|
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. |
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. while the former can help with the latter, it's not going to be the sole driver for it.
i donate 10% of my gross income. a little goes to NPR, some goes to political organizations and the bulk of it goes to community orgs (a couple of which i volunteer for). this doesn't count the additional i give to disaster relief when shit happens. i think i do a good job of putting my money where my mouth is. however, that does not mean i want to live in a neighborhood with a bunch of poor people - i think the majority of poor people are good people, but it only takes one splash of garbage juice to ruin the barrel of cider and unfortunately that's the case there.
in the bible jesus touched a leper. jesus was a special guy with the touch to heal. i have no desire to touch a leper because it won't do any damn good for either of us. i'll help donate for his treatment though, or pay taxes to fund public healthcare services.
|
On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate.
Yeah, it's all a part of the whole going off the deep end thing. How can someone say they want to help poor people while choosing to not live among them?! I describe this going off the deep end process we see on full display in my quoted text in the previous page. It is a sad reality.
|
On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate.
lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems.
Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us"
On October 17 2017 07:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. Yeah, it's all a part of the whole going off the deep end thing. How can someone say they want to help poor people while choosing to not live among them?! I describe this going off the deep end process we see on full display in my quoted text in the previous page. It is a sad reality.
Y'all are actually saying "I'm totally keen on helping, just as long as it's not a problem I have to deal with" like that isn't obviously problematic.
|
On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us"
So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it.
|
On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it.
I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed.
"The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit.
EDIT: The bold part is it right there. If your kids are in the shitty schools and neighborhoods you'll fight like hell, if they aren't you wouldn't be "fighting like hell"
|
On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it.
Same thing I linked to multiple times before lol.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/choosing-a-school-for-my-daughter-in-a-segregated-city.html
One family, or even a few families, cannot transform a segregated school, but if none of us were willing to go into them, nothing would change. Putting our child into a segregated school would not integrate it racially, but we are middle-class and would, at least, help to integrate it economically. As a reporter, I’d witnessed how the presence of even a handful of middle-class families made it less likely that a school would be neglected. I also knew that we would be able to make up for Najya anything the school was lacking.
As I told Faraji my plan, he slowly shook his head no. He wanted to look into parochial schools, or one of the “good” public schools, or even private schools. So we argued, pleading our cases from the living room, up the steps to our office lined with books on slavery and civil rights, and back down, before we came to an impasse and retreated to our respective corners. There is nothing harder than navigating our nation’s racial legacy in this country, and the problem was that we each knew the other was right and wrong at the same time. Faraji couldn’t believe that I was asking him to expose our child to the type of education that the two of us had managed to avoid. He worried that we would be hurting Najya if we put her in a high-poverty, all-black school. “Are we experimenting with our child based on our idealism about public schools?” he asked. “Are we putting her at a disadvantage?”
|
On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit.
So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it?
|
On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it?
They can do whatever they want. Just that they should realize that the exact thing they want doesn't help the underprivileged move up. It's not illegal nor immoral until they start campaigning to deliberately widen the gap.
|
On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it?
I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not.
|
On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not.
My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do.
Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place?
On October 17 2017 07:37 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. Same thing I linked to multiple times before lol. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/choosing-a-school-for-my-daughter-in-a-segregated-city.htmlShow nested quote +One family, or even a few families, cannot transform a segregated school, but if none of us were willing to go into them, nothing would change. Putting our child into a segregated school would not integrate it racially, but we are middle-class and would, at least, help to integrate it economically. As a reporter, I’d witnessed how the presence of even a handful of middle-class families made it less likely that a school would be neglected. I also knew that we would be able to make up for Najya anything the school was lacking.
As I told Faraji my plan, he slowly shook his head no. He wanted to look into parochial schools, or one of the “good” public schools, or even private schools. So we argued, pleading our cases from the living room, up the steps to our office lined with books on slavery and civil rights, and back down, before we came to an impasse and retreated to our respective corners. There is nothing harder than navigating our nation’s racial legacy in this country, and the problem was that we each knew the other was right and wrong at the same time. Faraji couldn’t believe that I was asking him to expose our child to the type of education that the two of us had managed to avoid. He worried that we would be hurting Najya if we put her in a high-poverty, all-black school. “Are we experimenting with our child based on our idealism about public schools?” he asked. “Are we putting her at a disadvantage?”
Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for.
|
On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place?
For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables.
Surely this isn't that hard for you to see?
Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for.
Holy shit... I stand corrected.
|
On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Show nested quote +Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected.
How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference.
|
|
|
On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference.
You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids?
|
I don't see anything wrong with providing the best for your kid (and yourself and your other loved ones) that you can with whatever means you have. Isn't that one of the points (some would say THE point) of having means? There's a balance between that and one's duty to his fellow man. I'll probably send my future kid to a good public school vs a private school, but I'm not going to send him/her to a bad one that's for sure.
Sure maybe people feel less of a sense of urgency about an issue when it doesn't directly affect them. But that doesn't mean they don't care at all.
|
People seem pretty grumpy that Trump lied about the presidents not calling or talking to service members families.
|
On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids?
What do you think about school districts that bus students around specifically to achieve certain diversity metrics?
|
On October 17 2017 08:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with providing the best for your kid (and yourself and your other loved ones) that you can with whatever means you have. Isn't that one of the points (some would say THE point) of having means? There's a balance between that and one's duty to his fellow man. I'll probably send my future kid to a good public school vs a private school, but I'm not going to send him/her to a bad one that's for sure.
Sure maybe people feel less of a sense of urgency about an issue when it doesn't directly affect them. But that doesn't mean they don't care at all.
No they just care little enough for it to perpetuate indefinitely. All I know is that if previous generations of black people acted like the "liberals" here I'd be in a whole lot shittier place than I am now. As a result, I have a sense of obligation to the generations that come after me. I couldn't do what you guys are talking about and sleep at night.
On October 17 2017 08:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems.
Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? What do you think about school districts that bus students around specifically to achieve certain diversity metrics?
What "diversity metrics"?
|
On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see why helping poor people and "the people who broke into my car and stole my shit tend to be poor people, i don't like that happening so i'd prefer if they lived somewhere else" are mutually exclusive. it's not about just forcing class mixing, it's ultimately about improving the lives of those less fortunate. lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems. Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids?
It is all a matter of how scope is defined. That's why I said it is noble for society and unethical as a parent. A single family who is above the average income of an area has a net positive impact on that area's school funding. The community benefits from the family moving in. But for the child who had a choice between either one, all available social science data indicates that child is worse off in the poor community. It's been too long since my ethics coursework, but I think people called this scope of analysis or whatever. No matter how you slice it, the life of that family's child is statistically more likely to be negative than if the family decided on the rich neighborhood. But considering both communities as a whole, the rich community benefits less from the rich family than the poor community would for the poor family. So if the scope is both communities as a single entity, the ethical thing for the parents to do is to live in the poor neighborhood. That is still a different answer than considering just their own child.
Having a unique perspective after living in 2 very, very different areas (one poor and one rich), I would never hesitate to send my kid to the rich one. I realize I am a worse person as a citizen of Earth because of it, but I accept that.
|
On October 17 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? What do you think about school districts that bus students around specifically to achieve certain diversity metrics? What "diversity metrics"?
"have no more than 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch"
I'm from NC so this is specifically regarding Wake County if you want to read more into it. I am not aware how widespread such programs are throughout the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
