Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou really are a lost cause. 😞
But that's not the rest of the story...in a single-payer system like Britain's or Canada's, Bo Nora would have had to wait in a queue for up to 18 weeks before he could even see a specialist. Since his condition is chronic, there would have been no money for advanced drugs or high-tech tests and treatments (ironically, if a cure or procedure for ...[text shortened]... me where his care there would have been equally meager and he would probably already be dead.
Originally posted by AmauroteHere's another one with extremely poor comprehension.
If my argument is a "straw man", why haven't either of you been able to refute it?
I have absolutely no problem with paying for the services I use, in fact I insist on it.
A refutation in one short, simple, hard hitting sentence.
My issue here is the use of the word 'freedom'. There will always be envy artists with their eyes on other peoples money, just don't go picking pockets then calling yourselves freedom fighters.
Let's get something else very straight:
No sane person wants equality of opportunity when it comes to education. Some kids need more attention(i.e. lacking in some area), other kids deserve more attention (i.e. gifted in some area)
Suppose some parents would like extra musical training for their kid. Equality of opportunity would immediately see the same opprtunity provided to every other kid.
The public school system is the state indoctrination system we can see the results of it right here on this thread
4 edits
Originally posted by WajomaActually the only thing you're refuting is yourself:
Here's another one with extremely poor comprehension.
I have absolutely no problem with paying for the services I use, in fact I insist on it.
A refutation in one short, simple, hard hitting sentence.
The only treatment I want from the guvamint is to be left alone.
Originally posted by Wajoma
Some kids need more attention(i.e. lacking in some area), other kids deserve more attention (i.e. gifted in some area)
Suppose some parents would like extra musical training for their kid. Equality of opportunity would immediately see the same opprtunity provided to every other kid.
That's a complete nonsequitur born of 50s red-baiting. Why would equalization of opportunity based on the elimination of fee-soliciting schools imply uniformity of education? You might as well say that inequality of opportunity produces a Babel of syllabuses.
Originally posted by WajomaWhy do the more gifted "derserve" more attention than others?
Here's another one with extremely poor comprehension.
I have absolutely no problem with paying for the services I use, in fact I insist on it.
A refutation in one short, simple, hard hitting sentence.
My issue here is the use of the word 'freedom'. There will always be envy artists with their eyes on other peoples money, just don't go picking pock ...[text shortened]... m is the state indoctrination system we can see the results of it right here on this thread
2 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteOk we have established that you blokes aren't talking about freedom.
Actually the only thing you're refuting is yourself:
[b]The only treatment I want from the guvamint is to be left alone.
Originally posted by Wajoma
Some kids need more attention(i.e. lacking in some area), other kids deserve more attention (i.e. gifted in some area)
Suppose some parents would like extra musical training for their k ducation? You might as well say that inequality of opportunity produces a Babel of syllabuses.
very good.
Next we have established that you are not talking about equalization of opportunity. What you are looking at is; at what level should the minimum standard be set.
excellent, give yourselves two gold stars for reward, although the feeling of enlightenment should be reward enough.
If it is possible to edit thread titles I would like to see the title of this thread changed.
If you think there is some inconsistency, you will need to clarify it. Non-contradiction is something to strive for, if you catch me out I will try to address it.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Some children have outstanding aptitude in certain areas. It may be maths, or music, or business economics. If parents decide they would like to give their child extra tution in their particular field of talent then they should be able to. Whether this is after hours tution or sending their child to a school that caters to children of special ability then they should be able to without interference from you.
Why do the more gifted "derserve" more attention than others?
What equality of opportunity means is that when these parents offer that little bit extra to their child they must also now offer it to every other child.
Now you know what the word 'freedom' means and also the destructive nature of the term 'equal opportunity'.
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaYour premise is shaky for starters, so it isn't surprising your conclusion is wrong: your premise is that education based on the ability to pay realizes the aptitude of a child better than a system that realizes that aptitude irrespective of that child's parents' financial status. You presuppose that the state sector cannot cater for differing abilities, which is presumably news to all those academies out there in the state sector. You also presuppose that state schools are somehow "ideological", which is risible since many private schools are fundamentally elitist and sectarian (inevitable here, since the class mix is more and more polarized since fees began to rise), and faith-based schools are a subsidized part of the education system. And so on ad nauseam. With premisses this warped, your conclusion is inevitably a laughable caricature of reality.
Some children have outstanding aptitude in certain areas. It may be maths, or music, or business economics. If parents decide they would like to give their child extra tution in their particular field of talent then they should be able to. Whether this is after hours tution or sending their child to a school that caters to children of special ability then they should be able to without interference from you.
Originally posted by WajomaIts your fundamental freedom to misunderstand or misrepresent the spirit of equal education. It doesn't have to mean normalizing anything to a minimum standard. Or producing carbon copies of some form of unimaginative grey.
Now you know what the word 'freedom' means and also the destructive nature of the term 'equal opportunity'.
Equalizing opportunity is probably a better way of describing equal opportunity. The example of 2 siblings from the same family achieving different things in life regardless of socio economic circumstances shows the fallacy that the same conditions will produce the same outcomes.
Individual capacities and natural abilities make a nonsense of a notion that a well funded public system that tries to equalize opportunities will somehow undermine the quality or differentiation of students that will graduate out of that system.
Just look at Sydney's Year 12 results. Year after year the top 10 achievers are fairly equally divided between the public and the private system. yet the public tries to equalize opportunity while the private only seems to offer exclusivity.
The user pays for his ignorance.
Originally posted by WajomaBut what if, under the system you propose, parents don't haev the money to aid their children achieve their potential?
Some children have outstanding aptitude in certain areas. It may be maths, or music, or business economics. If parents decide they would like to give their child extra tution in their particular field of talent then they should be able to. Whether this is after hours tution or sending their child to a school that caters to children of special ability then ...[text shortened]... at the word 'freedom' means and also the destructive nature of the term 'equal opportunity'.
Surely by giving equality to every child creates opportunity, rather than destroy it, as you suggest.
And there isn't an objective meaning of freedom.
Unless you can convince me otherwise.
And repeating your position does nothing to strengthen your case.
The only envy I see here is the envy of middle-class people who would prefer to buy their less talented children the berths that a true meritocracy would allot to gifted working-class children. And of course, for all the talk about rags to riches and the American Dream, social mobility in the Anglo-American model has been on a steep decline for years.