Hopefully you're smart enough to realize that one day, should someone actually find you interesting/attractive/intelligent enough to marry, you may have kids.
I'll be happy to keep in mind that your child, if born mentally handicapped, should be relegated to the 'useless' pile. Make sure you tell us, if it happens, so we can ridicule your lack of ability to produce something as 'smart' as you.
I'll even give you the crayon, since you probably wouldn't even invest the 50 cents, considering.
By the way ... answer the question: Are they a priority now?
I wouldn't be selfish enough to send a vegetable to public school. Unfortunately there are too many parents that are.
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.
I wouldn't be selfish enough to send a vegetable to public school. Unfortunately there are too many parents that are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why do you keep bringing up letting parents have a say in what goes on in the school?
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.
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.
Then why do you keep bringing up letting parents have a say in what goes on in the school?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
Hopefully you're smart enough to realize that one day, should someone actually find you interesting/attractive/intelligent enough to marry, you may have kids.
I'll be happy to keep in mind that your child, if born mentally handicapped, should be relegated to the 'useless' pile. Make sure you tell us, if it happens, so we can ridicule your lack of ability to produce something as 'smart' as you.
I'll even give you the crayon, since you probably wouldn't even invest the 50 cents, considering.
By the way ... answer the question: Are they a priority now?
I wouldn't be selfish enough to send a vegetable to public school. Unfortunately there are too many parents that are.
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?
Originally posted by Scott
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?
Originally posted by BR
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.
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.
And no, troll, most grade and middle schools don't hand out condoms.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
Originally posted by Harald
...
And in answer to your troll, excessive quantities of soda is very bad for you, and learning about relationships isn't.
...
What proof do you have of that?
Originally posted by BR
You and bunge are opposed to democracy in this situation.
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.
Originally posted by BR
I wouldn't be selfish enough to send a vegetable to public school. Unfortunately there are too many parents that are.
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.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
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.
Originally posted by audiopollution
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.
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.
Originally posted by audiopollution
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.
And people say I'm the asshole? *looks up* Yup. Keep deluding yourselves.
Originally posted by Scott
What proof do you have of that?
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.
Originally posted by BR
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.
Narrow minded eliteism... return on investment?
Originally posted by BR
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.
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.
Originally posted by BR
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.
Then why do you keep bringing up letting parents have a say in what goes on in the school?
Originally posted by BR
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.
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.
Originally posted by Scott
What proof do you have of that?
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.
Originally posted by bunge
Then why do you keep bringing up letting parents have a say in what goes on in the school?
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?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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.