If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right?
Actually, no, that would be illegal. We've talked about this before, haven't we?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Republican case for the Universal Basic Income
The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Gbaji is one of those "The pesky Civil Rights Act stands in the way of true liberty" Rand Paul types.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji is one of those "The pesky Civil Rights Act stands in the way of true liberty" Rand Paul types.
Worse, he believes it only applies to the government, as evidenced from his fairly frequent "I could start a private business and decide not to hire black people because it's my money" theories.
Worse, he believes it only applies to the government, as evidenced from his fairly frequent "I could start a private business and decide not to hire black people because it's my money" theories.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
.
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
He was more of a puppet that pissed off conservatives when he jumped ship to support President Obama.
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
He was more of a puppet that pissed off conservatives when he jumped ship to support President Obama.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
In the south, you know why most people send their kids to private schools? Better football programs since they're able to recruit players easier than public high schools can. So there's your higher education right there.
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.
I'm sure they'd get a fair share of the Muslim vote. Religious extremism seems to share a lot, regardless of denomination.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.
None of that matters when everything that's relevant to everyday activities are hindered by Republican practices, laws and beliefs. So, you have two choices:
1. Democrats: Morally disagree with you, but acknowledges your daily struggles and attempt to make laws to help you.
2. Republicans: Morally agrees with you, but doesn't believe that there's any systematic favoritism against you and not only claims laziness is the root of your own problems, but creates and supports the laws that are part of the systematic favoritism.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.
6% of African-Americans, 27% Hispanics, 26% Asians, 38% "Other" (Native American? Less than 2% of the voting pop anyway) in 2012.
So better than 10% (not that I was trying to be academic with that number) but poorly enough for Obama to mop up the field with less than 40% of the white vote. The 2016 demographic concern for the GOP is that the Democratic candidate is pretty much guaranteed to do better than 40% with whites but also probably won't lose much of the Black/Hispanic/Asian vote. Particularly in the relevant states.
Part of the problem with basing your hopes on social conservatism is that those issues erode as "issues". From Pew Research last June:
Quote:
Latinos’ views of same-sex marriage have changed dramatically in recent years. In 2012 for the first time, more Latinos said they favored same-sex marriage than opposed it (52% versus 34%) according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey. This is a reversal from six years earlier, when one-third (31%) of Latinos favored same-sex marriage and more than half (56%) opposed it. This shift in views tracks with that of the general public, whose opinions on same-sex marriage have also changed in recent years.
The best Hispanic turnout for Republicans in decades was by far the 44% Bush got in 2004 when Rove ran the big gay scare campaign to win anti-SSM votes. That particular drum won't beat twice because people aren't as afraid of it any more.
Edited, Feb 2nd 2014 5:57am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Elinda wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools.
Nah, they don't. They send them to good public schools.
Nah, they don't. They send them to good public schools.
Yeah, here's my anecdote: While raising our kids we were living in a pretty upscale town with good schools. We also had one of the best private, college prep schools in the area housed in our town. Our next door neighbor taught there. This meant his kids could attend the private school tuition free. The oldest did. The second and youngest didn't. He was a budding musician and our public high school had a really robust music program, so he opted for the public high school.
I think the bigger point, which has been glossed over by three people now, is that "he could afford it" because he taught there. Ask most people in upscale neighborhoods why they send their kids to the local public school instead of the local private school, and 9/10 of them will include "cost" as part of the equation. Well off people don't have infinite amounts of money (and they're usually well off because they prioritize what they spend money on). Also, realize that their property taxes are paying for the local public school (and is likely a large part of the reason why it's better than the public school in the low rent district). Money is absolutely a factor. If you're paying $30k/year in property taxes, it's going to skew your decision quite a bit.
When I said "people who can afford to do so", I wasn't talking about the high 5 figure/low 6 figure crowd living right at the end of their means in an upscale neighborhood in a million dollar home. Lots of people who can "just barely" afford to move into the upscale neighborhoods to so precisely because the public schools are better. But they can't afford to pay the extra money it'll cost to send their kids to a private school as well. It's a choice, and it absolutely revolves around cost.
If those people could take the cost for the public school in their area and use it in a voucher to pay for private school? Most of them would do it in a heartbeat. I guess the part of this entire conversation that I find strange is that the counter argument more or less rests on the assumption that people would choose to send their kids to private schools if they had the choice. If not, then why oppose vouchers? It's only a problem for the existing public school system if people actually do choose to spend those dollars somewhere else.
So it's more than strange to argue that people wouldn't choose to send their kids to private school, isn't it?
Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 5:06pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right?
Actually, no, that would be illegal. We've talked about this before, haven't we?
Actually, no, that would be illegal. We've talked about this before, haven't we?
Yeah. We've talked about sarcasm before too. You still have a hard time with it, apparently.
Oh, and we've also discussed the "complex question" fallacy before too. Want to know why it's relevant? Because while the issue I brought up was about religious schools, Joph tossed skin color in as well. He complicated the issue with a second factor that actually is illegal to discriminate on with regards to education. You *can* have a religious school and require that only those who are members of the religion may attend. You *can't* have a school that is segregated by skin color.
It's not about a Christian or Muslim school. But "black" or "white" that is the problem. But that's not what I was talking about. Joph injected race into the discussion where it had no place. Obviously, the same rules we have now for private schools would still apply under a voucher system. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise, or why someone would think that because we introduce vouchers, suddenly we'd have to change the rest of our rules with regard to discrimination.
It was a silly point when Joph made it. I suppose my mistake was giving a snarky response rather than explaining where he went wrong. My bad.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
Silly me, being the person to first mention race...
Oh, wait. I guess I wasn't that silly after all but was in fact responding to you directly stating that schools should be allowed to prohibit based on those exact criteria.
Backpedal faster! Harder! Faster! Harder!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
Silly me, being the person to first mention race...
Oh, wait. I guess I wasn't that silly after all but was in fact responding to you directly stating that schools should be allowed to prohibit based on those exact criteria.
Sigh. More complex question fallacy. I was speaking of there being no need to pass a new law if we created vouchers. That's the question that was asked, right?
The ability for private schools to discriminate on those factors would remain exactly as it is right now. Meaning that you could discriminate based on sex (you can have all boys and all girls schools, right), and you can discriminate based on religion (currently legal), and I suppose socioeconomic status (whatever you think that means, but I don't think it's currently prohibited), but you can't discriminate based on race.
I wasn't even thinking about race when I answered the question. I discounted it because race is currently already illegal to discriminate against. I was speaking of the other things and saying that schools could if they want, but most wont because they'd just be limiting their potential pool of revenue, so it's not a factor.
Quote:
Backpedal faster! Harder! Faster! Harder!
Not a backpedal at all. He asked if I thought we should pass a new law to prevent private schools from discriminating, and I said no. Again, racial discrimination is already illegal. So his question really only pertains to forms of discrimination which are not currently illegal but we might think should be prohibited if we extend public money to them in the form of vouchers.
It is telling that you zoomed right in on race though. It's like the ringing of a bell for you isn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?
Not really. The question was obviously whether or not students would be protected based on those criteria. Trying to turn it into a lame semantic argument now is... well, maybe not beneath you but still pretty pathetic.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?
Not really. The question was obviously whether or not students would be protected based on those criteria.
No. The question was:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, sex, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
He was asking if vouchers would be contingent on passing a new law. I said no. Want to know why? Because the existing laws already do that, to precisely the degree needed.
I interpreted his question within the context of the current requirements with regard to public school acceptance. Given that this exact point had already been raised (I think Smash argued that public schools would cost less per student if they could pick and choose their students like private schools can) it seemed the more relevant angle. It's why I responded with a statement about costs and profits for the schools, and not about some kind of social equality thing.
Public schools are required to provide education for every single student in their respective areas. Period. Private schools are not, and would not be required to with the voucher system. That's what I was saying. This does not mean that we eliminate existing laws regarding discrimination though, and my response should not have been interpreted to mean that. Clear enough?
Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 7:17pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?
Well, yes. But you rock on with your bad self pretending otherwise. Boy, yeah, you got me there, Gbaji!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
/shrug
What I find interesting is that you automatically assumed that because I said we should *not* pass a law that would prevent private schools which accept vouchers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, religion, or socioeconomic status that this meant I was proposing that we repeal all such existing laws. It's another case of the liberal tendency to conflate failing to do something with actively doing the opposite. So not giving people free food is taking food from them. Not raising taxes on the rich is giving the rich money. And now, failing to pass a new law expanding prohibitions on discrimination is the same as eliminating the existing prohibitions against discriminating on the basis of race. Been pointing this out for years now, so I figure I'll point it out here too.
It's just such a consistent but flawed thought process. And I'd discount it, but it absolutely permeates the very basis of liberal political thinking. Just making you aware of it, in case you didn't realize *why* you responded to me the way you did.
What I find interesting is that you automatically assumed that because I said we should *not* pass a law that would prevent private schools which accept vouchers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, religion, or socioeconomic status that this meant I was proposing that we repeal all such existing laws. It's another case of the liberal tendency to conflate failing to do something with actively doing the opposite. So not giving people free food is taking food from them. Not raising taxes on the rich is giving the rich money. And now, failing to pass a new law expanding prohibitions on discrimination is the same as eliminating the existing prohibitions against discriminating on the basis of race. Been pointing this out for years now, so I figure I'll point it out here too.
It's just such a consistent but flawed thought process. And I'd discount it, but it absolutely permeates the very basis of liberal political thinking. Just making you aware of it, in case you didn't realize *why* you responded to me the way you did.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
/shrug
What I find interesting...
What I find interesting...
Given your bizarre interpretation, I wouldn't doubt it. You once again sure got me there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Look, I try hard to contain my nails when I cut them, so that I can bin all the cuttings hygienically. I will not be held responsible for the occasional one that SPROINGS off into the middle distance, ok? It's small, it's off white, it's very hard to find, and there's a 50% chance that I will be the one treading on it in bare feet in the future. 
I find it interesting that he's playing the discrimination card after all his anti-Muslim rants.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 236
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Republican case for the Universal Basic Income
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC