A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 12:06 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.

Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future starting
with infancy.

No, I hold the parents accountable.

Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.

You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

My, what a
beautiful world you would build.

There's no better way to stimulate parents to be successful than to make
them realize that the future success of their children depends on their
willingness to work hard and provide for them. We've seen for many years now
the result of granting the poor and uneducated "entitlements" that does
nothing but bind them and their children ever deeper into economic and
social poverty and degradation.

The one million illegal immigrants who come to this country each month know
this full well, which is why they come here and go to work in those jobs
that "Americans won't take," so that their children will have the
opportunity to prosper.

What's successful for the poor is denying them the public dole that binds
them to the public teat while forcing them to advance themselves in the
workforce. It builds self-esteem, character and gives them skills that will
serve them well in their lives. America is indeed the "Land of Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to strive
to excel and advance.

As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."




"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?

It's just that usual nonsense about trying to give all kids a reasonable
opportunity to access what the world has to offer.

Public education is, by and large, a dismal failure, particularly in poor
communities where an education, free or otherwise, is not viewed as
necessary to one's future...mostly because welfare dwellers see the future
of their children as being merely a repeat of their parent's failures. There
is no stimulus to succeed, and generational failure is inevitable. Only when
one has to work to succeed is one likely to value the education one gets and
wish it for one's children.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.


Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.
--
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

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 12:06 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone
got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to
watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of
Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit
an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every
socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized
medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to
fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money
from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't
pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches
and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it,
and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.

Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future
starting
with infancy.

No, I hold the parents accountable.

But the child suffers.

Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.

You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

No, I don't, actually.

There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who
cannot access education or health care.

My, what a
beautiful world you would build.

There's no better way to stimulate parents to be successful than to make
them realize that the future success of their children depends on their
willingness to work hard and provide for them. We've seen for many years
now
the result of granting the poor and uneducated "entitlements" that does
nothing but bind them and their children ever deeper into economic and
social poverty and degradation.

The one million illegal immigrants who come to this country each month
know
this full well, which is why they come here and go to work in those jobs
that "Americans won't take," so that their children will have the
opportunity to prosper.

What's successful for the poor is denying them the public dole that binds
them to the public teat while forcing them to advance themselves in the
workforce. It builds self-esteem, character and gives them skills that
will
serve them well in their lives. America is indeed the "Land of
Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an
equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to
strive
to excel and advance.

As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."

You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry,
uneducated, and without access to health care.

"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?

It's just that usual nonsense about trying to give all kids a reasonable
opportunity to access what the world has to offer.

Public education is, by and large, a dismal failure, particularly in poor
communities where an education, free or otherwise, is not viewed as
necessary to one's future...mostly because welfare dwellers see the future
of their children as being merely a repeat of their parent's failures.
There
is no stimulus to succeed, and generational failure is inevitable. Only
when
one has to work to succeed is one likely to value the education one gets
and
wish it for one's children.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

Can someone draw me an irony meter please!

Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy
for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will
need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be
far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Mark --just curious--

in article , Mark H. Bowen at
wrote on 3/22/05 5:45 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Mark --just curious--

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating, really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.


Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science.

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown, as
there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.


Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science.

And typos.

I meant to say:

Scotty is NOT a moron. He IS clinically selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really. It's like witnessing societal devolution.

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty
commie stuff.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty commie stuff.

Well, YEAH!

Mark

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

--
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 Mark H. Bowen wrote:


"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Well, evidently he's smarter than you are...

--
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:


Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future
starting
with infancy.

No, I hold the parents accountable.

But the child suffers.

Then perhaps the state should take custody of the child, award custody to
someone better able to raise the child, and garnish the parent's wages to
pay for the child's care...after eliminating any welfare payments to the
parents to stimulate them to get a job.

Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.

You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

No, I don't, actually.

There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who
cannot access education or health care.

Wrong. In this country, opportunities are abundant. There are millions uponn
millions of success stories of poor people who have persevered and
succeeded. That's WHY a million people a month illegally enter this country.

In the Sudan, there are no opportunities for education or health care, but
in North America there are opportunities everywhere. All a parent has to do
is go and seek it out and resolve to be successful.

America is indeed the "Land of
Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an
equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to
strive
to excel and advance.

As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."

You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry,
uneducated, and without access to health care.

Sure you can. Go to a shelter, get a meal, go find a Catholic hospital and
seek medical care and go find a job to pay for your education.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab
one.

If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

Pity we can't say the same about you.

--
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