent, large parts of the school system don't really work under a utilitarian framework. ADA and Special ed cost lots of resources for a small number of students, often ones with limited upside.

    I just doubt the utilitarian knife gets brought out for those, like it does when it's trimming against nominal white kids.

    It being constant in a framework that is only selectively used makes it not really consistent.

    If you view the reductions of bigotry / racism / bias in the white students to be without value, and the increased educational and improved societal outcomes of minority students to have less value than the nebulous feeling that a special snowflake will go to a worse school (keep in mind we have research showing that desegregation didn't harm educational outcomes), then yeah....

    We are going to have to agree to disagree.

    Racism is a virus that is thriving in the USA, and desegregation is the vaccine, with school bussing being one of the ways it is administered.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    CambiatashrykeArdolN1tSt4lker
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    If you can come up with no better argument against a universal good to society other than, "I'm uncomfortable about it", then forgive me if I say that still sounds like a hell of a good deal for everyone. Including you.

    Please actually read what I'm saying. We agree that integration is a universal good to our society. What I disagree with is how you intend to accomplish this.

    And yes, I'm uncomfortable ceding more and more control to the government. How do you find this option, while faced with a Trump administration and the possibility of more like this, a Good Fucking Thing?? I argued this for years here during the Obama adminsitration that the powers and freedoms we cede to the government dont just belong to the governments we like, they belong to... well... people like Trump. And you call me a raving lunatic for being uncomfortable iwth that?

    Yes, it sounds like lunacy, because we're not talking about adding any power that hasn't been there since public schools have existed. If we lived in an alternate universe where public school did not already exist, and we were making an argument that public funded school should start existing, only then would your argument make any sense. Luckily we are not in that situation. Instead we're in a situation where, for all of our lifetimes, for all of the lifetimes of anyone currently living, the government has dictated that our taxes pay for public education, and that parents are required to have their children go to public education unless they choose an alternative like private school or home schooling, and that the government shall dictate which school students are allowed to go to. Given that all that already exists, what do you think Trump is going to do? Most likely his appointees is going to do something more to your taste, to be honest: they're likely going to try to make vouchers a thing, allowing parents to gut the public school system. So yay for parent's choice becoming more important than universal social good. You're dream will blossom under a Trump presidency.

    FeloniousmozArdolDarkPrimusFeralN1tSt4lker
Sign In or Register to comment.