|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 31 2014 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 06:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
@Xdaunt @Danglers
You guys would of never made it as black people pre 1960. The case you describe was standard operating procedure for the previous 200+ years except instead of the person getting hosed being white they were non-white and they never even got to a courtroom let alone won a case... I wouldn't have made it very far as a Jew in a Nazi Germany, either. Chalk up another GreenHorizons comment to the annals of irrelevance. We are so far from having equality under the law in so many areas it's disgusting to me that you would point at this case as evidence of the contrary. You clearly don't even know what "equality under the law" means. It means that the law applies equally to everyone. It does not mean that the law guarantees equal outcomes for everyone. Of course, liberals have a tendency of seeing injustice in every inequality, so I'm not surprised that you'd be confused. I'm not touching the Nazi reference... Just wow...
One absurdity deserves another. Stating that I wouldn't survive as a black person in the 19th century is beyond stupid.
If you think 'the law applies equally to everyone' or did in some mythical warped time, I am actually kind of sad for you. For someone actively employed in the legal field, to be so grossly ignorant of how 'the law' has been/is used, and the historical and perverse nature of inequality in legislation all the way through to execution, is truly disturbing.
The fact that you point to the case you did, as some beacon of hope that 'equal protection under the law is not dead yet', leaves a rancid taste in my mouth. But yeah I'm just another confused liberal...
And frankly, none of this is any better. As usual, you're more interested in arguing with someone else than the actual person that you're responding to. I truly had no idea that I was "grossly ignorant" of how the law has been used to create and foster inequality (as just an aside, that, by definition, isn't "equality under the law" is it?). I forgot all about Jim Crow, "separate but equal," the California exclusion acts, etc, etc.
I guess the conversation is over though since you went straight to the Nazi reference...
Frankly, the conversation never really began, because you're arguing with a figment of your imagination. When you're ready to argue with me, let me know.
|
One absurdity deserves another. Stating that I wouldn't survive as a black person in the 19th century is beyond stupid.
You might not want to keep referring to the 'pre 1960's' as "the 19th century", you might shred what threads of credibility you may have left?
Beyond that, it's not absurd or irrelevant. Your blindness to it's relevance is part of the point, but I'm really not going into that with you.
I honestly can't imagine what definition of 'equality under the law' you are envisioning.
I suppose we could start with that. You said 'applied equally' already, anything else you want to add or qualify for your definition?
Then I suppose we could get a ball park of when you think the law started being applied/(your definition of EutL) equally?
Then you could tell us when we started to see it dying?
Then you can explain why the story you posted is a signal of EutL, meanwhile there are countless instances of massively unequal applications/subjectivity under the law many of which have nothing to do with race taking place consistently?
Because I don't accept any of your claims, and think some of them are simply outrageous.
|
WASHINGTON -- Even longtime supporters of marijuana legalization were surprised early Friday morning when the House of Representatives voted for an amendment that would prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration and federal prosecutors from targeting medical marijuana in states where it is legal.
"Quite frankly, many of us who were sponsors of this amendment… didn't expect to win and were surprised by the margin of that victory this morning," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said at a press conference Friday morning, less than nine hours after the vote.
"While I always knew it would happen sooner than most political observers thought, it's still hard to believe this just happened," said Tom Angell, the chairman of Marijuana Majority.
"Based on our internal whip count I knew there was a chance this might pass, but we had to just about run the table with our swing votes. When I saw the vote total, I was shocked -- not so much that it passed, but by the margin," said Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project. "I figured we might get lucky and pass it by 5-10 votes, but never thought a 30 vote margin was a possibility."
At the press conference with backers of the amendment Friday morning, members of the House said the vote should send a message both to the administration and to the medical marijuana industry.
"The heart and soul of the Republican party is that pro-freedom, individual philosophy that Reagan talked about," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the primary Republican pushing the amendment. "I think that what we've got now and what we have here in the Republican vote last night were people who took a lot of those words and the philosophy of Ronald Reagan to heart."
Gotta give credit where credit is due. My hat is off to the Republicans who bucked the bullshit and finally stood up for (at least the states rights aspect of) legal medical cannabis whether they support it themselves or not.
Source
|
On May 30 2014 18:48 Velr wrote:
Its incredibly sad that "public schools" have a bad undertone in the US... Imho it should be 100% normal to attend a public school and get your Basic education in a public School.
Public Schools being bad is just a clear sign, that your system has serious issues.
In Switzerland we look funny at people that didn't go to public school... because it most likely means that this person was too troublesome to actually make it there. Even in higher education, many private Schools are just tought off as easier way to get a degree because they won't fail you, because after all you paid them...
It's the same in Bulgaria as well. If you are a student in a private school here, it means you're either too rich or too spoiled. Honestly, I don't understand this far-right policy in the US. Certain public sectors should remain free or partially more available such as schools, healthcare, etc. After all, do you want a healthy and educated nation or not? Things like education and healthcare shouldn't be considered luxurious. They're basic human necessities.
|
On May 31 2014 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +One absurdity deserves another. Stating that I wouldn't survive as a black person in the 19th century is beyond stupid. You might not want to keep referring to the 'pre 1960's' as "the 19th century", you might shred what threads of credibility you may have left?
My eyesight's not great. I saw it as 1900. Doesn't really matter though. My point remains the same for obvious reasons.
Beyond that, it's not absurd or irrelevant. Your blindness to it's relevance is part of the point, but I'm really not going into that with you.
Yeah....
I honestly can't imagine what definition of 'equality under the law' you are envisioning.
I'm not surprised as I mentioned above.
I suppose we could start with that. You said 'applied equally' already, anything else you want to add or qualify for your definition?
Oh, hey! You're actually conversing with me now.
There's nothing to add. Equal protection under law is as simple as it sounds: it means that the law is to be applied equally to everyone without consideration of extraneous factors such as race, sex, religion, etc.
Then I suppose we could get a ball park of when you think the law started being applied/(your definition of EutL) equally?
It depends upon the context. I'm not going to pretend that equal protection under the law has always been followed for obvious reasons.
Then you could tell us when we started to see it dying?
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action.
This isn't to say that there weren't things that needed to be fixed. Clearly there were. However, if you look at what the US Supreme Court had to say about the Constitutionality of these types of laws (because they violate the equal protection under the law principle), it is very clear that the Court did not want these policies to be permanent fixtures in society and upheld them with quite a bit of reluctance.
Regardless, the cat was out of the bag in terms using questionable means that violate the principle of equal protection under the law to create equal outcomes between persons. As I alluded to earlier, liberals do this all of the time, aspiring to "social justice and equality" as the basis for many of their causes.
Then you can explain why the story you posted is a signal of EutL, meanwhile there are countless instances of massively unequal applications/subjectivity under the law many of which have nothing to do with race taking place consistently?
I posted it because I truly despise the liberal preoccupation with equality of outcomes, and the fact that liberals rarely seem to care anymore how a certain result is achieved so long as that result is achieved. Conservatives aren't perfect on this either, but liberals are far worse. Form matters.
Because I don't accept any of your claims, and think some of them are simply outrageous.
Well, I haven't really said anything on point until now. You must be referring to that figment of your imagination again.
|
On May 31 2014 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action.
My favorite traditional freedom is the freedom to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.
|
On May 31 2014 09:05 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action. My favorite traditional freedom is the freedom to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.
My favorite traditional freedom eroded in the 60's, was the freedom to prevent those pesky blacks from eating at my lunch counters, going to my child's school, and flying commercial airliners regardless of their qualifications...
You actually think the law was more equally applied in the 1940's or 50's than the 60's or 70's or now?
You really don't see how absurd your statements are, do you XDaunt?
|
On May 31 2014 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 09:05 Mindcrime wrote:On May 31 2014 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action. My favorite traditional freedom is the freedom to prevent minorities and the poor from voting. My favorite traditional freedom eroded in the 60's, was the freedom to prevent those pesky blacks from eating at my lunch counters, going to my child's school, and flying commercial airliners regardless of their qualifications... You actually think the law was more equally applied in the 1940's or 50's than the 60's or 70's or now? You really don't see how absurd your statements are, do you XDaunt?
Well, that was a very brief conversation. Have fun arguing with imaginary xDaunt again.
|
On May 31 2014 09:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2014 09:05 Mindcrime wrote:On May 31 2014 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action. My favorite traditional freedom is the freedom to prevent minorities and the poor from voting. My favorite traditional freedom eroded in the 60's, was the freedom to prevent those pesky blacks from eating at my lunch counters, going to my child's school, and flying commercial airliners regardless of their qualifications... You actually think the law was more equally applied in the 1940's or 50's than the 60's or 70's or now? You really don't see how absurd your statements are, do you XDaunt? Well, that was a very brief conversation. Have fun arguing with imaginary xDaunt again.
My god Xdaunt. You are so disingenuous there is no arguing with you anyway, I bid you good day.
|
On May 31 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 01:20 Yoav wrote:On May 30 2014 18:48 Velr wrote:
Its incredibly sad that "public schools" have a bad undertone in the US... Imho it should be 100% normal to attend a public school and get your Basic education in a public School.
Public Schools being bad is just a clear sign, that your system has serious issues.
Two things here: 1) Nobody "looks funny" at a U.S. public school student or thinks them lesser... if anything, it can be a significant badge of pride for someone to come from a poor public school and make it to a good college/job. Undeniably the schools have problems, but it's certainly "normal" to have gone to a public school, with half or more students at the most elite colleges having come from public schools. 2) A big part of the problem with public schools in the U.S. is a function of the extraordinary decentralization of all things in the country. If the federal, or even state, government simply allotted school budgets based on number of students, you would have a lot less crap schools. But every little area funds its own local schools, so poor areas have crap schools, rich areas tend to have really good public schools, and mixed rich/poor areas can have weird effects (in my town, the result was a well-funded but colossally mismanaged school with insane levels of administrator pay but really poor performance). 1) That's total bull. The hell people don't look down on public school educations?!? Sen. Ted Cruz (R) didn't even want to study with people from 'lesser ivy's' let alone public schools. The badge of honor is specifically because the public school system is looked at as not even remotely preparing students for higher education. Would be interesting to see the average amount of money spent on students from public schools who made it into elite institutions. You have a source on your half or more stat? 2) This was pretty right on. The discrepancies in funding that can happen in schools just a handful of miles away is pretty disgusting. Add that to the pattern of re-segregation occurring in many schools and you can see how the US education system is taking 2 steps backward for every step forward lately. @Xdaunt @Danglers You guys would of never made it as black people pre 1960. The case you describe was standard operating procedure for the previous 200+ years except instead of the person getting hosed being white they were non-white and they never even got to a courtroom let alone won a case... We are so far from having equality under the law in so many areas it's disgusting to me that you would point at this case as evidence of the contrary.
Usually when people talk about 'public schools' they're talking k-12. 'Ivy League' is college level and Ted Cruz has been out of school for a long time. Kind of a weird rumor anyways, how often would you be studying with people from a different college anyways?
I've never met anyone who looked down on 'public education' writ large. >90% of people go to public schools.
Most states have a funding mix of about half local, half state / federal. State and federal money is usually directed to poorer areas.
|
On May 31 2014 09:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2014 01:20 Yoav wrote:On May 30 2014 18:48 Velr wrote:
Its incredibly sad that "public schools" have a bad undertone in the US... Imho it should be 100% normal to attend a public school and get your Basic education in a public School.
Public Schools being bad is just a clear sign, that your system has serious issues.
Two things here: 1) Nobody "looks funny" at a U.S. public school student or thinks them lesser... if anything, it can be a significant badge of pride for someone to come from a poor public school and make it to a good college/job. Undeniably the schools have problems, but it's certainly "normal" to have gone to a public school, with half or more students at the most elite colleges having come from public schools. 2) A big part of the problem with public schools in the U.S. is a function of the extraordinary decentralization of all things in the country. If the federal, or even state, government simply allotted school budgets based on number of students, you would have a lot less crap schools. But every little area funds its own local schools, so poor areas have crap schools, rich areas tend to have really good public schools, and mixed rich/poor areas can have weird effects (in my town, the result was a well-funded but colossally mismanaged school with insane levels of administrator pay but really poor performance). 1) That's total bull. The hell people don't look down on public school educations?!? Sen. Ted Cruz (R) didn't even want to study with people from 'lesser ivy's' let alone public schools. The badge of honor is specifically because the public school system is looked at as not even remotely preparing students for higher education. Would be interesting to see the average amount of money spent on students from public schools who made it into elite institutions. You have a source on your half or more stat? 2) This was pretty right on. The discrepancies in funding that can happen in schools just a handful of miles away is pretty disgusting. Add that to the pattern of re-segregation occurring in many schools and you can see how the US education system is taking 2 steps backward for every step forward lately. @Xdaunt @Danglers You guys would of never made it as black people pre 1960. The case you describe was standard operating procedure for the previous 200+ years except instead of the person getting hosed being white they were non-white and they never even got to a courtroom let alone won a case... We are so far from having equality under the law in so many areas it's disgusting to me that you would point at this case as evidence of the contrary. Usually when people talk about 'public schools' they're talking k-12. 'Ivy League' is college level and Ted Cruz has been out of school for a long time. Kind of a weird rumor anyways, how often would you be studying with people from a different college anyways? I've never met anyone who looked down on 'public education' writ large. >90% of people go to public schools. Most states have a funding mix of about half local, half state / federal. State and federal money is usually directed to poorer areas.
I'm fairly certain Cruz and other classmates debunked that rumor anyway. Not that MM updated the story or anything, so you can't really expect GH to know that.
A former roommate told the magazine GQ recently that Cruz preferred to study only with graduates of Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, dismissing the rest as “the minor Ivies.”
“It’s complete nonsense,” Cruz said. “It’s simply not true.”
The five-member study group included one member, Jeff Hinck, who attended Northwestern.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/11/10/ted-cruz-was-polarizing-figure-harvard-law-foreshadowing-his-partisan-profile-senate/gEUPs0iVgOyoidafkNe94H/story.html
Cruz’s Harvard classmate Jeff Hinck told Breitbart News he would study with Cruz at Harvard even though he did not graduate from an Ivy League undergraduate program. Hinck was actually a member of Cruz’s study group and would know whether Cruz would study non-Ivy League graduates.
“The claim that GQ published is silly and flat-out wrong,” Hinck wrote in an email to Breitbart News on Monday evening. “I was in Ted's study group - along with his first-year roommate David Panton - and I graduated from Northwestern, not an Ivy League institution. ”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/Exclusive-Ted-Cruz-s-college-classmate-GQ-s-claims-on-Cruz-s-social-habits-silly-and-flat-out-wrong
|
On May 31 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 09:33 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2014 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2014 09:05 Mindcrime wrote:On May 31 2014 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
This isn't quite the right question to ask. The right question to ask is "when did equality in outcome start to trump equal protection under the law?" The answer to that question is during the 1960s when we began to legislate people's behaviors at the expense of traditional values and freedoms. If you want to pick one policy that is most emblematic of this shift, it's affirmative action. My favorite traditional freedom is the freedom to prevent minorities and the poor from voting. My favorite traditional freedom eroded in the 60's, was the freedom to prevent those pesky blacks from eating at my lunch counters, going to my child's school, and flying commercial airliners regardless of their qualifications... You actually think the law was more equally applied in the 1940's or 50's than the 60's or 70's or now? You really don't see how absurd your statements are, do you XDaunt? Well, that was a very brief conversation. Have fun arguing with imaginary xDaunt again. My god Xdaunt. You are so disingenuous there is no arguing with you anyway, I bid you good day.
The only reason you think that I am disingenuous is because you keep presuming that I am arguing things that I am not. You have absolutely no discipline in your analysis of what I am actually saying and the manner in which you respond to me. And it's not just in this case, either. You do this all of the time, which is why I am making fun of you.
But whatever, I don't expect you take my word for it. I'll let someone else explain it to you.
|
Though GreenHorizons' flamboyant posting style doesn't really help, you are pinning up quite the imagined liberal when you repeatedly assert that progressives almost unanimously pursue equal outcomes as a political end goal. There are more than a few that are willing to admit that any sort of baseline equality is still going to look far different than an imagined society in which everyone is given the same opportunities. It works very much like dealing with infinity as a mathematical concept; in specificity, it is mostly useless as it is practically impossible to define outside of the symbol we use to represent it. Once we plug it into limit equations or other operations, however, its utility increases dramatically. Similarly, pursuing equality as a generalized concept does not necessitate that we ever actually reach universal equality or that that is even what folks are talking about in the first place. Now don't get me wrong, there most certainly exist liberals who would argue that such a thing is worth fighting for (the fringe is a fringe for a reason), but you would be mistaken to so routinely summarize the left-leaning position as one that is definitively ready to throw equality under the law out the window in pursuit of an idealized concept of equality that we all know is unrealistic. To do so is tantamount to assuming that conservatives categorically operate like Michelle Bachmann.
Form is in the eye of the beholder. We can point to poorly run red state governments and politicians like Ted Cruz just as easily as you can overzealous liberals like Michael Bloomberg. Both sides fail each others' litmus tests for politically correct behavior.
|
On May 31 2014 09:59 farvacola wrote:
Though GreenHorizons' flamboyant posting style doesn't really help, you are pinning up quite the imagined liberal when you repeatedly assert that progressives almost unanimously pursue equal outcomes as a political end goal. There are more than a few that are willing to admit that any sort of baseline equality is still going to look far different than an imagined society in which everyone is given the same opportunities. It works very much like dealing with infinity as a mathematical concept; in specificity, it is mostly useless as it is practically impossible to define outside of the symbol we use to represent it. Once we plug it into limit equations or other operations, however, its utility increases dramatically. Similarly, pursuing equality as a generalized concept does not necessitate that we ever actually reach universal equality or that that is even what folks are talking about in the first place. Now don't get me wrong, there most certainly exist liberals who would argue that such a thing is worth fighting for (the fringe is a fringe for a reason), but you would be mistaken to so routinely summarize the left-leaning position as one that is definitively ready to throw equality under the law out the window in pursuit of an idealized concept of equality that we all know is unrealistic. To do so is tantamount to assuming that conservatives categorically operate like Michelle Bachmann.
Form is in the eye of the beholder. We can point to poorly run red state governments and politicians like Ted Cruz just as easily as you can overzealous liberals like Michael Bloomberg. Both sides fail each others' litmus tests for politically correct behavior.
I was hoping that you'd show up and show GreenHorizons what an intelligent retort looks like. However, I still disagree your minimization of the liberal propensity to ignore the propriety of form in their pursuit of their policy du jour. From gun control to immigration to affirmative action, there's a constant element of "the ends justify the means."
|
What is 'equality of opportunity' that some of you claim is sufficient enough supposed to mean anyway? Last time I visited a bigger restaurant(here in Germany) 80% of the service personnel had a migration background. The manager was a white dude. Theoretically all these people have the same rights and the same opportunity, probably more so than in the US. Still there's a huge gap. Same is true for women in many jobs.
So either immigrants, women and black people are inherently less qualified than white people or natives or there are still big systematic problems that should be dealt with. Practically 'equality of opportunity' is a completely useless concept.
Also theoretical it's flawed. Some people need to work jobs that suck, else our economy isn't going to work. If the ~20% of people working low paying jobs were not there the system would not work. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, not even theoretically.
|
On May 31 2014 10:13 Nyxisto wrote:
What is 'equality of opportunity' that some of you claim is sufficient enough supposed to mean anyway? Last time I visited a bigger restaurant(here in Germany) 80% of the service personnel had a migration background. The manager was a white dude. Theoretically all these people have the same rights and the same opportunity, probably more so than in the US. Still there's a huge gap. Same is true for women in many jobs.
So either immigrants, women and black people are inherently less qualified than white people or natives or there are still big systematic problems that should be dealt with. Practically 'equality of opportunity' is a completely useless concept.
Also theoretical it's flawed. Some people need to work jobs that suck, else our economy isn't going to work. If the ~20% of people working low paying jobs were not there the system would not work. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, not even theoretically.
Well, this is a whole different ball of wax. I particularly agree with your last point, though it isn't exactly the material of a winning campaign slogan.
|
On May 31 2014 10:13 Nyxisto wrote:
What is 'equality of opportunity' that some of you claim is sufficient enough supposed to mean anyway? Last time I visited a bigger restaurant(here in Germany) 80% of the service personnel had a migration background. The manager was a white dude. Theoretically all these people have the same rights and the same opportunity, probably more so than in the US. Still there's a huge gap. Same is true for women in many jobs.
So either immigrants, women and black people are inherently less qualified than white people or natives or there are still big systematic problems that should be dealt with. Practically 'equality of opportunity' is a completely useless concept.
Also theoretical it's flawed. Some people need to work jobs that suck, else our economy isn't going to work. If the ~20% of people working low paying jobs were not there the system would not work. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, not even theoretically.
Jobs that suck don't always have to come with their attached pay stub and social status. That's what unions did for large scale manufacturing up through the 70s. Those jobs are absolutely awful, but at some point, people were allowed to have dignity and a comfortable lifestyle while working those awful jobs. At some point, they even became attractive to a degree with their benefits and paycheck, but never have they not ultimately sucked.
|
On May 31 2014 10:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 10:13 Nyxisto wrote:
What is 'equality of opportunity' that some of you claim is sufficient enough supposed to mean anyway? Last time I visited a bigger restaurant(here in Germany) 80% of the service personnel had a migration background. The manager was a white dude. Theoretically all these people have the same rights and the same opportunity, probably more so than in the US. Still there's a huge gap. Same is true for women in many jobs.
So either immigrants, women and black people are inherently less qualified than white people or natives or there are still big systematic problems that should be dealt with. Practically 'equality of opportunity' is a completely useless concept.
Also theoretical it's flawed. Some people need to work jobs that suck, else our economy isn't going to work. If the ~20% of people working low paying jobs were not there the system would not work. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, not even theoretically. Jobs that suck don't always have to come with their attached pay stub and social status. That's what unions did for large scale manufacturing up through the 70s. Those jobs are absolutely awful, but at some point, people were allowed to have dignity and a comfortable lifestyle while working those awful jobs. At some point, they even became attractive to a degree with their benefits and paycheck, but never have they not ultimately sucked.
I totally agree. But as I understand it American conservatives are largely opposing worker unions, minimum wages or other tools that would make lower paying jobs more livable. So I'd be interested to hear what their ideas are to solve the problems I addressed in my last post. At least xDaunt seems to agree that the fact that these jobs are simply necessary for a functioning economy means that a "ha, they deserve it!" mentality is not appropriate.
|
On May 31 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 01:20 Yoav wrote:On May 30 2014 18:48 Velr wrote:
Its incredibly sad that "public schools" have a bad undertone in the US... Imho it should be 100% normal to attend a public school and get your Basic education in a public School.
Public Schools being bad is just a clear sign, that your system has serious issues.
Two things here: 1) Nobody "looks funny" at a U.S. public school student or thinks them lesser... if anything, it can be a significant badge of pride for someone to come from a poor public school and make it to a good college/job. Undeniably the schools have problems, but it's certainly "normal" to have gone to a public school, with half or more students at the most elite colleges having come from public schools. 1) That's total bull. The hell people don't look down on public school educations?!? Sen. Ted Cruz (R) didn't even want to study with people from 'lesser ivy's' let alone public schools. The badge of honor is specifically because the public school system is looked at as not even remotely preparing students for higher education. Would be interesting to see the average amount of money spent on students from public schools who made it into elite institutions. You have a source on your half or more stat? /
1) In my experience, people build all sorts of opinions based on where you went to college, but people tend not to be terribly interested in your high school after that. On the margins, people care about places like Deerfield/Andover/Exeter in a positive way, but generally, college is what counts. Sure, there are some folks out there who might care that it's a Nescac, not an Ivy, and there's plenty of silly educational bias around, but it centers around higher education.
Unless your meaning is that it's harder to get into a top college based on going to public schools, which is absolutely true, for a wide variety of reasons.
Rates of public school participation at top 6 Liberal Arts schools
1. Williams 57%
2. Amherst 59%
3. Swarthmore 55%
4. Bowdoin 53%
4. Middlebury 52%
4. Pomona 62%
Same data for top 3 Universities
1. Princeton 61%
2. Harvard 61%
3. Yale 55%
|
On May 31 2014 11:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2014 10:56 aksfjh wrote:On May 31 2014 10:13 Nyxisto wrote:
What is 'equality of opportunity' that some of you claim is sufficient enough supposed to mean anyway? Last time I visited a bigger restaurant(here in Germany) 80% of the service personnel had a migration background. The manager was a white dude. Theoretically all these people have the same rights and the same opportunity, probably more so than in the US. Still there's a huge gap. Same is true for women in many jobs.
So either immigrants, women and black people are inherently less qualified than white people or natives or there are still big systematic problems that should be dealt with. Practically 'equality of opportunity' is a completely useless concept.
Also theoretical it's flawed. Some people need to work jobs that suck, else our economy isn't going to work. If the ~20% of people working low paying jobs were not there the system would not work. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, not even theoretically. Jobs that suck don't always have to come with their attached pay stub and social status. That's what unions did for large scale manufacturing up through the 70s. Those jobs are absolutely awful, but at some point, people were allowed to have dignity and a comfortable lifestyle while working those awful jobs. At some point, they even became attractive to a degree with their benefits and paycheck, but never have they not ultimately sucked. I totally agree. But as I understand it American conservatives are largely opposing worker unions, minimum wages or other tools that would make lower paying jobs more livable. So I'd be interested to hear what their ideas are to solve the problems I addressed in my last post. At least xDaunt seems to agree that the fact that these jobs are simply necessary for a functioning economy means that a "ha, they deserve it!" mentality is not appropriate.
Now, now, now. Let's not discount my misanthropy too much. That the jobs are necessary does not necessarily mean that those who have them don't "deserve" those jobs for being jerkoffs previously (or even currently) in their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
