|
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. |
They made 69 trips across the Atlantic together and celebrated nearly everyone’s birthday at least once overseas, far from their own families. Sleep-deprived and sometimes giddy, the U.S. team negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran imagined which Hollywood star would play them if the movie were ever made: They cast Ted Danson as Secretary of State John Kerry, Javier Bardem as Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Meryl Streep as State Department negotiator Wendy Sherman. Along the way, they suffered no shortage of casualties: Sherman broke her nose in Vienna when she crashed into a glass door late at night running to brief Kerry on a secure phone, and her pinky finger rushing from one classified briefing to another. Kerry, incensed after Iranian backtracking in May, slammed his hand on a table, sending a pen flying across the room at an Iranian deputy foreign minister, and then shattered his leg in three places after he slammed his bike into a curb the next day, frustrated and distracted.
The U.S. team was skeptical for most of the two years they were at it that they ever would close the deal. Sherman, the detail-oriented workhorse of the talks who was caricatured as a deceptive fox by an Iranian cartoonist—prompting her aides to make “Team Silver Fox” T-shirts in a nod to her wave of white hair—compared the challenge to unscrambling a Rubik’s Cube, since no issue could be solved in isolation.
On each trip, Sherman started a tradition of going around the table at a team dinner in various European cities—De Capo Pizzeria in Vienna was the crowd favorite—and asking each official what odds they placed on reaching a final accord. At almost every gathering, most guesses were below 50 percent. A veteran nonproliferation expert who had negotiated with the Soviets kept his guesses to the low single digits till the very end. Richard Nephew, a sanctions expert, was sometimes 50 points above every bet, alone in believing that economic pressure forced Iran to the table and made a final deal just a matter of time. Sherman never voted.
Last week, against long odds, the deal that even President Barack Obama doubted would come together until the final days of negotiations in Vienna cleared its final hurdle in Washington.
Despite a well-funded summer campaign by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, opponents were unable to muster enough lawmakers to block the deal by last week’s September 17 deadline for congressional review. The accord designed to block Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting crippling economic sanctions goes forward, with adoption day expected October 18, when Iran is to begin curtailing its various nuclear activities for 10 to 25 years. The historic deal sealed between Iran and the so-called P5+1—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China and Germany—alters Iran’s relationship with the world and, for better or worse, represents the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
Source
|
On September 27 2015 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:58 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way. So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has. This is pretty much the tenth time that you've disregarded the fact that everyone has been telling you that managing the money correctly is a vital part of educational success. And no one is saying that the family unit isn't important, but you can't just assume that a wealthy family is going to typically be worse off as a family unit than one who is struggling to make ends meet.
I have met enough trust fund babies who's parents are to busy working to give a shit so their kids get terrible grades. You could poll 1000 teachers and ask them if they think a highly motivated dirt poor child whose family places a heavy emphasis on family and education ould outperform a filthy privliged rich kid who's parents don't give a shit. You keep saying money is a issue. Money is a nonissue when it comes to education. Go ask Wyclef.
|
Lolz. I went to the best schools in in NC, (Charlotte Latin and Greensboro Day school). They are schools for rich people and people with godlike intelligence. I would say at least 6:1.
|
On September 27 2015 15:03 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:58 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way. So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has. This is pretty much the tenth time that you've disregarded the fact that everyone has been telling you that managing the money correctly is a vital part of educational success. And no one is saying that the family unit isn't important, but you can't just assume that a wealthy family is going to typically be worse off as a family unit than one who is struggling to make ends meet. I have met enough trust fund babies who's parents are to busy working to give a shit so their kids get terrible grades. You could poll 1000 teachers and ask them if they think a highly motivated dirt poor child whose family places a heavy emphasis on family and education ould outperform a filthy privliged rich kid who's parents don't give a shit. You keep saying money is a issue. Money is a nonissue when it comes to education. Go ask Wyclef.
Or maybe a child's education success has more than one factor...?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
consider getting a basic grasp of logic. not sufficient doe snot imply not necessary
|
On September 27 2015 15:03 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:58 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way. So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has. This is pretty much the tenth time that you've disregarded the fact that everyone has been telling you that managing the money correctly is a vital part of educational success. And no one is saying that the family unit isn't important, but you can't just assume that a wealthy family is going to typically be worse off as a family unit than one who is struggling to make ends meet. I have met enough trust fund babies who's parents are to busy working to give a shit so their kids get terrible grades. You could poll 1000 teachers and ask them if they think a highly motivated dirt poor child whose family places a heavy emphasis on family and education ould outperform a filthy privliged rich kid who's parents don't give a shit. You keep saying money is a issue. Money is a nonissue when it comes to education. Go ask Wyclef.
That is not the question you should be asking when you want to know if money can be used to help childrens education. The question you should ask is "All other things being equal, does a child with more money behind it perform better if that money is well spend"
Of course a highly motivated poor child of the same intelligence is going to perform better than a totally unmotivated rich child. But a totally unmotivated poor child is going to perform even worse (If all other relevant factors are kept equal)
PISA 09 and PISA 12 show that there is a very clear educational gradient between people of higher socio-economic background and those of lower. Of course this does not prove that you can spend money well to help students, but on the other hand i am actually really confused as to on what basis you dispute this idea. You seem to bring mostly anecdotal evidence "I know a child of a rich guy who wasn't educated", but it seems to be a very weird position to propose that money in general is not helpful to education. Noone doubts that money can be wasted. But to doubt that it can ever help seems to be extreme.
|
On September 27 2015 15:03 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:58 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way. So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has. This is pretty much the tenth time that you've disregarded the fact that everyone has been telling you that managing the money correctly is a vital part of educational success. And no one is saying that the family unit isn't important, but you can't just assume that a wealthy family is going to typically be worse off as a family unit than one who is struggling to make ends meet. I have met enough trust fund babies who's parents are to busy working to give a shit so their kids get terrible grades. You could poll 1000 teachers and ask them if they think a highly motivated dirt poor child whose family places a heavy emphasis on family and education ould outperform a filthy privliged rich kid who's parents don't give a shit. You keep saying money is a issue. Money is a nonissue when it comes to education. Go ask Wyclef.
You're introducing additional confounding variables (e.g., one student is motivated and one student is not) that would make assessing the singular factor of money impossible to do. While there are many factors that go into educational success, you can't claim that one of them isn't true just because you've pre-stacked the deck against it. That's basically just confirmation bias and poor experimental design. Simberto explained the issue really well too. If you want to evaluate the usefulness of money in a situation, keep the other variables constant; if you vary motivation and money and other factors, then you won't know which one is responsible for the relationship you see in the research.
There are a ton of sites/ research papers that you can read about the positive correlation between socioeconomic status and educational achievement. Here are a few links and sources to get you started:
"Families from low-SES communities are less likely to have the financial resources or time availability to provide children with academic support."
"Schools in low-SES communities suffer from high levels of unemployment, migration of the best qualified teachers and low educational achievement (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2009)."
"SES and Academic Achievement
Research continues to link lower SES to lower academic achievement and slower rates of academic progress as compared with higher SES communities.
Children from low-SES environments acquire language skills more slowly, exhibit delayed letter recognition and phonological awareness, and are at risk for reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).
Children with higher SES backgrounds were more likely to be proficient on tasks of addition, subtraction, ordinal sequencing and math word problems than children with lower SES backgrounds (Coley, 2002).
Students from low-SES schools entered high school 3.3 grade levels behind students from higher SES schools. In addition, students from the low-SES groups learned less over 4 years than children from higher SES groups, graduating 4.3 grade levels behind those of higher SES groups (Palardy, 2008).
In 2007, the high school dropout rate among persons 16-24 years old was highest in low-income families (16.7 percent) as compared to high-income families (3.2 percent) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008)."
~ http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx
"We know that the link between a child’s socio-economic status (SES) and school achievement is real, it is a very tight link as such things go, and the link has existed for decades."
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NbDp3Mz.jpg)
Family Income Crit. Reading Mathematics
0$ – $20,000 433 461
$20,000 – $40,000 463 481
$40,000 – $60,000 485 500
$60,000 – $80,000 499 512
$80,000 – $100,000 511 525
$100,000 – $120,000 523 539
$120,000 – $140,000 527 543
$140,000 – $160,000 534 551
$160,000 – $200,000 540 557
More than $200,000 567 589
~ https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/the-odd-correlation-between-ses-and-achievement-why-havent-more-critical-questions-been-asked-a-call-to-action/
|
The Obama administration said on Saturday it was allotting an additional $300m to the effort to reduce HIV infection among girls and young women in 10 sub-Saharan African countries.
The sum would help the main US programme for fighting Aids in Africa to meet goals including providing antiretroviral treatment to 12.9 million people by the end of 2017, said Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.
“No greater action is needed right now than empowering adolescent girls and young women to defeat HIV/Aids. Every year, 380,000 adolescent girls and young women are infected with HIV,” Rice said in a statement.
The President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, working with partner countries, now provides antiretroviral treatment for 7.7 million people worldwide, Rice said.
The program, known as PEPFAR, was launched in 2003 by former president George W Bush and has provided billions of dollars for antiretroviral drugs and treatment in Africa.
Source
|
On September 27 2015 23:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Obama administration said on Saturday it was allotting an additional $300m to the effort to reduce HIV infection among girls and young women in 10 sub-Saharan African countries.
The sum would help the main US programme for fighting Aids in Africa to meet goals including providing antiretroviral treatment to 12.9 million people by the end of 2017, said Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.
“No greater action is needed right now than empowering adolescent girls and young women to defeat HIV/Aids. Every year, 380,000 adolescent girls and young women are infected with HIV,” Rice said in a statement.
The President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, working with partner countries, now provides antiretroviral treatment for 7.7 million people worldwide, Rice said.
The program, known as PEPFAR, was launched in 2003 by former president George W Bush and has provided billions of dollars for antiretroviral drugs and treatment in Africa. Source
This sounds like a very noble and righteous cause, and I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this...
+ Show Spoiler +We shouldn't be helping Africans if we can't even help Americans. They're not as important as we are. + Show Spoiler +HIV is a conspiracy made by those greedy scientists and doctors. + Show Spoiler +Africans should have a constitutional and god-given right to contract AIDS if they want.
|
Now, take this with a grain of salt (MoJo is liberal AF):
![[image loading]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/graybubble.jpg)
In collaboration with Miller, Mother Jones crunched data from 2012 and found that the annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion. Direct costs account for $8.6 billion—including long-term prison costs for people who commit assault and homicide using guns, which at $5.2 billion a year is the largest direct expense. Even before accounting for the more intangible costs of the violence, in other words, the average cost to taxpayers for a single gun homicide in America is nearly $400,000. And we pay for 32 of them every single day.
Indirect costs amount to at least $221 billion, about $169 billion of which comes from what researchers consider to be the impact on victims' quality of life. Victims' lost wages, which account for $49 billion annually, are the other major factor. Miller's calculation for indirect costs, based on jury awards, values the average "statistical life" harmed by gun violence at about $6.2 million. That's toward the lower end of the range for this analytical method, which is used widely by industry and government. (The EPA, for example, currently values a statistical life at $7.9 million, and the DOT uses $9.2 million.)
Our investigation also begins to illuminate the economic toll for individual states. Louisiana has the highest gun homicide rate in the nation, with costs per capita of more than $1,300. Wyoming has a small population but the highest overall rate of gun deaths—including the nation's highest suicide rate—with costs working out to about $1,400 per resident. Among the four most populous states, the costs per capita in the gun rights strongholds of Florida and Texas outpace those in more strictly regulated California and New York. Hawaii and Massachusetts, with their relatively low gun ownership rates and tight gun laws, have the lowest gun death rates, and costs per capita roughly a fifth as much as those of the states that pay the most.
Article here
|
On September 28 2015 00:55 ticklishmusic wrote:Now, take this with a grain of salt (MoJo is liberal AF): Show nested quote +
In collaboration with Miller, Mother Jones crunched data from 2012 and found that the annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion. Direct costs account for $8.6 billion—including long-term prison costs for people who commit assault and homicide using guns, which at $5.2 billion a year is the largest direct expense. Even before accounting for the more intangible costs of the violence, in other words, the average cost to taxpayers for a single gun homicide in America is nearly $400,000. And we pay for 32 of them every single day.
Indirect costs amount to at least $221 billion, about $169 billion of which comes from what researchers consider to be the impact on victims' quality of life. Victims' lost wages, which account for $49 billion annually, are the other major factor. Miller's calculation for indirect costs, based on jury awards, values the average "statistical life" harmed by gun violence at about $6.2 million. That's toward the lower end of the range for this analytical method, which is used widely by industry and government. (The EPA, for example, currently values a statistical life at $7.9 million, and the DOT uses $9.2 million.)
Our investigation also begins to illuminate the economic toll for individual states. Louisiana has the highest gun homicide rate in the nation, with costs per capita of more than $1,300. Wyoming has a small population but the highest overall rate of gun deaths—including the nation's highest suicide rate—with costs working out to about $1,400 per resident. Among the four most populous states, the costs per capita in the gun rights strongholds of Florida and Texas outpace those in more strictly regulated California and New York. Hawaii and Massachusetts, with their relatively low gun ownership rates and tight gun laws, have the lowest gun death rates, and costs per capita roughly a fifth as much as those of the states that pay the most.
Article here
The math seems pretty straightforward, regardless of the fact that the article is by a liberal site.
|
United States42024 Posts
They're counting prison time for crimes that were committed with guns due to America having guns but not solely because American has guns so they'll need to have a solution that solves the existence of crime in general. I won't hold my breath.
|
I would think smoking and alcohol to have much lower costs by the same metrics with their lowering of peoples life spans after their working years are through.
If we really want to make arguments based around lost opportunity costs we can justify a lot of things that are pretty reprehensible.
|
Smoking and alcohol mostly affect the user though, so it's a matter of choice (ignoring secondhand smoke, peer pressure), and the related problems like drunk driving, home violence, etc. are penalized heavily. Well, they aren't penalized as heavily as they should be, but that's an argument for another day.
You can play around with the numbers in the assumptions, but the final cost of guns is high. The $229B tag falls between obesity and Medicaid spending. While Medicaid spending may a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, the fact that the costs of guns is greater than obesity is very concerning. If you want to argue that the estimate is wrong, then the fact that gun violence costs are of a similar magnitude should still be very concerning.
Aside, I find it hard to believe you guys read the article in 7 minutes.
|
On September 28 2015 01:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
Smoking and alcohol mostly affect the user though, so it's a matter of choice (ignoring secondhand smoke, peer pressure), and the related problems like drunk driving, home violence, etc. are penalized heavily. Well, they aren't penalized as heavily as they should be, but that's an argument for another day.
You can play around with the numbers in the assumptions, but the final cost of guns is high. The $229B tag falls between obesity and Medicaid spending. While Medicaid spending may a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, the fact that the costs of guns is greater than obesity is very concerning. If you want to argue that the estimate is wrong, then the fact that gun violence costs are of a similar magnitude should still be very concerning.
Aside, I find it hard to believe you guys read the article in 7 minutes.
You didn't address my point at all and attacked the articles premise at the same time. Buying guns is also a choice ignoring relevant things that effect that choice. And regardless of their penalties the related problems of smoking and alcohol happen anyway. My point was that comparing the opportunity costs of things was silly at best and horrifyingly amoral at worst. somethingsomething nazies hitler.
I'm not saying that its not concerning that it has so much higher of a cost but if your looking for changing the foundation of our country you should have a better argument then "it has equal effects then things that aren't listed in the constitution".
|
On September 28 2015 01:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 01:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
Smoking and alcohol mostly affect the user though, so it's a matter of choice (ignoring secondhand smoke, peer pressure), and the related problems like drunk driving, home violence, etc. are penalized heavily. Well, they aren't penalized as heavily as they should be, but that's an argument for another day.
You can play around with the numbers in the assumptions, but the final cost of guns is high. The $229B tag falls between obesity and Medicaid spending. While Medicaid spending may a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, the fact that the costs of guns is greater than obesity is very concerning. If you want to argue that the estimate is wrong, then the fact that gun violence costs are of a similar magnitude should still be very concerning.
Aside, I find it hard to believe you guys read the article in 7 minutes. You didn't address my point at all and attacked the articles premise at the same time. Buying guns is also a choice ignoring relevant things that effect that choice. And regardless of their penalties the related problems of smoking and alcohol happen anyway. My point was that comparing the opportunity costs of things was silly at best and horrifyingly amoral at worst. somethingsomething nazies hitler. I'm not saying that its not concerning that it has so much higher of a cost but if your looking for changing the foundation of our country you should have a better argument then "it has equal effects then things that aren't listed in the constitution".
I'm not sure what kind of argument you're trying to make here (apart from a mention of Godwin's Law). Gun consequences disproportionately affect other people, both directly (as shooting victims) and indirectly (as society: taxpayers who pick up the tab of care, families who lose a loved one, etc.).
|
PHILADELPHIA -- Pope Francis took a message of hope to about a hundred individuals currently incarcerated in an overcrowded facility in the City of Brotherly Love on Sunday, telling them any society "which cannot share or take seriously the pain of its children ... is a society 'condemned' to remain a hostage to itself, prey to the very things which cause that pain."
Francis, speaking at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, called for rehabilitation "which benefits and elevates the morale of the entire community" and said Jesus "asks us to create new opportunities: for inmates, for their families, for correctional authorities, and for society as a whole."
The facility holds almost 3,000 inmates, the vast majority of whom have not been convicted of the charges against them and are still awaiting trial. Nine of the inmates who had been set to meet with Pope Francis have been charged with murder, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Fifteen are facing rape charges, five have been charged with robbery, 12 with assault, 18 with alleged drug offenses and six with prostitution charges, according to the paper.
Francis said it is "painful when we see prison systems which are not concerned to care for wounds, to soothe pain, to offer new possibilities. It is painful when we see people who think that only others need to be cleansed, purified, and do not recognize that their weariness, pain and wounds are also the weariness, pain and wounds of society."
The visit came just months after President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit a federal prison. A Vice documentary about that visit is scheduled to air Sunday night on HBO, just hours after Pope Francis' visit to the prison.
Source
|
Mmmmm Pope Francis. Oh baby. Over the past few years I've been an atheist/ borderline antitheist (despite being born and raised Catholic), and my friends have been asking me my opinion on the Pope visiting the United States. Let me put it this way:
-Seeing as how Pope Francis is one of the most progressive and open-minded popes we've ever had...
-Seeing as how the Republican party was salivating at the idea of the Pope coming to America and whipping the Democrats into shape...
-Seeing as how the Pope reinforced a ton of liberal ideas and slammed plenty of conservative ones (e.g., turns out the Pope is against the death penalty, defends the Iran Deal, believes that we should be actively tackling climate change, thinks that we should be welcoming and taking care of refugees, etc.)...
-Seeing as how the conservatives are completely stunned and super pissed about the Pope's comments...
-Seeing as how we're already hearing the Republicans do a 180 and go from respecting the Pope's authority to stating that he shouldn't be involved in politics at all...
I'm pretty okay with how things turned out  And I'm definitely a fan of this Pope.
|
|
|
On September 28 2015 03:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Mmmmm Pope Francis. Oh baby. Over the past few years I've been an atheist/ borderline antitheist (despite being born and raised Catholic), and my friends have been asking me my opinion on the Pope visiting the United States. Let me put it this way: -Seeing as how Pope Francis is one of the most progressive and open-minded popes we've ever had... -Seeing as how the Republican party was salivating at the idea of the Pope coming to America and whipping the Democrats into shape... -Seeing as how the Pope reinforced a ton of liberal ideas and slammed plenty of conservative ones (e.g., turns out the Pope is against the death penalty, defends the Iran Deal, believes that we should be actively tackling climate change, thinks that we should be welcoming and taking care of refugees, etc.)... -Seeing as how the conservatives are completely stunned and super pissed about the Pope's comments... -Seeing as how we're already hearing the Republicans do a 180 and go from respecting the Pope's authority to stating that he shouldn't be involved in politics at all... I'm pretty okay with how things turned out And I'm definitely a fan of this Pope.
What Republicans didn't know he was leftist? I never saw these salivating Republicans. The only thing you could talk about is abortion, but he doesn't get any for that.
Edit: maybe the Congresspeople who all were excited to hear a speech in their chamber? I'm just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
