|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: You recommned a SMACK for ADHD students. No, I recommend appropriate corporal punishment for students who haven't been taught by their parents to be quiet, respectful and obedient to authority and who haven't learned to concentrate. LOL! How brilliant! Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school! I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it, or the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing. Corporal punishment is usually administered in aid of the person administering it. Well, yes, that's rather the point. The person administering it is authorized to do so in order to obtain obedience and proper conduct. The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth. Hardly. Billions of people for thousands of years have benefited from the focusing effects of corporal punishment. That'll learn 'em to concentrate! Most of the time, yes. Yup, concentrate on revenge. Corporal punishment is not "revenge." It's punishment for wrongdoing intended to instill discipline and understanding that misbehavior has negative consequences, provided by persons in authority who have license to maintain and teach discipline. And who they are going to beat in the schoolyard just like the teacher beat them. Nobody, if the discipline policy is properly and rigorously enforced. The reason we HAVE rampant schoolyard violence is BECAUSE there are no substantial (and painful) consequences for inflicting unlawful and wanton physical violence on classmates. And also that violence is acceptable, Violence is acceptable, in proper context. A classroom is not the proper context. Sure it is. More than just the physical discomfort, the psychological effects of the acute embarrassment of being spanked before a roomful of your peers is most effective at preventing repeat misbehavior. It also acts as an object lesson to the other students in the class that such misbehavior will not be tolerated. The unlawful violence against me in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps, and beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me that it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight, because even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40 years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single incidence of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense. That's a lesson that *all* children ought to learn. When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often from bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast. Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined adults. It doesn't work that way. It absolutely works that way. Kids who already have problems end up getting beaten by their teachers, Corporal punishment is not "beating" a student. It's physically harmless, mildly uncomfortable, and highly embarrassing, nothing more. thus teaching them that violence and aggression is how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on. You sure don't give human children any credit for intelligence. Even a dog can easily learn that getting swatted with a rolled-up newspaper for chewing on slippers means "don't chew on the slippers," not "go out and bite everything that moves." Corporal punishment is not "violence and aggression," it's duly-deserved and duly-administered punishment for misdeeds, and kids are quite adept at discerning the difference between abuse and justified punishment. after all, school is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK for me too! Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful consequences of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse* violence are in grave danger. Teach them not to be violent by hitting them. Interesting. You need to learn to distinguish between justifiable violence and unjustifiable violence. Most people comprehend the distinction. Have you ever heard about cycles of abuse? Yup. But corporal punishment, properly applied in response to documented misbehavior is not "abuse." And the reason there are "cycles of abuse" is because those who abuse have never learned that they are not allowed to use unjustified physical force against others, and that there are penalties, often harsh ones, for doing so. The way to break the cycle of abuse is to teach the children that an unjustified use of force against another will result in severe punishment. Children are well equipped to understand by analogy, and the analogy of corporal punishment is "you suffer uncomfortable and humiliating consequences for wrongful behavior as a child, and the discomfort and humiliation only gets more severe as you grow up and continue to misbehave." Not teaching them this lesson, beginning VERY early, is a disservice to the child and to society. Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them into psychopathic killers. Nope. But it will teach them that physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems. Physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems, depending of course on the nature of the problem. Using justifiable physical force in self-defense is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with an unlawful assault, and children need to learn this, as well as learn the distinction between self-defense and unlawful assault. It will also make them very angry. Tough. They'll get over it. Learning to control anger is yet another vital lesson children must be taught. A disservice is done to children whenever adults pander to them in order to curry favor and avoid making their children angry or upset. Children must be TAUGHT to control their anger and they must be TAUGHT how to analyze and redirect anger in proper, acceptable ways. They will never learn this lesson if they are a) never angry, and/or b) never disciplined for inappropriate displays of anger and resentment. Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning juvenile crime rates to see this. It is a rather juvenile leap to attribute these problems to a failure of teachers to beat their students. Corporal punishment is not "beating." And I blame the parents far more than I do educators, but educators are still responsible for failing in their duty to properly teach and discipline students. I deny that just because a student is disruptive and unwilling to concentrate or obey, that the student is *unable* to concentrate or obey due to some phony, concocted "diagnosis" that is little more than a marketing tool for Ritalin. I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably overprescribed. By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously. Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational, peaceful and well-behaved adults? LOL. Which generation are we talking about? You mean the generations where wife-beating was an accepted social practice? Strawman argument. There is absolutely no credible correlation between persons undergoing appropriate and justified corporal punishment as children and their becoming "wife-beaters." Besides, you make a sexist strawman argument as well. Overcoming "ADHD" is something you *learn* to do, not something you can be medicated into. Sometimes children need to be caused to focus, and corporal punishment, in appropriate measure, can be an effective tool for obtaining obedience and stimulating focus. Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally, externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a problem, you lash out at it. Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have *never* been disciplined. Not in my considerable experience. Do you have some research to indicate that violent teens come from peaceful environments? Who said anything about "peaceful environments?" Most undisciplined homes are anything but "peaceful." They are usually utter chaos and violence at all times. That's what happens when you let the kids run the house. You do realize that there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child, right? Sure. But because that occurs, it does not follow that corporal punishment creates abusers. You must also recognize that there are families that "never raised a hand to a child" who ended up with violent, out-of-control children. Watch any episode of "Nanny 911" or "Supernanny" for weekly examples of undisciplined permissiveness resulting in uncontrollable, violent children. Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. Being beaten teaches children to beat others. Are you saying that there are no responsible adults who were not beaten by their parents and teachers? How silly. Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating." Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me hitting a kid that I don't like? The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are capable of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior and wanton assault. Actually, you hear those exact words all the time. The teacher does it, so why shouldn't I? Here's the answer: "You may not do so because you are not the teacher, you are the student. You don't get to do many things a teacher does, and one of those things is that you don't get to administer punishment for misdeeds, whether the punishment is corporal or otherwise. That is not within the sphere of your authority. If you presume to usurp the authority granted to teachers, then YOU will be punished appropriately for overstepping the bounds. When and if you grow up to be an adult with authority over others, including perhaps children, then you may be authorized to administer punishments. Until then, you may not do so." The fact that an ignorant child may attempt to rationalize his bad behavior and excuse the unauthorized use of force on another does not mean that society is required to accept that rationalization. Instead, children should be taught that punishment is administered by duly-appointed authorities ONLY, and than any use of force against another, for any reason other than in legitimate, justifiable self-defense, will be harshly punished. Most of the time, "ADHD" is nothing more than a sugar high caused by poor nutrition and breakfast cereal combined with lax, permissive parenting that spills over into the classroom. There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a life-changing experience with medication. I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future. With proper medical care this never has to happen. Yes, yes, it's possible to narcotize all children into a compliant stupor, but that doesn't teach them anything, and once they get off the drugs, they STILL won't have the ability to concentrate, and will be too old to learn how, presuming that they don't end up on "Adult ADHD" medication for the rest of their lives. The dosage needs to be monitored closely with the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of eliminating it. In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero. Could be. The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher, parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before medication is even a consideration. Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be applied LONG before medication is even considered. Only if you want a child with even more problems who will end up with even more medication. Nah. Wayne just told me about an interview he did with the Commandant of a prep-school military academy here in Colorado. When asked about ADHD students, the Commandant said, "We don't have any. If they have a problem when they get here, we cure them in about a week." That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications) but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way off. They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish routines and structure that are appropriate. And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what punishments short of corporal punishment are applied? I find out what is going on. How does that help the child to learn what boundaries are? And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from danger. You can do this without smacking people. Most of the time, yes. Sometimes, a smack is the proper technique. Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing to keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is allowing a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent? To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or kill them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain is a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless. I never once burned myself on a stove but also was never smacked to learn no to do so. Neither did these kids. The point, which you evidently missed, is that children are perfectly capable of correlating cause and effect, including when corporal punishment is administered in response to disobedience. I have worked with many vulnerable people with limited cognitive abilities and have never smacked them to help them learn not to burn themselves on a stove. And none of them ever has. You miss the metaphor. Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get hit by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective. Being beaten by your parent is not a logical consequence to running on the street. Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating." It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting skills to help you develop boundaries. Only to brainless liberal simps who deliberately ignore several thousands of years of human history in child-rearing. Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more unpleasant than those of obedience. It's not harmless at all. Sure it is. In fact, it's helpful. It meets the needs of the teacher. Indeed. And the need of the teacher is "teach discipline, respect and obedience." It is a strategy for the weak of mind, No, that's the strategy of liberal permissive apologists. and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in authority. Nah. Not disciplining children demonstrates a lack of discipline on the part of authorities. When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall sockets. I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity." I got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death. But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be arrested for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for electrocution. Oddly enough, I've also never electrocuted myself. But what you are describing above is quite different from administering a rap on the hand to bring about classroom compliance. Not really. The lesson is the same: "Does it hurt when you do that? Then don't do that." Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at a later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the proper motives and in the proper proportion. Those are mythical motives and mythical proportions. Affirmed and supported by tens of thousands of years of human behavior and efficaciously applied to billions upon billions of children over the millennia. That's my kind of "myth." And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse, because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because my father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson. I'm sure your father and you are special exeptions. Nah, just ordinary people. It's not like you walk around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone. Quite right, I don't. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
And in this we can agree, as I have said. Where we disagree is where you imply that most intellectually challenged kids fit this mold. Since you seldom care to argue about the less obvious cases or draw fine distinctions, I view your statements as being in the nature of a general policy of "exclude them unless they are certain to be capable." I tend to err on the side of "include them unless they are demonstrably incapable." If you can agree with that model, then we appear to have no real disagreement. That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry. Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit. I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and need. No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others. You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any* disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any of them and you don't know WHAT they need. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness, while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion. It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored to the needs of others. Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled. That they may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all* children have for a basic education and socialization. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott thinks: ============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! Lucky you. Not everybody is so lucky. However, I'd wager that even you have given your children a swat from time to time, not to mention the odd verbal dressing-down or other punishment. You see, young children aren't particularly logical creatures. They tend to react on a very visceral basis to their needs, wants and desires, and become upset when they do not receive instant gratification. Sometimes they become very upset, to the point of hysteria. Other times, they become deliberately disobedient IN ORDER to test your limits as a parent and to determine just what they can get away with without suffering unpleasant consequences. And they tend to do this starting at an age where "reasoning" with them can be only marginally to entirely ineffective. If you fail to teach them when they are young that obedience is not a matter of personal choice or preference, they will be a detriment to society when they grow up. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 4/6/05 7:10 PM: Scott thinks: ============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! frtzw906 The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect. That can be a problem. Still, if the choice is compliance or respect, I'll take compliance. "I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect. If that is the only thought process, you're correct, but most often, the thought process is rather more complex. That is fear, resulting in compliance. Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and respect later. I don't need a two-year-old to respect me when I tell him not to run out into the street, I need his instant, unquestioning obedience. If fear of punishment causes that compliance, fine. At some later time, when he's intellectually capable of understanding why I required unquestioning obedience, I'll be happy to explain to him why, and hopefully he will be able to see that he owes me respect because it was his safety that I was concerned with. This is, in fact, the way it usually happens. There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it is through external threat only that the change is achieved. Don't be silly. The internal motivation is: "Scott was extremely displeased at my behavior and he punished me for it. Why would he do that? Hm, maybe what I did was wrong or dangerous. Perhaps I should amend that behavior in order to gain both approval from Scott and avoid further painful and embarrassing punishment, not to mention avoiding the possibility of physical harm." The external threat stimulates the internal motivation. Children are pretty good at picking up on adult approval and disapproval. That's how they learn to survive, and always have. This type of behavioural management teaches people to be victims and victimizers. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and it's completely without foundation or reason. Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. Yup. They are also being taught that concentration is desirable and less painful. Pure operant conditioning. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Wrong. Even a rat can learn behaviors in response to operant conditioning, so clearly there's learning going on. "If I do that, it hurts. I guess I won't do that." The understanding and respect comes later. Just compliance. Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step process. And that is what that child is learning - comply, or else. Yup. A lesson every child must learn. Then they learn *why* they must comply, and they learn why it is that they were punished, and who, and when they are subject to justifiable punishment. As a result, they learn proper behavior, respect and how to successfully integrate into society. This is not random brutalization we're talking about here, it's specific corporal punishment administered for specific wrongdoing. Even small children understand the cause and effect in getting a smack on the bottom for disobeying a parent's safety instructions. And this is training for being a victim. Hogwash, poppycock AND balderdash! The next person of authority who seeks their compliance may have the intention to sexually assault them. And the child has been taught that refusal to comply results in a beating, and that they are powerless. So the comply. Nonsense. They also learn to seek compliance from others, using the same technique as the authority figure that taught them how to do it. It could be younger kids in the schoolyard or siblings at home. And eventually a wife and kids. Specious nonsense. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN observes: ================= Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Just compliance. ================ And there's plenty of research on the use of force, to ensure compliance, which indicates that, give half a chance, the "victim" will turn around and return the favor. The effect of force for purposes of compliance is generally "short-term" compliance where "short-term" is defined as "so long as the party using the force is percieved to be in a more powerful position". Interestingly, there is ALWAYS someone in a "more powerful" position in every person's life. If no one else, the government itself, which is perfectly capable and willing of exercising any degree of force necessary to obtain compliance, up to and including deadly force. Learning how to audit your behavior in response to those in authority over you is necessary if one is to be successful in life. That's why mandatory universal military service is a very good idea. The moment the teenager, being forced into compliance by the father, reckons he's tougher than his old man, the old man had better watch his step, 'cause he's gonna get a really good hiding to make up for all the ones he dished out. Funny how that rarely happens in families where corporal punishment is properly administered. Could it be that as the child grows, he comes to understand why his parent might have given him a licking? Could it be that the man he becomes understands that his father was looking out for his best interests when he was a child, and that by being firm, fair and consistent in his administration of discipline, his father was setting and enforcing boundaries on proper conduct that every child needs in order to grow up properly? I got only a couple of "really good hidings" from my father, and I richly deserved each one, and I not only don't hold any animus towards him, I reverently thank him for caring enough about me to discipline me when I was being a total ****. That's a recognition I came to as a young adult, when I finally realized that I wasn't supposed to be in charge because I didn't know how to be in charge. You resolutely refuse to distinguish between appropriate discipline and random abuse. There is a huge difference. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:
KMAN wrote: Scott recommends: ============ Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. ============ Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus. It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! ======================== And here's what's interesting as well. Consider if, in the context of this discussion of persons with disabilities, I had responded to Scott's suggestions that, "Tough luck on the parents of the disabled child! They made the decision to have that child. Why is that *my* problem?! Why should the classrooms in which my children are required to learn, be burdened with pupils who are a hindrance and slow up the whole learning process?" I don't feel that way. I wouldn't say it. Go ahead and say it, it'll expand your mind. BUT.... Where does Scott get off showing such empathy for persons with disabilities when, just a few days ago, in the discussion of universal health care and the plight of the poor, he took a different tack. I recall phrases like "Why is it my problem that the poor decided to have children they couldn't support?!" WOW! The turmoil in Scott's head over these issues must be intense. Such logical inconsistency must border on the painful. Nah. You just don't understand my technique. Not surprising, only the illuminati do. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 6:39 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott recommends: ============ Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. ============ Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus. It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! Social priorities is not socialism. No! But you want to force taxpayers to support social needs! Of course. I'm not an anarchist. "That to secure these liberties, governments are instituted among men" is not a call to socialism, but it is a recognition that people must be governed. And for government to function, the people have to pay for it. Thus, levying taxes is perfectly correct. The question is WHO authorizes the extraction of taxes to support government programs, and HOW they go about doing so. Oho. So it's not quite so crystal clear where supporting social needs is appropriate and where it becomes a horrific commie plot. Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. Good luck with that! Then they get ignorant, uncontrollable children. Petard hoist. Is that how we got you? |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com