21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfBecause after a series of passive questions, you followed it up with an aggressive ad hom. You know, the part I mentioned right after my quote above? The part you coincidentally deleted out of my quote?
It's not "passive-aggressive" at all. I am being really upfront and candid with you. I am engaging what you are saying, directly, unequivocally, and telling you what I think point blank. How is that "passive-aggressive"?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyAs we move away from public schools to private schools, yes, I am saying that America is falling down the gravity well towards third-world status, led by crappy education standards that leave us unable to compete on the world stage. All because the current law-making generation would rather get rich than ensure the success of the next generation.
How is homeschooling or a privatized education (which earns much higher marks) not quality education? And are you really prepared to say that on a global scale, America's education is 'quality'?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneI agree. But there is taxation and a budget so it runs much like a business. Too bad our government doesn't care about balancing a budget and goes 12 trillion into debt every 8 years, ensuring that our future generations will have hell to pay.
Personally, I feel that we need to stop running the government like a business (which implies a profit motive, and therefore winners and losers), and instead, run it like a government, in accordance with the values and aims laid out in the Preamble to the US Constitution.
21 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @suzianneAgree again! I think you may be politically liberal and if you are, no offense intended. But the public school system is overrun with liberal progressives™ (last figure I heard was something like 9 to 1 in academia, liberals to conservatives), and there is an apparent agenda to shape childrens' minds.. toward liberalism, and away from conservatism and traditionalism. Conservative Christians are considered stupid old dinosaurs that just need to die off so society can progress.
As we move away from public schools to private schools, yes, I am saying that America is falling down the gravity well towards third-world status, led by crappy education standards that leave us unable to compete on the world stage. All because the current law-making generation would rather get rich than ensure the success of the next generation.
edit: the point being, I think it would be in the best interest of anyone Christian or Conservative to pull their children out of the public education system. Immediately.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou get what you pay for. And you are suggesting to just force teachers to suck it up if they don't like it instead of seeing to it that they have what they need to give our kids a quality education?!
Then move to a state where they pay closer to the average of 60k.
Person X: I want to teach kids, I love kids and care about them so much. But here in my state, the pay isn't enough.
Simple problem solving.
A) Get your degree, teach kids in your local area, and figure out a way to make ends meet, even if it means working a 2nd job, or
B) ...[text shortened]... here.
C) Do something else that makes you the money you want, because money is more important.
Do you love politicians so much that you'd rather see them get rich than enable your own children to succeed?
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI am not being "passive-aggressive" in the slightest.
Because after a series of passive questions, you followed it up with an aggressive ad hom. You know, the part I mentioned right after my quote above? The part you coincidentally deleted out of my quote?
It's you who has introduced the idea of low paid teachers wanting more pay being selfish.
And the idea of 'every-man-for-himself' as opposed to finding a common-sense solution to a profession being underpaid.
It's you who has tried to subtly smear people dedicated to education wanting more financial security as being part of "entitlement culture".
You have been sliding all these snide things into the discussion from the get go.
To characterize me hauling these ideas of yours up and giving them a proper airing is not being "passive-aggressive" at all. You've got the wrong terminology.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneThis doesn't have anything to do with my like or dislike for politicians. And this doesn't have anything to do with giving teachers the tools to provide a quality education. The subject up to this point was teachers not being paid enough in Oklahoma and demanding a higher salary while being unwilling to do anything on their own such as relocate. Up til now this has been about priorities. If you KNOW you aren't going to make a good living as a teacher in Oklahoma but you pursue a teaching career in Oklahoma anyway, who's fault is it when you don't make a good living, and do you have a good reason to complain when you could just relocate to where teachers are paid more. Is your priority money, or the kids? I've had to say this over and over, but no one will address it. Apparently due to sympathy and/or an emotional attachment to teachers in Oklahoma.
You get what you pay for. And you are suggesting to just force teachers to suck it up if they don't like it instead of seeing to it that they have what they need to give our kids a quality education?!
Do you love politicians so much that you'd rather see them get rich than enable your own children to succeed?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfApparently you get so caught up in all your leading questions that you have a hard time keeping track. YOU introduced the word "selfish." Not me.
I am not being "passive-aggressive" in the slightest.
It's you who has introduced the idea of low paid teachers wanting more pay being selfish.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyActually yes, I believe that, too.
Agree again! I think you may be politically liberal and if you are, no offense intended. But the public school system is overrun with liberal progressives™ (last figure I heard was something like 9 to 1 in academia, liberals to conservatives), and there is an apparent agenda to shape childrens' minds.. toward liberalism, and away from conservatism and ...[text shortened]... hristians are considered stupid old dinosaurs that just need to die off so society can progress.
The greed in this country, and the gap between haves and have-nots, is gargantuan, and getting bigger all the time. The policies of Reagan Do Not Work. We cannot raise all boats while also making the rich richer. This country was founded on one idea -- the People are in charge. We are making this country no longer about We, the People, but about We, the Corporations. We cannot expect to remain welcome in the world if we ignore three-quarters of the world. It's well past time to grow up, stop being selfish, and join the community of nations, trying like hell to make the world better, instead of seeing to it that we only stay on top of the dung heap.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyAnd whose fault is it if you, personally, do nothing to raise the standard of living for all teachers? Just moving away to somewhere else does not solve the problem, it only kicks the can down the road.
This doesn't have anything to do with my like or dislike for politicians. And this doesn't have anything to do with giving teachers the tools to provide a quality education. The subject up to this point was teachers not being paid enough in Oklahoma and demanding a higher salary while being unwilling to do anything on their own such as relocate. Up ti ...[text shortened]... address it. Apparently due to sympathy and/or an emotional attachment to teachers in Oklahoma.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou introduced the idea that teachers campaigning for better pay and conditions was selfish, not me. Indeed, it has been front and centre in what has otherwise been your rather simplistic ideological 'argument'.
Apparently you get so caught up in all your leading questions that you have a hard time keeping track. YOU introduced the word "selfish." Not me.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyNO. This is classic Republican governance.
edit: the point being, I think it would be in the best interest of anyone Christian or Conservative to pull their children out of the public education system. Immediately.
Screw things up so badly, that the only option is to bail out, which was really the plan from the beginning.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfYou introduced the term so I rolled with it. Anyone who desires more pay for themselves has selfish motivations. And I'm using the strict definition of the word, without the emotional attachment: "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." If your use of the word was derogatory and negative, that's fine but that's now how I was using it. If I desire a pay raise, my motivation is selfish. That doesn't have to be negative.
You introduced the idea that teachers campaigning for better pay and conditions was selfish, not me. Indeed, it has been front and centre in what has otherwise been your rather simplistic ideological 'argument'.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneAnd, speaking of bailing out, I'm going to have to leave it there.
NO. This is classic Republican governance.
Screw things up so badly, that the only option is to bail out, which was really the plan from the beginning.
My 'righteous indignation' is kicking in, and so I'm going to leave before I say something I'll regret.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI am not particularly interested in what emotions you have on this, whether you are hiding them, showing them, posting without them, so on and so forth. Your suggestion that the common-sense solution to teaching being a low paid profession is that teachers should act in their own selfish interests and go elsewhere is not a "common-sense solution" at all. It is only a "solution" in the most atomized and selfish sense. The problem of the profession remaining underpaid has not been solved by it.
You introduced the term so I rolled with it. Anyone who desires more pay for themselves has selfish motivations. And I'm using the strict definition of the word, without the emotional attachment: "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." If your use of the word was derogatory and negative, that's fine but that's now how I was using it. If I desire a pay raise, my motivation is selfish. That doesn't have to be negative.