Jump to content

Indentured Servitude: The New Teen Tax


Recommended Posts

You really are a professional word-twister. <br /><br />Where did the idea of not being educated enter in? The question is about what the content of the educational curriculum should be, and there are often disagreements about what content and activities should be part of education. You can't pretend everyone agrees 100% about all the other things that have ended up as part of public schooling. What about physical education being mandated, do you have a problem with that? Forcing kids to run? How about forcing them to pledge their allegiance? What about sex education?I have no problem with the objection to this program, but I think its wrong to treat it like its such a qualitative difference from what goes on already by labeling it "forced".If schools never did required anything that the kids resented, nothing would be required in school.
We are not talking about a school district implementing a particular curriculum that most parents want or can influence, we are talking about a FEDERALLY MANDATED program that most parents object to and would have no say over. Seriously, this is so obvious I suspect you are arguing just for the sake of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Indoctinated: Yes, indoctrinated in the notion that your life does not belong to you, it belongs to the government. This is the most dangerous idea in history, AINEC. That is a direction that we do not even want to take one tiny, tiny baby step because it's so dangerous.Petty criminals: As for treating them like petty criminals, what happens to someone who the judge knows is guilty, but doesn't think is bad/dangerous enough to warrant jail time? Community service. So, if this program were to go through, would that program for petty criminals be scrapped and just throw them in jail instead? Or would we just equate "in high school" to "committed petty crime"?Helping the less fortunate: Would the less fortunate be exempted from this program? I grew up extremely poor, and every spare minute was spent helping on the farm so that we would have food to eat? Would I be exempt or not? Who will decide who has the spare time to do this and who doesn't? Who will decide which programs qualify as community service? Just in this thread we've had a couple people say they don't mind because they got off easy doing some cushy job, or found other ways around it. What kind of life lesson is that? That the rich get off easy, the poor get out because of need, so only the middle and lower-middle class has to contribute? That's what we want schools teaching our kids?Helping people by force does not teach anything except resentment for those who you are forced to help. Helping because you want to help enriches your life and lifts your spirits. If people are forced to do the former, they will do less of the latter. This program is a terrible idea.
I am sorry I dont see any of what you are saying in what is being proposed. I have heard of plenty of high schools that already had a community service requirement. It is just not that big a deal. Personally, I would rather they offer a tuition credit to someone who did a lot of community service (at least 100 hours) and kept it a voluntary thing. But I wont lose any sleep over this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't you have my back when I was railing on about the citizen military being proposed? JERK!
You were doing such an excellent job, I had nothing to add! Also, I couldn't tell what the program was, it seemed to be just some vague service program. The details are starting to filter in, and they are uglier than I feared. (I'm hoping I remember the correct thread.)
I think what Henry is getting at, is that having the federal government have a blanket requirement of XXX community service, vs. a specific school is the issue. At the school level you have a large community involvement, PTA, School Board that are made up of parent and local members of the community. They would make the decision on these things, based on what the majority of the community wanted.Right now all we mandate for school is the basics. Couple years of English, couple years of Math (no geometry), basic science, government, econ, and history. That's it. The rest of the classes are elective to fill a certain number of units, but the children are allowed to choose what classes they want.You are comparing apples to oranges here.Pledge of allegiance is not required or forced, and the sex education thing is a huge debate, which I am pretty sure Henry is against. PE has not only stopped being mandatory, it has been dropped from most schools all together. Which is a crying shame with our society getting fatter and fatter.
Pretty much that. In general, I am opposed to any federal mandates on what must or may not be taught. It should be left to each community. Controversial classes, such as sex ed, should provide an opt-out option for parents where the kids can go learn a related but non-controversial subject, such as health and hygiene.As for phy ed, I'm glad they have it in schools, cuz my kid is a decent athlete and it gives him a chance to make other kids look foolish and make them cry, which is a valuable life lesson.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not talking about a school district implementing a particular curriculum that most parents want or can influence, we are talking about a FEDERALLY MANDATED program that most parents object to and would have no say over.
THIS...and the 13th admendment
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not talking about a school district implementing a particular curriculum that most parents want or can influence, we are talking about a FEDERALLY MANDATED program that most parents object to and would have no say over. Seriously, this is so obvious I suspect you are arguing just for the sake of it.
Well that's kind of why I said something, because your argument seemed a little off-issue to me. I'm not in favor of a federally mandated program either. But if a community decides to implement this, it would be just as forced and just as much of a labor camp from the kids perspective. So that really can't be the argument against it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
what? it's the classic example.
No, it isnt, it is a classic mis-application. The fallacy in the BWF is that it ignores the economic cost to the baker (or whatever the business was) which offsets the "trickle down" economic benefits to the rest of the economy.Those who maintain that war is an example ignore the economic cost of failing to defend against the aggression....all future economic benefits would inure to a party outside the economic system being considered. That more than offsets the cost of delay of non-war related enterprise, which is the main "offset" claimed by the war=BWF advocates.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The fallacy in the BWF is that it ignores the economic cost to the baker (or whatever the business was) which offsets the "trickle down" economic benefits to the rest of the economy.
ROFL
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's kind of why I said something, because your argument seemed a little off-issue to me. I'm not in favor of a federally mandated program either. But if a community decides to implement this, it would be just as forced and just as much of a labor camp from the kids perspective. So that really can't be the argument against it.
Well, at least we're talking about the right subject now. There's federal force, and there's household force, and there's lots of levels in-between. I think each decision should be pushed to the lowest level of force possible. So what we watch on TV should be a household decision. How to defend our country is a national decision.How to raise our children is a household decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites
??? If you dispute it, why dont you enlighten us.
the idea that you tell me I need to learn what it means, while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding, it makes me laugh.there is no "trickle down" involved in the BWF. seriously, re-read it before you attempt to debate it. you're just stringing together a bunch of buzzwords, not actually making a coherent argument.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the idea that you tell me I need to learn what it means, while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding, it makes me laugh.there is no "trickle down" involved in the BWF. seriously, re-read it before you attempt to debate it. you're just stringing together a bunch of buzzwords, not actually making a coherent argument.
If thats your objection, fine. That was merely to head off your argument that there is ultimately a benefit to the shopkeeper that offsets his cost.You may not like the words, but doesnt change the essence of the fallacy...that it ignores the hidden cost to the shopkeeper. Again, if thats a complete lack of understanding, enlighten us.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If thats your objection, fine. That was merely to head off your argument that there is ultimately a benefit to the shopkeeper that offsets his cost.You may not like the words, but doesnt change the essence of the fallacy...that it ignores the hidden cost to the shopkeeper. Again, if thats a complete lack of understanding, enlighten us.
direct via wiki, re: war and the broken window fallacySome claim that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." Others claim that this is an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.More importantly, war destroys property and lives. The economic stimulus to the defense sector is offset not only by immediate opportunity costs, but also by the costs of the damage and devastation of war. This forms the basis of a second application of the broken window fallacy: rebuilding what war destroys stimulates the economy, particularly the construction sector. However, immense resources are spent merely to restore pre-war conditions. After a war, there is only a rebuilt city. Without a war, there are opportunities for the same resources to be applied to more fruitful purposes. Instead of rebuilding a destroyed city, the resources could have been used to build a second city or add improvements.An example of the costs of war is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to directly benefit the American people.re: "there is ultimately a benefit to the shopkeeper that offsets his cost." again, from wiki:The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself, but now cannot so enrich the baker and cobbler because he must fix his window.Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more. His actions benefited the glazier, but at the expense not only of the shopkeeper, but the baker and cobbler as well.this seems to stray a bit from my initial objection to the claim that the war had much to do with the depression's end, but there it is. I'm aware that wiki isn't a trusted academic source, and I'll find some better ones if this doesn't suit you if necessary. for now, I'm on shift again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who maintain that war is an example ignore the economic cost of failing to defend against the aggression....
They dont ignore it they disagree with you about the size of the cost. Very different.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, at least we're talking about the right subject now. There's federal force, and there's household force, and there's lots of levels in-between. I think each decision should be pushed to the lowest level of force possible. So what we watch on TV should be a household decision. How to defend our country is a national decision.How to raise our children is a household decision.
I still do not see how having a community service requirement in high school (something I know a number of private schools have) is telling you how to raise your children.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I still do not see how having a community service requirement in high school (something I know a number of private schools have) is telling you how to raise your children.
If it's at the community level, and the parents have input, then it is only marginally telling you how to raise your kids. If it is at a federal level and nobody has a choice, then it definitely is telling you how to raise your kids. Again, let's not play pretend games. If you support the program, at least have the decency to admit what it is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's at the community level, and the parents have input, then it is only marginally telling you how to raise your kids. If it is at a federal level and nobody has a choice, then it definitely is telling you how to raise your kids. Again, let's not play pretend games. If you support the program, at least have the decency to admit what it is.
I think there is a difference between supporting the program and thinking it's not that bad. I see little difference between teaching the value of community service in this manner and many other non basic classes like p.e, language, sex ed etc. I do however agree with you that it shouldn't be put forth on a federal level.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I still do not see how having a community service requirement in high school (something I know a number of private schools have) is telling you how to raise your children.
What is being talked about here is not just some community service requirement. We are talking about 3-4 month "training program" to indoctrinate them into the program. The Marine boot camp is about this length of time. The marines indoctrinate their soldiers in how to become efficient killing machines in this amount of time. It is somewhat scary to me to have a training program set up by socialists, who want to steer youth out of the private sector and into government service. This is what at the very least I think this training program will try to accomplish. Remember ACORN was supposed to be simply be a nonpartisan voter registration organization.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is being talked about here is not just some community service requirement. We are talking about 3-4 month "training program" to indoctrinate them into the program. The Marine boot camp is about this length of time. The marines indoctrinate their soldiers in how to become efficient killing machines in this amount of time. It is somewhat scary to me to have a training program set up by socialists, who want to steer youth out of the private sector and into government service. This is what at the very least I think this training program will try to accomplish. Remember ACORN was supposed to be simply be a nonpartisan voter registration organization.
thats fine but a community service require and a 3-4 month training program are very different things. And I am only talking about the former.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's at the community level, and the parents have input, then it is only marginally telling you how to raise your kids. If it is at a federal level and nobody has a choice, then it definitely is telling you how to raise your kids. Again, let's not play pretend games. If you support the program, at least have the decency to admit what it is.
I am not playing pretend games. I think you are wrong (if we are just talking about a community service requirement). My high school had a community service requirement for our junior year. It was annoying but I never got the sense that the school was telling my parents how to raise me. I dont see that at all. And i dont support the program. I had better things to do as a 16 year old.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not playing pretend games. I think you are wrong (if we are just talking about a community service requirement). My high school had a community service requirement for our junior year. It was annoying but I never got the sense that the school was telling my parents how to raise me. I dont see that at all. And i dont support the program. I had better things to do as a 16 year old.
All 16 year olds think they have better things to do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
direct via wiki, re: war and the broken window fallacySome claim that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." Others claim that this is an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.More importantly, war destroys property and lives. The economic stimulus to the defense sector is offset not only by immediate opportunity costs, but also by the costs of the damage and devastation of war. This forms the basis of a second application of the broken window fallacy: rebuilding what war destroys stimulates the economy, particularly the construction sector. However, immense resources are spent merely to restore pre-war conditions. After a war, there is only a rebuilt city. Without a war, there are opportunities for the same resources to be applied to more fruitful purposes. Instead of rebuilding a destroyed city, the resources could have been used to build a second city or add improvements.An example of the costs of war is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to directly benefit the American people.re: "there is ultimately a benefit to the shopkeeper that offsets his cost." again, from wiki:The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself, but now cannot so enrich the baker and cobbler because he must fix his window.Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more. His actions benefited the glazier, but at the expense not only of the shopkeeper, but the baker and cobbler as well.this seems to stray a bit from my initial objection to the claim that the war had much to do with the depression's end, but there it is. I'm aware that wiki isn't a trusted academic source, and I'll find some better ones if this doesn't suit you if necessary. for now, I'm on shift again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
so the second half is exactly what I said, and the first half avoids the very issue I raised. The BWF is a parable about a closed economic system. War is not a closed economic system because of the consequences of ignoring the aggression. As a result it has nothing to do with the BWF.
Link to post
Share on other sites
War is not a closed economic system because of the consequences of ignoring the aggression.
I'll ship $10 on Absolute to anybody that can hack copernicus's account and substitute this image for his avatar.1984-Big-Brother-Poster.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...