Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 16 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote: How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
There's a huge difference though. The reason the justice system protects cops is self preservation - the system needs cops onside. I can't think of a reason to support the torture of special needs kids though, its just sadistic.
you really can’t think of any reason that people working with unstable and possibly violent teenagers would want a way to control them?
On November 16 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote: How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
There's a huge difference though. The reason the justice system protects cops is self preservation - the system needs cops onside. I can't think of a reason to support the torture of special needs kids though, its just sadistic.
you really can’t think of any reason that people working with unstable and possibly violent teenagers would want a way to control them?
Sure. I can put myself in the mind frame of terrible people. But I'm not sure how that makes what is being discussed less sadistic. The institution being discussed is terrible and has been for a very long time.
On November 16 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote: How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
There's a huge difference though. The reason the justice system protects cops is self preservation - the system needs cops onside. I can't think of a reason to support the torture of special needs kids though, its just sadistic.
you really can’t think of any reason that people working with unstable and possibly violent teenagers would want a way to control them?
Yes, but I can't imagine why a court would support the torture of kids, whether or not they are unstable and possibly violent.
I can totally understand why horrible people working in a field they know nothing about would end up doing this to make their lives easier. I've seen it happen to a much lesser extent in the social care system in the UK, but every time a case was publicized people got fired/arrested/jailed and companies got shut down.
I am pretty sure that 174000$ is far more than i have paid for housing in my entire life put together. Possibly more than my parents have paid in their entire lives. They might have racked up a slightly higher total though, but it should be in around the same ballpark from very rough estimates.
This just shows how much these people live in a completely different world.
Still, it is far from the biggest complaint i have about Trump.
Note that her whole advance team needed $18000. Which is substantial. But plausible if you imagine she has a team of 10 people. For some reason just her took 174k. Assuming she has a team of about 10 and comfort scales roughly with cost, she could have had lodging ~10 times as comfortable/spacious as her team for 18k.
On November 17 2018 06:03 hunts wrote: She must've been buying some expensive escorts for herself. Maybe paid someone to pretend to be Trudeau for a night.
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
On November 17 2018 06:09 Wulfey_LA wrote: Note that her whole advance team needed $18000. Which is substantial. But plausible if you imagine she has a team of 10 people. For some reason just her took 174k. Assuming she has a team of about 10 and comfort scales roughly with cost, she could have had lodging ~10 times as comfortable/spacious as her team for 18k.
The bonkers thing is the advanced team spent the night, she didn't, she somehow racked up this bill on a day trip.
If you gave me 100k to spend in a day, I wouldn't really know where to start without getting shit which isn't completely unnecessary. Even paperwork on a new car would take a good couple hours. Spend a few thousand on new clothing, new computer and then take my family to a good restaurant for maybe 50-100 bucks a person? Then what?
It boggles my mind how much money can be thrown around and wasted by such a entitled person.
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
I think your question assumes too much. First, that it assumes that no one wants to care of the special needs children with the exclusion of other factors, like pay. Or that there are not enough people willing to care for extreme cases of special needs children. Or that the children are so undervalued that the state is unwilling to provide funds to care for them sufficiently. It supposes an economic and or emotional cost assessment on the children and that because of those high costs, no one wishes to care for them.
I do not believe that is the case at all, giving my experience reading about the Judge Rotenberg Center for so many years. I do not believe desire to care for them is in short supply. These children have parents and families who do advocate for them. What they lack is sufficient, sustained advocacy toward legislation that would prohibit the practice and force the Judge Rotenberg Center to change. There are regulations that have prevented its use on new students, but nothing that would outright prohibit it. And because of that, the practice continues.
On November 17 2018 06:09 Wulfey_LA wrote: Note that her whole advance team needed $18000. Which is substantial. But plausible if you imagine she has a team of 10 people. For some reason just her took 174k. Assuming she has a team of about 10 and comfort scales roughly with cost, she could have had lodging ~10 times as comfortable/spacious as her team for 18k.
The bonkers thing is the advanced team spent the night, she didn't, she somehow racked up this bill on a day trip.
If you gave me 100k to spend in a day, I wouldn't really know where to start without getting shit which isn't completely unnecessary. Even paperwork on a new car would take a good couple hours. Spend a few thousand on new clothing, new computer and then take my family to a good restaurant for maybe 50-100 bucks a person? Then what?
It boggles my mind how much money can be thrown around and wasted by such a entitled person.
It is baffling, it also still confuses me so much how Trump himself positioned himself as some sort of every man with voters and it works. He is the exact person he rally's his people against. He is the 1% of the 1%! Like I get how they can get behind him on some other things, but this one always confuses me.
His man-of-the-peopleness is about his race prejudice and refusal to use college level thinking to address any problems. He rushes to the easiest answer without thought, and this angers all the smarties. So the lesser man finds much to like in DJT. Lesser men don't feel outsmarted by him, and he offers justifications and excuses for their prejudices. It never had anything to do with money. It was always about not having to do what the smart/learned/nonPrejudiced people said was right.
Interesting and rare intervieuw with Stanley Druckenmiller. It touches on a lot of different subjects,mostly economical and markets but also a few political.
User was temp banned for this post (repeat offender).
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
I think your question assumes too much. First, that it assumes that no one wants to care of the special needs children with the exclusion of other factors, like pay. Or that there are not enough people willing to care for extreme cases of special needs children. Or that the children are so undervalued that the state is unwilling to provide funds to care for them sufficiently. It supposes an economic and or emotional cost assessment on the children and that because of those high costs, no one wishes to care for them.
I do not believe that is the case at all, giving my experience reading about the Judge Rotenberg Center for so many years. I do not believe desire to care for them is in short supply. These children have parents and families who do advocate for them. What they lack is sufficient, sustained advocacy toward legislation that would prohibit the practice and force the Judge Rotenberg Center to change. There are regulations that have prevented its use on new students, but nothing that would outright prohibit it. And because of that, the practice continues.
oh yeah? well i think your pleas assume too much.
care is most definitely in short supply. the fact that its been going on for so many years hurts your own case. it’s almost a tautology. not enough people care to change it.
EPT
