"I don't believe I have ever come out against public education...it can certainly be very poor, but that's a fault more of the state and a lack fo spending--so people on your side of the political fence--than the schools' fault."
I never said you did, but you assumed I did due to my racist jokes.
"And...well, not surprising you don't care for a union, either."
They are allowing dog shit teachers to maintain their jobs. America spends more money on public education (per person) then any other country in the world. Yet it is ranked 23rd out of 34 OECD countries in education. China and Singapore (first and second place) spend 1/4 of the amount of money on education and yet produce better results. Throwing money at something wont automatically make it better (but it can help), its what you liberals have assumed for an eternity with no backing or evidence.
"Tell me, Fasces--do you care AT ALL about the progess we've made socially in personal and civil rights in the last century? "
This is a time in place for everything. But now that we have paid vacations, maximum hour work weeks, minimum wage, health regulations. What are the unions now fighting for? Preventing people from being fired, even those who deserve to be fired. Its bullshit.
"Well, for someone os apparently "figted" as yourself, you certainly seem to be rather vague about your defining what is "bright enough" to be allowed the opportunity to what is defined as a basic civil right, the right to a free and equal education."
Free education till the end of high school for all. its whats needed to keep a balanced and competitive free market and not make it so the rich get richer and poor get poorer. I have mentioned this many times today, but of course you only look at the negative sides of my argument.
"You seem to be setting quite a bit of store behind these IQ numbers--never mind that the IQ test and idea itself is open to various interpretations and so even if you had a concrete point your not-so-concrete facts would undermine yiur flimsy conclusions--and not going into enough detail AT ALL over why a NUMBER should decide whether someone is given the opportunity for what is--I want to repeat--a BASIC STATE RIGHT."
I go to a public gifted school. Its fully funded by the TDSB, which in turn is funded by the Ontario Provincial Government. However to get in requires a 97th percentile intelligence quotient (IQ of 130) or greater or 6 subjects over 90% in your previous year. It is a school for gifted students.
The Canadian government (and the US government as well, since they use the same definition of gifted) seem to assume that IQ tests are accurate enough to base their higher education around them, so I wouldn't be saying they are complete bullshit.
As for the IQ max/min basis. Anyone stupider then Bush I consider to be an idiot, anyone smarter I consider to be normal.
"(And I'm the Elitist in the group here, but at elast when I ask for a meritocracy, *I* clarify that the LEGAL RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT FOR ALL, REGARDLESS of abilitry, merit, or other qualifying factors."
You call yourself elitist, but not one of your oppinions matches that of an elitist. I am a real elitist. You are a liberal, nothing more nothing less.
" You're essentially proposing to play keep-away with the potential knowledge and civil, unalienable rights of tens of millions of people...on the grounds they're just not as gifted as YOU believe yourself to be."
When did I say that? As I said, you seem to ignore 90% of my argument and only respond to the stuff you can actually counter. And considering your advocating points I advocated in the post above yours proves how selective you really are.
"I would also submit that "work ethic" not only isn't potentially soemthing one can "learn" in the sense your're using the term--as you've used that term to refer to IQ0applicable fields up until this point"
NEVER! What I said was that you need both a relatively high IQ and a good work ethic to succeed. I never said anything more then that. Once again your making assumptions based on points I made and completely exaggerating my views. For example, that racist crap I spouted above I don't actually believe. But I was just playing along with this
"What's more, you're "they're too stupid" argument sounds HORRIBLY as if it could take on a nasty racist turn...looking at history, how many times was slavery justified in America alone because it was thought the black man was "too stupid' to be able to learn?"
That was a response to this comment, which had nothing to do with anything I said before:
"some (most) people are to stupid (IQ under 115) to be educated, thats something you never take into account."
and looking back I forgot a word. It should have been educated properly. My bad.
".but if they lack work ethic, then how can they possibly get those prole-level maintenance jobs you alluded to previously? It takes a LOT of work ethic to work large machinery...so they MUST possess work ethic if you're going to put them to work...but if they DO possess work ethic, then there goes your argument that they lack it. So, unless you want to start exterminating people, your argument's idiocy has reached it's veritable apex."
That is a good point, so I grant you that most of the underlings do have work ethic. However not every lower middle class job requires physical labour. Your stereotyping as much as I am.
"You DId and HAVE said that"
If I did I was misunderstood. And three times now I have said Education is one of the few things that should be free and public. So you couldn't have misunderstood the the extent that you did.