California bans soft drink sales in school - Page 4

you're starting to pull a pretty heavy karma train there BR. i hope i'm not around when it pulls in the station, it's going to be ugly.

BR WANTS TO DEPRIVE "DUMB" KIDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

This one is a classic.

No, I just don't want retards to have the priority, which any teacher can tell you, they currently do.

You obviously don't understand that we don't live in a democracy. We have a republic form of government. In a democracy everyone does go to the polls. A democracy can be very cumbersome when the population it governs is very large. That is why we have a republic. However, on a local level, specifically school by school, a democracy would work just fine.

Put the decision back in the hands of parents instead of YOU deciding what's best for EVERYONE ELSE.

By the way, saying that for a "so-called" liberal you sure seem to be in favor of a father knows best nanny dictator state isn't an attack.

I wouldn't be selfish enough to send a vegetable to public school. Unfortunately there are too many parents that are.

Lemme get this right?

We can pass out free condoms in school but kids can't be trusted to buy carbonated sugar water?


Grade schoolers can read about "Jack had two daddies" and "Jill has two mommies" but kids can't be trusted to buy carbonated sugar water?

What's the problem?

Adults are trusted to make the decision to buy a gun or join the army, but not buy a beer.

And in answer to your troll, excessive quantities of soda is very bad for you, and learning about relationships isn't.

Or would you say that learning about homosexuality is bad?

Yes, I know, we live in a republic.

I didn't decide what was best for California students. Someone paid to made that decision decided.

And if you don't think saying someone is in favor of a dictator state is an attack, then you're weird.

Actually, this is a proper use of democracy as a "nanny." We are dealing with young children after all.

And no, troll, most grade and middle schools don't hand out condoms.

Why are you opposed to the parents of each school voting once every two years to decide for themselves whether soda should be allowed in each particular school? You say the decision should be put back in the parents hands by banning it from schools and letting them decide what goes into the school but what I propose does the exact same thing. It puts the decision DIRECTLY into the parents hands for each and every school community.

You and bunge are opposed to democracy in this situation.

What proof do you have of that?

Don't be foolish. Should parents also decide if the schools teach creationism or evolution?

Against democracy? You're just babbling now, because your argument isn't very strong.

No, but you'd be selfish enough to deny other parents the ability to send their children to public schools.

(Somehow I find it hard to believe you will ever be able to afford to send a mentally handicapped child to a private school. Wouldn't that be funny?! What a position you would be in! Shit, you may actually have to buy that crayon.)

Once again you avoided answering the question of whether they are a priority now.

By the way, 'vegetable' & 'retard' are ill-chosen words. For someone who seems to consider himself as somewhat intelligent, you come off as one hell of an ignorant prick.

Karma's a boomerang. I'd wish a handicapped child upon you, but I'd never want to put that child though the pain of living with you.

The curriculum and what drinks are allowed in school are two completely different, unrelated issues. You are babbling now because your argument isn't strong.

I never said I wouldn't allow a mentally handicapped kid to attend public school. I simply wouldn't spend the kind of money on special ed that we do now. IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) should not be made for retarded kids. The time, effort, and resources used to create and execute them make no economic sense due to the scarcity of said time, effort, and resources. It should be directed to those that will provide the most return on investment: gifted children. Gifted children are our future. We need to prioritize THEM.

And people say I'm the asshole? *looks up* Yup. Keep deluding yourselves.

What proof do I have that excessive soda intake is bad for you?

You must be the worst troll I ever came across.

I mean, come on.

What proof do I have that excessive soda intake is bad for you?

Wow.

Seek help.

Narrow minded eliteism... return on investment?

I'm curious what you consider a gifted child? What age do you propose that the determination be made that a child is gifted. What criteria would you feel comfortable using?

I was involved in the pilot program for gifted children, many years ago, in the area I grew up in. We were tested in Grade 5 and then spent one week of each month, for the next six years, at another school doing intensive work in a different area of study each month.

As of last year, of the 19 of us involved from the beginning, there were: 3 waiters (2 of whom are also actors), 1 database programmer, 1 writer, 3 housewives, 1 surfer (non-professional), 1 lawyer, 1 podiatrist, 1 controller, and 2 unemployed web designers. We've lost track of the others.

I'm not sure that the ROI is for our group. It doesn't sound like it's much different than the ROI for a typical group of children in a regular class. Actually, the ROI for our group is likely lower than a typical group of children considering how much money was spent to keep us interested.

How do you propose that a business plan for gifted education be implemented? What would be considered a ROI, above that of a typical class, that would justify the added expenditure? How do you calculate human potential based on a series of academic tests? Is academic development more important than social development at an early age?

Call me an asshole as much as you want. I stand by everything I've written. I hope, for their sake, that you never have a child with any form of disability.

You are the one characterizing mentally handicapped children as 'vegetables'. You are the one who is reducing them to dollars and cents. You are the one who has already relegated them to working in fast food restaurants.

The karma train will eventually pull into your station.

Then why do you keep bringing up letting parents have a say in what goes on in the school?

You advocate discrimination based on mental disabilities, asshole. You specifically want to limit the educational opportunities for every student with a mental disability who now receives extra help.

That's probably the most repugnant thing I've ever read here. Good job.

Oh, just thought, maybe you weren't asking for proof that excessive soda intake was bad for the health, which would clearly have been ... uh ... lunacy.

Maybe it was the other thing, maybe you meant "What proof do you have that learning about relationships isn't bad for you?"

You were asking me, in THAT case, to demonstrate positive proof, that learning about relationships is not bad for you. You are asking me to prove that teaching people about how people interrelate with each other is not bad for them.

Think about that.

Then seek help.

Ok you must be one of those people who shouldn't be getting an IEP. Parents should be allowed to, on a school by school basis, vote to determine what food, drinks, and snacks are allowed in their child's school.

Nothing about curriculum.

Nothing about anything else.

Just food, drinks, and snacks.

Got it?

Nope. I'm not advocating discrimination. I'm advocating a change of our priorities.

If you really want to get fluffy on this issue, then currently there is discrimination against normal and gifted kids. They aren't bought 21" monitors, only to be used by one person, at the drop of a hat because it MIGHT help them. Not because it will, but because it MIGHT. That's 600 bucks for a kid who will never read, write, and can't even speak...and somehow he's in 5th grade. I'm sorry but that's a waste of money and all this is done to make the parent feel better.

No, it's not narrow minded elitism. It's sound economic principles. There exist a scarcity of resources and those resources should be channelled to those with the greatest potential, not the least.

[ posted by BR [/i]
Parents should be allowed to, on a school by school basis, vote to determine what food, drinks, and snacks are allowed in their child's school. [/QUOTE]

Making a concise point isn't really that difficult, now is it.

Would this really be practicle? Casting a vote every year for every school would be expensive as hell and a big waste of time and energy. The amount of effort that would go into this is insane considering the repurcussions. None. The parents do vote already, on a school by school and child by child basis, by sending their kids to school with what food, drinks and snacks they want their children to have at school.

PS So you're against democracy in terms of school cirriculum? You fascist nanny-state loving dweeb!

It was quite clear before. You were being intentionally dense. Now cut the crap. Enough of your stupid games.


Yes, it would be practical to have a vote every two years to decide if sodas, junk food, et cetera should be allowed. There would actually be very little effort put into it. Every kid evey year is given many fliers to take home to their parents. Many of those fliers require a parent's signature. Most schools have an automated dialer system. Add to the message that a flier is being sent home containing a couple checkboxes regarding the allowance of junk food and soda vending machines in schools.

This is very little effort. And, by banning something from being sold in schools, you are creating a black market. You will have soda dealers just like you have drug dealers. Prohibition is not the answer. Education is.


This is what we call diversion through changing the subject. I will not respond to your stupid attempts to derail the thread.

What exactly would you do to special education programs?
What would you do for students with physical and/or mental disabilities?

Honest questions.

I'm not opposed to after school tutoring. I'm not opposed to special ed classes. I am opposed to IEPs and the willy nilly spending of money on expensive equipment that may or may not even help the kid.

Life isn't fair. Special ed kids shouldn't get a superior education at the expensive of everyone else. When there is a scarcity of resources and one group is hogging way more than its share, we have a problem.

Well, I agree with you here generally. But can you really separate IEPs from special education classes? I mean children with mental disabilities have different requirements. I don't see how you can treat them without an individualized education program. Am I wrong here?

I think that we are underestimating the abilities of our special ed teachers here when we force them to create IEPs. I've been around them for 4 years. Most of them agree it is a huge waste of time and resources. Special ed teachers are trained to recognize differences in ability and should be able to adapt their teaching methods, especially when special ed classes often have 15 or fewer students in them.

You're full of crap, that's all. Derail the thread? You're the one that brought of bullcrap about 'not democratic.' Are you willing to claim that it wasn't an attempt to derail the thread? No, because everyone knows it was. Talking about special education issues in this thread? That's derailing the thread.

You want a bureaucratic mess. Education is the way to go. Soda isn't banned in schools so your analogy doesn't mix. Black market? Why, if someone can go to the store and buy it? Your analogy is seriously flawed, like your argument.

Be glad I'm not SDW. You'd be enjoying a nice ban if I was. Too bad I believe that even people with nothing to contribute, like you, should be allowed to converse.

For more reasons than one.


Nice job of avoidance. You have no argument. Always Coca-Cola!

Take a look at the introduction to the U.S. Department of Education's Guide to the Individualized Education Program.


You say the consensus among special education teachers is that IEPs are "a waste of time and resources." I would like to trust you on this one, but how could I considering what the US Department of Education has to say about it? They use words like cornerstone, critical, and ensure. They're not exactly being equivocal here. Yet, you say it's completely the opposite. Who am I to believe?

Or is there something I'm just not getting here?

I mean, you're not just talking about a 21" inch computer monitor. You're talking about eliminating what the US Department of Education calls "the cornerstone of special education."

Believe those who are in the trenches, not the generals who don't see what's going on.

Give me a fvcking break. You have bobbed and weaved more than anyone else in this thread. You bring up irrelevant analogies and then yell "AH HAH! I GOT YOU!" when you just look like a dumbass dodging the issue. I'm quite sick of your stupid tactics that are no different than those of Scott and SDW. When you are willing to grow up and act like an adult, PM me. Until then, f off.

I think you can do better than that.

I've seen it first hand. Every special ed teacher I have spoken to thinks that IEPs are a waste of time. Don't patronize me with that "you can do better than that" garbage.

Smile, BR.

I'd really like to know beyond anecdotes. It would make a really interesting feature article to write about for my Advanced Writing class (if it turns out that special education teachers overwhelmingly oppose a central tenet of special education...)