NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your views on the treatment of mentally retarded people.
Not about your thoughts on the actual person but on the treatment they recieve from the educational facilities and the government. Do you think not enough is being done for them? Too much money is being spent on a lost cause? What are your views on their treatment in particular.

I personally do not approve of all the funding they recieve.
I know they need lots of help and attention but I attent a very budget-scraping high school.
It's not welfare status but it's very low on the chain of education although it offers some nice programs.
In short, there simply isn't that much money however a great deal of cash is spent on the LLS program (Learning Life Skills), quite a portion of which could be better used to educate the rest of the school.

I know they have problems.
But honestly, their education will never get them as far as our education will get us, it sounds cruel but it is the hard truth.
I respect helping them and teaching them as far as it can go.
I just feel too much money is spent on these types of 'specialized' programs.

Thoughts?

No wonder nobody responded to this.

I feel very sympathetic to retarded people, and I think they should get funding, but if it's at the point where it hurts non-retarded students, I think that people need to think it over.

A couple I know have an 8 year old kid who is practically brain-dead. Despite having little cognitive capacity the school system is required to send her through a the whole educational process. What a colossal waste of money.

This pathetic creature should be allowed to die. It has to be under constant surveillance or it will likely die. There is hardly any brain function at all – it is practically a Terry Shivo case. The hundreds of thousands of dollars that will end up being spent on her medical care and schooling is absolutely appalling.

Some people say you cannot put a price on a human life, but I say you can. There does come a point where we have to stop flushing money away. If the parents want their vegetable to stay alive (despite needing 24/7 medical care) and even get strapped into a chair in a room with a teacher, then they can pay for that themselves. We should focus resources where they will do the most good – not throw them away because we cannot hurt the feelings of a couple of deluded parents who think a kid with nothing more than a brain stem has a little problem communicating but is otherwise a genius.

They're entitled to the same as everyone else.

They're entitled to the same as everyone else.
That's not the point of this post. I think it's "Are they entitled to more?"

There does come a time where it is simply not worth it.

Sure, help the slightly challenged. Or even the majorly challenged. And I support that.

But if the child is practically brain-dead... no. It's just a lost cause. Unless someone finds a way to repair that. Then we should help them.

I absolutely 110% agree. Let's face facts: education of the mentally retarded is basically a waste of time. The value they get compared to the money spent forms a minute ratio compared to a normal student. They're never going to be able to actually learn anything beyond simple life skills and maybe some kindergarden-level stuff life simple counting. Really, what's the point? Who are we benefitting? Not the school system. Not other students. Not the taxpayers who are making an investment towards the economy and society of tomorrow. It's just bad allocation of funds; education of the retarded doesn't generate any return for the expenditure. Taking away money from the academics, technology, facilities, and extracurriculars of kids who consistently, significantly respond to real education in order to teach all-but-hopeless cases to use a toothbrush is not the way to spend scarce government dollars.

There does come a time where it is simply not worth it.

Sure, help the slightly challenged. Or even the majorly challenged. And I support that.

But if the child is practically brain-dead... no. It's just a lost cause. Unless someone finds a way to repair that. Then we should help them.
Agreed. If there's no hope, there's no point in hurting the people with hope by wasting resources on that person.

The mentally challenged/retarded need more help, and thus they should get more help. It's that simple. No matter what some (ironically enough) idiots might think about their lives being "pointless" or what novel way they may find to belittle their endeavors as "worthless."

That's not the point of this post. I think it's "Are they entitled to more?"

It strikes me as unfair that they would get more than someone else and if they are given more thats money being taken away from someone else looking for better education and such.

Healthcare looks to be the same. Give them the basics but if they become costly to the point that keeping them alive is at the expense of money that could be spent to save someone else they're not entitled to the extra help.

If the mother or father wish to a private school or health care than they should be more than welcome to.

The mentally challenged/retarded need more help, and thus they should get more help. It's that simple. No matter what some (ironically enough) idiots might think about their lives being "pointless" or what novel way they may find to belittle their endeavors as "worthless."

I agree with you, but only to a point. It is not a good idea to spend tons of money on at most teaching someone kindergarten.

I absolutely 110% agree. Let's face facts: education of the mentally retarded is basically a waste of time. The value they get compared to the money spent forms a minute ratio compared to a normal student. They're never going to be able to actually learn anything beyond simple life skills and maybe some kindergarden-level stuff life simple counting. Really, what's the point? Who are we benefitting? Not the school system. Not other students. Not the taxpayers who are making an investment towards the economy and society of tomorrow. It's just bad allocation of funds; education of the retarded doesn't generate any return for the expenditure. Taking away money from the academics, technology, facilities, and extracurriculars of kids who consistently, significantly respond to real education in order to teach all-but-hopeless cases to use a toothbrush is not the way to spend scarce government dollars.

Should less funding be given to those with lower IQ's as I'm sure statistically speaking investment in education for the naturally dumb isn't as cost effective for the naturally smart. So with that logic we should invest only in the cost effective people in society?
It might be a bad allocation of funds but unless you disagree with free education for everyone regardless of what stage of handicap they may have then you have to stick to that, unless you want sharp sepeation and invesment based on early intelligence. Kinda like the 11+ everyone hated.

I agree with you, but only to a point. It is not a good idea to spend tons of money on at most teaching someone kindergarten.

I don't see why not. We should help them come as far as they can. If that be kindergarten or college, or whatever.

I don't see why not. We should help them come as far as they can. If that be kindergarten or college, or whatever.

Without increasing funding, giving one individual more help means someone else will get less help as a result.

I can't help but wonder how many of these opinions would differ if the people offering them had a child or a sibling who was mentally retarded.

I don't see why not. We should help them come as far as they can. If that be kindergarten or college, or whatever.

But why subtract from the funding of people that will get a job to do it?

I can't help but wonder how many of these opinions would differ if the people offering them had a child or a sibling who was mentally retarded.

I just happen to know someone.

Without increasing funding, giving one individual more help means someone else will get less help as a result.

Those who need more help are the ones who should get more help. Those who need less help, well, they should get less help.

I don't see why not. We should help them come as far as they can. If that be kindergarten or college, or whatever.

But by helping someone who cannot ever get past kindergarten we deprive ten people who could have gone to college. there has to be a compromise.

But why subtract from the funding of people that will get a job to do it?

Because we do not value people that way. Or at least, those of us who have a shred of decency in our bodies, do not.

I absolutely 110% agree. Let's face facts: education of the mentally retarded is basically a waste of time. The value they get compared to the money spent forms a minute ratio compared to a normal student. They're never going to be able to actually learn anything beyond simple life skills and maybe some kindergarden-level stuff life simple counting. Really, what's the point? Who are we benefitting? Not the school system. Not other students. Not the taxpayers who are making an investment towards the economy and society of tomorrow. It's just bad allocation of funds; education of the retarded doesn't generate any return for the expenditure. Taking away money from the academics, technology, facilities, and extracurriculars of kids who consistently, significantly respond to real education in order to teach all-but-hopeless cases to use a toothbrush is not the way to spend scarce government dollars.


I have an IQ of 134, that's just shy of the genius range. You don't. Was your education a waste of time and resources?

Because we do not value people that way. Or at least, those of us who have a shred of decency in our bodies, do not.

Who are you to judge decency? Morals are subjective.

Those who need more help are the ones who should get more help. Those who need less help, well, they should get less help.

Seems like incentive to need help. And it discourages the progress of those not needing as much help and they could do more with equal help. And we want to encourage people to be as independent and successful as they can right?

I have an IQ of 134, that's just shy of the genius range. You don't. Was your education a waste of time and resources?

No, as he learned and is (from what I have observed in his posts) reasonably, if not very, intelligent.

But by helping someone who cannot ever get past kindergarten we deprive ten people who could have gone to college.

This is a false dichotomy. Those other ten people need less help. There is nothing to substantiate that they are disadvantaged by those who need more help getting it. Also, I've yet to see presented anything to support this claim that all that much money is plowed into special needs programmes, or that the people in need of them are so numerous that it is an unbearable cost, not to mention anything that explains why it should be an unacceptable cost.

There has to be a compromise.

That is the compromise. If you need less help, you'll get less help. If you need more, you'll get more.

This is a false dichotomy. Those other ten people need less help. There is nothing to substantiate that they are disadvantaged by those who need more help getting it. Also, I've yet to see presented anything to support this claim that all that much money is plowed into special needs programmes, or that the people in need of them are so numerous that it is an unbearable cost, not to mention anything that explains why it should be an unacceptable cost.



That is the compromise. If you need less help, you'll get less help. If you need more, you'll get more.

Even those not needing much help need teachers and classrooms.

Who are you to judge decency? Morals are subjective.

I am me, and I find it indecent that society should value us only on how much we can contribute back to it financially. If you do not, then you truly should think about rejecting your subjective "morality," as it's not even worthy of its moniker.

Should less funding be given to those with lower IQ's as I'm sure statistically speaking investment in education for the naturally dumb isn't as cost effective for the naturally smart. So with that logic we should invest only in the cost effective people in society?
It might be a bad allocation of funds but unless you disagree with free education for everyone regardless of what stage of handicap they may have then you have to stick to that, unless you want sharp sepeation and invesment based on early intelligence. Kinda like the 11+ everyone hated.

This is probably a much harder sell, but yes. I would support separating kids into different tracks or different schools based upon intelligence. Not abandoning the less-intelligent ones or failing them in their education, but setting up a differentiation? Yes.

My support for free education is that it's a) necessary to level the playing field for socioeconomic opportunities and pursuits, (for example, a smart kid from a poor family) and b) an investment in the future society and economy of the country. It's not some socialistic responsibility to society and your fellow man's kids; it's an investment. You can't live in a well-run country if the voters don't know which way is up. You can't run a company without skilled/educated potential employees out there. You can't have good, well-run companies to work and trade with if there's no one around besides you (or your kids, whatever) to run a company profitably.

In the case of smart kids v. average or dumb kids, you need to educate both. Both groups are going to vote, hopefully meaningfully. Both groups have an economic role to play. The smart kids are going to return more value and require more and more expensive education to make that possible, but both groups need education because both are necessary parts of society and the economy. On the other hand, retarded kids just aren't. They can't vote meaningfully. They aren't going to be employers, and probably won't be employees. They don't return value at all, and don't have any spot to fill or role to play.

Basically what I'm saying is that the intelligence gradient that should rightfully to some degree correspond to education money spent does not include retarded kids. In the normal intelligence spectrum, both the high and low levels contribute something, and they all need to be at least adequately educated. Retarded kids fall completely outside of that spectrum, and the education needs that correspond to it, because they are beyond the point where they can absolutely, realistically speaking offer something. So, educate the normal kids sufficiently, educate the high-level kids some more, and don't waste a bunch of money on the retarded ones.

I am me, and I find it indecent that society should value us only on how much we can contribute back to it financially. If you do not, then you truly should think about rejecting your subjective "morality," as it's not even worthy of its moniker.

I consider more than finace. What could someone who is brain-dead contribute at all?

Even those not needing much help need teachers and classrooms.

And there is not a shred of evidence presented that they do not get those because of special needs programmes. In fact, I believe that the other is truer - that it is those who need them that are the first to suffer come budgetary crises.

Those other ten people need less help. There is nothing to substantiate that they are disadvantaged by those who need more help getting it. .

Those 10 others need less help to get to the same place. But given the same support they can advance to univeristys and get masters degrees ect.. So extra help for special needs will harm those who are not special needs.

I am me, and I find it indecent that society should value us only on how much we can contribute back to it financially. If you do not, then you truly should think about rejecting your subjective "morality," as it's not even worthy of its moniker.

What else should you judge it based on? And it isn't just financial, either; it's value in general. Political, societal, technological, whatever. What value is there in making an investment that we know from the outset will return 000?

And there is not a shred of evidence presented that they do not get those because of special needs programmes. In fact, I believe that the other is truer - that it is those who need them that are the first to suffer come budgetary crises.

So we are going to provide our smarter children with a bottom-line education-- and not bring out their abilities-- and yet we will pour money into those children who will not be able to get past kindergarten?

I consider more than finace.

Yes, you consider yourself better, more worthy, and them worse, expendible.

What could someone who is brain-dead contribute at all?

People who are brain-dead are dead. The mentally challenged are not brain-dead. And who are you to judge their contribution?

Yes, you consider yourself better, more worthy, and them worse, expendible.



People who are brain-dead are dead. The mentally challenged are not brain-dead. And who are you to judge their contribution?

1st: No. I am a reasonably-average human being.

2nd: Those who need extra help need it. Those who need quite a bit also need it. And they should have it. But someone who is incapable of doing anything for society should not get it. It only wastes time and money.

So we are going to provide our smarter children with a bottom-line education-- and not bring out their abilities-- and yet we will pour money into those children who will not be able to get past kindergarten?

There is nothing to indicate that this is case. Are you going to prove your claims that smarter kids suffer because we help those in need of help? Why should the smarter need more help, when their smartness implies they need less of it?

And there is not a shred of evidence presented that they do not get those because of special needs programmes. In fact, I believe that the other is truer - that it is those who need them that are the first to suffer come budgetary crises.

Nope. This is admittedly anecdotal evidence, but I'm at a school that lives in a basically perpetual state of budgetary crisis, and the Special Needs budget has remained stable and well-off. As has the football team. Yet the school's screwed-up computer network and relatively tiny Internet connection remain unaided, the wildly successful debate team (which is constantly in the red; the coach has to pay for entry fees out of her own pocket sometimes) gets nada, and the buildings are often filthy and poorly maintenanced. Yet the Special Ed program, the football team, and the renovation plans for the building with the administrator's offices and visitor's area have remained cushily funded. What does that say?

There is nothing to indicate that this is case. Are you going to prove your claims that smarter kids suffer because we help those in need of help? Why should the smarter need more help, when their smartness implies they need less of it?

If you pour lots of education dollars into those who will not be able to return it at all, it's a waste. I say we pour some of our rescources into helping our smart kids be even better, and some into helping our below-average kids becoming smarter. I don't say that we pour funds into helping those who cannot learn much.

1st: No. I am a reasonably-average human being.

I certainly hope you are not representative of the average. I'd like to keep at least a little faith in humanity.

2nd: Those who need extra help need it. Those who need quite a bit also need it. And they should have it. But someone who is incapable of doing anything for society should not get it. It only wastes time and money.

I fart in the general direction of this so called "morality," where those whom we deem "do not do anything for us" are tossed aside, discarded as if they were "worth" less, as garbage.

This is admittedly anecdotal evidence

This is where I stopped reading.

I certainly hope you are not representative of the average. I'd like to keep at least a little faith in humanity.



I fart in the general direction of this so called "morality," where those whom we deem "do not do anything for us" are tossed aside, discarded as if they were "worth" less, as garbage.

1st: What kind of rebuttal is that? *sigh*

2nd: Would you rather have dollars wasted than put to something that wil lbring about a better future?

This is where I stopped reading.

So, don't read the other side's evidence? Not trying to flame, but that's not an acceptable tactic.

But someone who is incapable of doing anything for society should not get it. It only wastes time and money.

Who makes that decision? At what point does that dividing line cross? Should people of lower intelligence be relegate to ditch-digging and bussing tables because a more advanced education for them would offer no benefit to society? Why keep them around at all? They waste valuabe resources like medical care and food. We should just test everyone at age ten and shoot the ones that don't get above a certain benchmark. Then only the intelligent and beneficial members of society will grow up to breed.

But who sets the benchmark?

If you pour lots of education dollars into those who will not be able to return it at all, it's a waste.

Say only people like you who put monetary value on people, and judge them on the basis of that. I do not, and thus do not buy for one second that it is a "waste."

I say we pour some of our rescources into helping our smart kids be even better, and some into helping our below-average kids becoming smarter. I don't say that we pour funds into helping those who cannot learn much.

I see you've still to proove that smarter kids suffer because we help those who need more help.

This is where I stopped reading.

So that you could carry on having an ever-more-personal spat with Pythogria? What a mature form of argument, Fass....

My support for free education is that it's a) necessary to level the playing field for socioeconomic opportunities and pursuits, (for example, a smart kid from a poor family) and b) an investment in the future society and economy of the country. It's not some socialistic responsibility to society and your fellow man's kids; it's an investment. You can't live in a well-run country if the voters don't know which way is up. You can't run a company without skilled/educated potential employees out there. You can't have good, well-run companies to work and trade with if there's no one around besides you (or your kids, whatever) to run a company profitably.

In the case of smart kids v. average or dumb kids, you need to educate both. Both groups are going to vote, hopefully meaningfully. Both groups have an economic role to play. The smart kids are going to return more value and require more and more expensive education to make that possible, but both groups need education because both are necessary parts of society and the economy. On the other hand, retarded kids just aren't. They can't vote meaningfully. They aren't going to be employers, and probably won't be employees. They don't return value at all, and don't have any spot to fill or role to play.

Basically what I'm saying is that the intelligence gradient that should rightfully to some degree correspond to education money spent does not include retarded kids. In the normal intelligence spectrum, both the high and low levels contribute something, and they all need to be at least adequately educated. Retarded kids fall completely outside of that spectrum, and the education needs that correspond to it, because they are beyond the point where they can absolutely, realistically speaking offer something. So, educate the normal kids sufficiently, educate the high-level kids some more, and don't waste a bunch of money on the retarded ones.

My fear is at what age do you decide someone is a "dumb" kid or genious. Some kids for example don't shine at the core subjects like maths/science/English but could be a genious at philosophy but if hes labled as a dumb kid before hes given the chance to excell at a different feild he may be hindered for life.
For me equal education isn't some socialist resboncibility either, but if we don't have some form of equality of opportunity or opportunity for everyone I can't justify a meritocracy. A kid in a "dumb" school trying his best to excell will most likely have less progress than a slacker smart kid given the best funding teachers and enviroment (just seems unfair to me).

I can see the cause for seperation of special needs kids from mainstream education as they can disrupt others, just as baddly behaved kids can but they are still human and our free public services should come to everyone equally.

Institutes based primerally on intelligence levels shouldn't come till university I don't think.

Who makes that decision? At what point does that dividing line cross? Should people of lower intelligence be relegate to ditch-digging and bussing tables because a more advanced education for them would offer no benefit to society? Why keep them around at all? They waste valuabe resources like medical care and food. We should just test everyone at age ten and shoot the ones that don't get above a certain benchmark. Then only the intelligent and beneficial members of society will grow up to breed.

But who sets the benchmark?

I say the benchmark should be "whether or not they are able to go through at least high school".

1st: What kind of rebuttal is that? *sigh*

The only one you deserve.

2nd: Would you rather have dollars wasted than put to something that wil lbring about a better future?

I do not want to live in a future where we discard people, where we abandon those who need us the most.

So, don't read the other side's evidence? Not trying to flame, but that's not an acceptable tactic.

Anecdotal "evidence" is not evidence at all.

So that you could carry on having an ever-more-personal spat with Pythogria? What a mature form of argument, Fass....

Present proper evidence, not some biased cockamamie anecdote that for all I know you just invented. Anecdotal "evidence" is worthless.

Say only people like you who put monetary value on people, and judge them on the basis of that. I do not, and thus do not buy for one second that it is a "waste."



I see you've still to proove that smarter kids suffer because we help those who need more help.

1st: A waste is something which gains no positive returns. Save other budgets for those who are brain-dead. The Education budget is for teaching.

2nd: They do suffer. They are not the best they could be.

Now, again, I am NOT saying we should not help those who need a bit of help. I support helping those who are a good bit below-average. But those who wil lreturn nothing should be dealt with using a budget specifically for that. Education is for educating.

The only one you deserve.



I do not want to live in a future where we discard people, where we abandon those who need us the most.
1st: And you base that on...?*

2nd: I have stated before that we are not discarding people. We are using a different budget for them.

*If you're trying to provoke an angry response, you are not having an effect. To let you know.

It strikes me as unfair that they would get more than someone else and if they are given more thats money being taken away from someone else looking for better education and such.

Healthcare looks to be the same. Give them the basics but if they become costly to the point that keeping them alive is at the expense of money that could be spent to save someone else they're not entitled to the extra help.

If the mother or father wish to a private school or health care than they should be more than welcome to.
sigh.
Someone looking for better education can get better education if he really wants it. Someone can help himself. But someone with mental retardation may not be able to help himself. He needs more help and should get more help. Should I wipe your ass because I wipe my granma's ass every now and then? She gets more help than others and obviously that's not fair.

"Give THEM the basics..." You mean that YOU are entitled to extra help if you got e.g. cancer but THEY (mentally retarded, I suppose) are not?

I do not want to live in a future where we discard people, where we abandon those who need us the most.

If we abandon support for the best of our society our countries progress is likely to halter. I'm not sure if you're one of those people typically critical of the government or other important indiviuals, but just imagine who our best and brightest would be if we gave them little to no help when they were young purely because they have the capabilty of doing well on their own.

1st: A waste is something which gains no positive returns. Save other budgets for those who are brain-dead.

The brain-dead are dead. The mentally challenged are not brain-dead.

The Education budget is for teaching.

Yes, and that includes those who need to be taught more.

2nd: They do suffer. They are not the best they could be.

That's not any proof of suffering, nor is it proof that diverting funds in such a manner would help them, nor is it in any way an argument for abandoning special needs children.

Now, again, I am NOT saying we should not help those who need a bit of help. I support helping those who are a good bit below-average. But those who wil lreturn nothing should be dealt with using a budget specifically for that. Education is for educating.

So, now that you've realised the dastardliness of your suggestion to leave these kids out in the rain, you invent a "special budget." Where does the money for that come from? You do not say, because it's a just way for you to be able to swallow what you are suggesting, that this "special budget" would be nil.

1st: A waste is something which gains no positive returns. Save other budgets for those who are brain-dead. The Education budget is for teaching.

2nd: They do suffer. They are not the best they could be.

Now, again, I am NOT saying we should not help those who need a bit of help. I support helping those who are a good bit below-average. But those who wil lreturn nothing should be dealt with using a budget specifically for that. Education is for educating.
Proof please

My fear is at what age do you decide someone is a "dumb" kid or genious.

Somewhere (or somewhen, I suppose) around high school. By that point, kids have generally sifted out and shown potential, or not. It's when we decide things like IB/AP v. honors v. regular, college v. career track, etc. anyway.

Some kids for example don't shine at the core subjects like maths/science/English but could be a genious at philosophy but if hes labled as a dumb kid before hes given the chance to excell at a different feild he may be hindered for life.

Which I absolutely agree is a problem - one of the requirements of a more meritocratic system would be that you have subjects that don't fall into the core set, so that kids could have every chance to demonstrate some potential above the normal.

For me equal education isn't some socialist resboncibility either, but if we don't have some form of equality of opportunity or opportunity for everyone I can't justify a meritocracy. A kid in a "dumb" school trying his best to excell will most likely have less progress than a slacker smart kid given the best funding teachers and enviroment (just seems unfair to me).

This is where even I think what I'm saying is harsh - but that works out right too. In this case, it's about intelligence, not hard work. No matter how hard you work, it's just brilliance that's going to invent or discover something. Now, the hard-working kid might end up a great business leader - but by virtue of the very quality of hard work that's relevant in their case, they're already set up for that. The slacker may or may not end up doing something great - but he'll need education to do it, or even get the opportunity to. We need those ideas, and education is more important to the people who make them than the hardworking but average ones, who will persevere their way through to become something important but uninspired anyway.

I can see the cause for seperation of special needs kids from mainstream education as they can disrupt others, just as baddly behaved kids can but they are still human and our free public services should come to everyone equally.

Sure, they're still human, but that doesn't mean we need to waste money trying for years and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to get them to a mid-kindergarden level. If I didn't think they were human, I'd be telling you to mandate abortion or sterilization or something horrible like that.

The brain-dead are dead. The mentally challenged are not brain-dead.



Yes, and that includes those who need to be taught more.



That's not any proof of suffering, nor is it proof that diverting funds in such a manner would help them, nor is it in any way an argument for abandoning special needs children.



So, now that you've realised the dastardliness of your suggestion to leave these kids out in the rain, you invent a "special budget." Where does the money for that come from? You do not say, because it's a just way for you to be able to swallow what you are suggesting, that this "special budget" would be nil.


1st: Brain-dead means "very very very mentally challenged".

2nd: Yes. To a point.

3rd: I never said we should abandon special-needs children. I said we should not pour too many dollars there.

4th: Who said I's abandon them? and I think (at least in the US) the military budget is a bit too large. Take the money from there.

Proof please

On?

If we abandon support for the best of our society our countries progress is likely to halter.

I do not see it as any sort of "progress" to jetison "difficult people." That sort of "progress" we can, and should very well, do without.

I'm not sure if you're one of those people typically critical of the government or other important indiviuals, but just imagine who our best and brightest would be if we gave them little to no help when they were young purely because they have the capabilty of doing well on their own.

And under the glossy surface, we'd have all those people who we sacrificed for this "progress." I don't buy this fascist elitism, nor do I buy that the mentally challenged are holding us back in any way.

I say the benchmark should be "whether or not they are able to go through at least high school".
WTF! I thought I had an idea what you meant with your previous posts but but but but




I'm speechless.




Holy shit.




*shudders*

sigh.
Someone looking for better education can get better education if he really wants it. Someone can help himself. But someone with mental retardation may not be able to help himself. He needs more help and should get more help. Should I wipe your ass because I wipe my granma's ass every now and then? She gets more help than others and obviously that's not fair.

"Give THEM the basics..." You mean that YOU are entitled to extra help if you got e.g. cancer but THEY (mentally retarded, I suppose) are not?

I've speaking of government help here. If the government offered free ass wipping services I'd hope they offered the service to me as well otherwise I'm losing out. Its unfortunate that special needed individuals might not be able to make the same gains as others but that doesn't mean we should halt the progress of everyone else to keep that special need person on an equal basis as everyone else.

Primerally this seems to be an argument for equality of opportunity vs outcome.

Present proper evidence, not some biased cockamamie anecdote that for all I know you just invented. Anecdotal "evidence" is worthless.

You made a categorical assertion as to who you believe loses out when the spectre of budget cuts comes calling. I presented a counterexample. Yes, it's anecdotal; that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

Also, please refrain from intimating that I'm a liar. It's rude in the extreme.

And under the glossy surface, we'd have all those people who we sacrificed for this "progress." I don't buy this fascist elitism, nor do I buy that the mentally challenged are holding us back in any way.

They personally aren't, but money diverted away from the kids who benefit from it most and do the most with it does.

I've speaking of government help here. If the government offered free ass wipping services I'd hope they offered the service to me as well otherwise I'm losing out. Its unfortunate that special needed individuals might not be able to make the same gains as others but that doesn't mean we should halt the progress of everyone else to keep that special need person on an equal basis as everyone else.

Primerally this seems to be an argument for equality of opportunity vs outcome.
Ok, when I'm not wiping my granma's ass, someone else (government paid) is. Does this change something?

Give me a single eveidence that we are "halting the progress".

I do not see it as any sort of "progress" to jetison "difficult people." That sort of "progress" we can, and should very well, do without.
.

We can do without economic progress or ellite interlectual progress?

1st: Brain-dead means "very very very mentally challenged".

No. Brain-dead is per definition dead. That is the medical definition. That is the legal definition. At least, where I live it is. So stop trying to depict the mentally challenged in such a flawed light.

3rd: I never said we should abandon special-needs children. I said we should not pour too many dollars there.

And what is "too many?" I am of the opinion we spend too little on them.

4th: Who said I's abandon them? and I think (at least in the US) the military budget is a bit too large. Take the money from there.

That's not likely to happen in a place like the US. And why can't we take the money from the military to give the smart kids, instead of taking it from the mentally challenged? Why can't we take it from anywhere else but the mentally challenged?

Ok, when I'm not wiping my granma's ass, someone else (government paid) is. Does this change something?

Just that when I get to your grandmas age I want the same service the governement has used tax payers money to provide her. Its only fair.

No. Brain-dead is per definition dead. That is the medical definition. That is the legal definition. At least, where I live it is. So stop trying to depict the mentally challenged in such a flawed light.



And what is "too many?" I am of the opinion we spend too little on them.



That's not likely to happen in a place like the US. And why can't we take the money from the military to give the smart kids, instead of taking it from the mentally challenged? Why can't we take it from anywhere else but the mentally challenged?

1st: Well, where I live it's different. Misunderstanding.

2nd: You never replied.

3rd: I believe we spend too little on our gifted children.

4th: Well ,then I would gladly pay a bt more taxes to know that children in my country are being taught better. Then again, you really can't take money from Canada's military.

We can do without economic progress or ellite interlectual progress?

If that means the suffering of those who need us the most, of those who are weakest in society, then yes, such "progress" we can do without.

Of course, you offer no evidence whatsoever that such "ellite interlectual progress" or "economic progress" would come from abandoning these kids, nor do you offer any evidence that they have had, or will have, any sort of adverse effect on our society, nor do you give any argument as to why such an effect would be unacceptable, should it exist, which I highly doubt.

Just that when I get to your grandmas age I want the same service the governement has used tax payers money to provide her. Its only fair.
Even if you don't need it?

1st: Well, where I live it's different. Misunderstanding.

I doubt it is. Brain-dead is a medical definition. The mentally challenged are in no way brain-dead.

2nd: You never replied.

To what?

3rd: I believe we spend too little on our gifted children.

You offer no proof as to that being the case, nor do you offer any proof that special needs programmes are the cause for it.

4th: Well ,then I would gladly pay a bt more taxes to know that children in my country are being taught better. Then again, you really can't take money from Canada's military.

Yes, you can. You can take the money from the paychecks of politicians. You can take the money you save from getting rid of the governor general (or whatever that monarchical representative is called). You can take money from everywhere, but for some reason you want us to take it from those who need it the most, and who are most vulnerable - handicapped children.

I doubt it is. Brain-dead is a medical definition. The mentally challenged are in no way brain-dead.



To what?



You offer no proof as to that being the case, nor do you offer any proof that special needs programmes are the cause for it.



Yes, you can. You can take the money from the paychecks of politicians. You can take the money you save from getting rid of the governor general (or whatever that monarchical representative is called). You can take money from everywhere, but for some reason you want us to take it from those who need it the most, and who are most vulnerable - handicapped children.


1st: Here, misunderstanding, let's just drop this, OK?

2nd: Let's just drop this too.

3rd: Note the word, "believe".

4th: True, true. But most, if not all, of that serves a purpose. Money put into those who will never complete grade 2 does not.

If that means the suffering of those who need us the most, of those who are weakest in society, then yes, such "progress" we can do without.

Of course, you offer no evidence whatsoever that such "ellite interlectual progress" or "economic progress" would come from abandoning these kids, nor do you offer any evidence that they have had, or will have, any sort of adverse effect on our society, not do you give any argument as to why such an effect would be unacceptable.

I'm of the opinion of giving everyone the same funding, if an indiviual doesn't make the best of it and as a result "suffers" from not taking advantage of the help their given my sympathy is low. But even so we're not gonna let people starve if they mess themselves up really baddly, we're just not gonna hold people hands every step of their life to make sure their fine.

I'm not talking of abandoing the kids, just giving them equal funding. And let me put it this way. Every extra dollar/pound that is given to the needy detracts from the overall funding for everyone else. If their were 1000 kids needing 1000 extra dollars more than everyone else thats a million dollars every year that could be used to raise the overall funding for everyone.

And if we look at the countrys best scientists in school, would you deny that with more funding they can achieve more progress and better results. Well the 1000 kids getting extra help means that a million dollars less is going to the progress of those kids. That will eventually lead to less economic progress and less interlectual progress.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/upload/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
You are not treading on new ground with this idea. Many before you have questioned why bother supporting, spending public money, on the disabled.

I suggest you think if you really want to support something as tainted historically as this.

not do you give any argument as to why such an effect would be unacceptable.

It's common sense, speaking from any of the three primary moral-political viewpoints.

Elitist or maximum-centric: more money sent to the education of the best and brightest increases or heightens the pinnacle of human achievement.

Populist or minimum-centric: Technological advancement, economic strength, and societal efficacy increase the minimum and make life better for the poorest, like medicine and civil/public works engineering for quality and span of life back in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Utilitarian: The maximum value produced and the maximum good done for as many people as possible is served by fostering society and the economy, which provide benefit for everyone. A single small increase in standard of living replicates its beneficial effect over everyone, as does increased economic strength or a new invention. These things achieve the greatest net good.

3rd: I believe we spend too little on our gifted children.
The thing is gifted children don't need help. Being gifted they can work themselves to get an education, pay their own way. If they were sufficiently gifted they might even be able to educate themselves independantly of the education system, i.e. with no cost to the government, and by extension the tax payer.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/upload/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
You are not treading on new ground with this idea. Many before you have questioned why bother supporting, spending public money, on the disabled.

I suggest you think if you really want to support something as tainted historically as this.

Bullshit. "Tainted historically"? How stupid. The USSR had a welfare system. Is that my argument against welfare? That Stalin liked welfare? No! That's propoganda. Historical association with things or people generally considered bad means precisely jack shit.

The thing is gifted children don't need help. Being gifted they can work themselves to get an education, pay their own way. If they were sufficiently gifted they might even be able to educate themselves independantly of the education system, i.e. with no cost to the government, and by extension the tax payer.

To better use their abilities, we should spend money on harder work to tax their avilities and really make them learn. And what if they can't pay?

The thing is gifted children don't need help. Being gifted they can work themselves to get an education, pay their own way. If they were sufficiently gifted they might even be able to educate themselves independantly of the education system, i.e. with no cost to the government, and by extension the tax payer.
Bullshit. If that was true, we wouldn't need a college system. Both extrema need considerable support from the taxpayer.

1st: Here, misunderstanding, let's just drop this, OK?

Not until you admit that they are not brain-dead. The way you tried to portray them was unjust, wrong, and demeaning.

3rd: Note the word, "believe".

You can do that in church. If you want to cut funding from people who are so needy, you'd better come with something better than pseudo-fascism and social-darwinist eugenics-lite.

4th: True, true. But most, if not all, of that serves a purpose. Money put into those who will never complete grade 2 does not.

Again, who are you to judge this "purpose?" What makes a mentally challenged child reaching second grade as something not to attach value to, but the Queen having a representative in Canada as something "purposeful?" Why is there no purpose in helping that child?

Bullshit. "Tainted historically"? How stupid. The USSR had a welfare system. Is that my argument against welfare? That Stalin liked welfare? No! That's propoganda. Historical association with things or people generally considered bad means precisely jack shit.
Bullshit? I suggest you take a gander at history. Where your arguments have led. No one seriously claims that the welfare system led to the deaths of millions of people.


On the other hand, your line of arguments, taken to its logical conclusion, led to the deaths of millions and the compulsory sterilization of many more.

To better use their abilities, we should spend money on harder work to tax their avilities and really make them learn. And what if they can't pay?
What if they, after all the years spent in universities, want to become a fisherman or a gardener, an artist etc?

The thing is gifted children don't need help. Being gifted they can work themselves to get an education, pay their own way. If they were sufficiently gifted they might even be able to educate themselves independantly of the education system, i.e. with no cost to the government, and by extension the tax payer.

Not necessarily, and even if they do manage to struggle on with minimal assistance, are they reaching their full potential? No. Sure, allocate dollars based on 'need'; you'll end up with the average. The low brought up to the middle at the expense of the high being brought down to the same place. It's just another badly disguised feeler for communism, and another way maximal entropy enters our society.

Everyone will be special - so that no one will be.

Even if you don't need it?

Depends on if the service is essential or not. I wouldn't expect to have surgery just because someone else had surgery, but if its something I may want but its being denyed to me because I'm not as needy as someone else thats unfair, especially considering theres a good chance its coming from the better off peoples tax money. hypathetically speaking. There may be the odd example when this is not the case.

but if its something I may want but its being denyed to me because I'm not as needy as someone else thats unfair
Just to be sure, what you mean by "needy"?

Not until you admit that they are not brain-dead. The way you tried to portray them was unjust, wrong, and demeaning.



You can do that in church. If you want to cut funding from people who are so needy, you'd better come with something better than pseudo-fascism and social-darwinist eugenics-lite.



Again, who are you to judge this "purpose?" What makes a mentally challenged child reaching second grade as something not to attach value to, but the Queen having a representative in Canada as something "purposeful?" Why is there no purpose in helping that child?

1st: I never insulted them in the first place, or at very least, if I did, I apologize. Not all of them are brain-dead. All I was proposing was, "take money out of the very, very challenged and put it with gifted children", not, "everyone disadvantaged should have nothing".

2nd: They aren't needy. You can "live" without an education.

3rd: There is not much purpose in helping the child with tons of money because he/she will not be able to contribute to society.

(And I actually think the whole Queen thing is a waste too, but, meh.)

What if they, after all the years spent in universities, want to become a fisherman or a gardener, an artist etc?

Then so be it.

Then so be it.
Money well spent?

Money well spent?

At very least they produce something.

Just to be sure, what you mean by "needy"?

heh sorry bad word I know. Someone who needs more help than avarage.

Bullshit? I suggest you take a gander at history. Where your arguments have led. No one seriously claims that the welfare system led to the deaths of millions of people.

On the other hand, your line of arguments, taken to its logical conclusion, led to the deaths of millions and the compulsory sterilization of many more.

"Logical conclusion"? Where do you get that term? Try irrational overextrapolation. There's nothing logical about exterminating a group of people. Those people have a right to life; the government had no right to take that away from them. By the same token, those people have no right to a free education; it has to be provided to them as an investment by taxpayers. If it is judged that that is a bad investment, and that funding is reduced or eliminated, there is no 'right' that makes that judgement and subsequent action wrong.

Extrapolation is not logic, and reason does not follow slopes. It follows clearly delineated lines. There is no logical relationship between deciding not to waste money on the education of the retarded, and deciding to kill them en masse.

I'm of the opinion of giving everyone the same funding, if an indiviual doesn't make the best of it and as a result "suffers" from not taking advantage of the help their given my sympathy is low. But even so we're not gonna let people starve if they mess themselves up really baddly, we're just not gonna hold people hands every step of their life to make sure their fine.

So what you are is basically a jerk? I'm sorry, but that's the only way I know to describe someone who says that those who need more help should not get it because they need more help.

I'm not talking of abandoing the kids, just giving them equal funding.

Which is ludicrous as they need more funding. You are talking of abandoning them.

And let me put it this way. Every extra dollar/pound that is given to the needy detracts from the overall funding for everyone else. If their were 1000 kids needing 1000 extra dollars more than everyone else thats a million dollars every year that could be used to raise the overall funding for everyone.

The needs of the many of do not outweigh the needs of the few, especially if the many do not need in the same way, or at all.

And if we look at the countrys best scientists in school, would you deny that with more funding they can achieve more progress and better results.

Again, I fart in the general direction of such "progress" if it comes at the expense of the weakest in society. I find despicable that you would sacrifice these children for material gain.

Well the 1000 kids getting extra help means that a million dollars less is going to the progress of those kids. That will eventually lead to less economic progress and less interlectual progress.

What about the money that goes into the military? What about the money that goes into corporate welfare? What about the money that goes everywhere else? Why do we need to take the money of those that need it the most?

To better use their abilities, we should spend money on harder work to tax their avilities and really make them learn. And what if they can't pay?
If they can't pay they can get a job. A gifted child should have no difficulty getting a crappy part time minimum wage job to pay for their education.

And of course we should spend money helping the gifted children reach their potential, but not at the expence of the special needs programmes.

"Logical conclusion"? Where do you get that term? Try irrational overextrapolation. There's nothing logical about exterminating a group of people. Those people have a right to life; the government had no right to take that away from them. By the same token, those people have no right to a free education; it has to be provided to them as an investment by taxpayers. If it is judged that that is a bad investment, and that funding is reduced or eliminated, there is no 'right' that makes that judgement and subsequent action wrong.

Extrapolation is not logic, and reason does not follow slopes. It follows clearly delineated lines. There is no logical relationship between deciding not to waste money on the education of the retarded, and deciding to kill them en masse.
History, again, says that it has happened, and tends to happen.

Oh, and people do have a right to a free education. Read the UNDHR.

At very least they produce something.
Well, my friend's dother, who wouldn't get through highschool, works as a gardener. Do you we have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to educate some brainy kid to do the same work? If productive is so important shouldn't we except that they produce as much as they possibly could?

Depends on if the service is essential or not. I wouldn't expect to have surgery just because someone else had surgery, but if its something I may want but its being denyed to me because I'm not as needy as someone else thats unfair, especially considering theres a good chance its coming from the better off peoples tax money. hypathetically speaking. There may be the odd example when this is not the case.

I absolutely agree. Are we now to punish people for being bright and talented, and reward them for being stupid? That's what the "they don't need it" argument comes to. It's a path with 0 as its goal. Need is not a claim on ability.

If they can't pay they can get a job. A gifted child should have no difficulty getting a crappy part time minimum wage job to pay for their education.

And of course we should spend money helping the gifted children reach their potential, but not at the expence of the special needs programmes.

Yes, minimum wage is really going to help. Really, it won't.

And the special needs programs serving those who are mentally challenged don't need to be cut. Those serving those who do not learn do.

Bullshit. If that was true, we wouldn't need a college system. Both extrema need considerable support from the taxpayer.

When I said sufficiently gifted I thought it would be understood that the child in question was some manner of super genius, on the level of Stephen Hawking or possibly above for example.

heh sorry bad word I know. Someone who needs more help than avarage.
Ok, then you should, of course, get the service. But isn't this against your opinion? Now YOU are getting services everyone doesn't need (and get). You are the one who needs extra help.

Money well spent?

Universitys are partly funded by the student and I think society and our country is much better off for having someone educated to such a high level. Even if the person just becomes a fisherman its sad hes not using his full potential but many will and they're the ones who write amazing novels and run our country and companys.

History, again, says that it has happened, and tends to happen.

That doesn't make it logical, nor does it make my position on the issue we're talking about equivalent.

Oh, and people do have a right to a free education. Read the UNDHR.

ROFLOL. You're assuming I consider the UN to be a fit judge of whether my hamburger is done.

Well, my friend's dother, who wouldn't get through highschool, works as a gardener. Do you we have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to educate some brainy kid to do the same work? If productive is so important shouldn't we except that they produce as much as they possibly could?

(Actually, just becasue you never finished high school doesn't make you stupid.)

But the potential was theirs they merely chose not to use it.

1st: I never insulted them in the first place, or at very least, if I did, I apologize. Not all of them are brain-dead. All I was proposing was, "take money out of the very, very challenged and put it with gifted children", not, "everyone disadvantaged should have nothing".

So, take the money from those that need it the most?

2nd: They aren't needy. You can "live" without an education.

So can the smart ones, if you're going to go down that road. Apparently, education raises the value of life of the normal children. Why should it not of those who are challenged?

3rd: There is not much purpose in helping the child with tons of money because he/she will not be able to contribute to society.

Say only people who only see "purpose" in "contribution to society," and nothing else. How would these children not contribute? And why should "contribution to society" matter? And why should we judge people thusly?

(And I actually think the whole Queen thing is a waste too, but, meh.)

Then advocate taking the money from her, rather than from people much more needy, and IMHO deserving.

That doesn't make it logical, nor does it make my position the issue we're talking about equivalent.

Actually, it does make it logical. Other groups in the past have called for, using the same line of logic you are using, a refusal to support the mentally disabled. The same contempt for human life is visable in both their and your arguments. I suggest that you think if you want to hold life in such contempt.

ROFLOL. You're assuming I consider the UN to be a fit judge of whether my hamburger is done.

Assuming you live in the United States, it is a legally binding resolution and hense is considered to be law. In the United States, the government has an obligation to provide a free education to everyone. Its the same for other countries as well.

Yes, minimum wage is really going to help. Really, it won't.

And the special needs programs serving those who are mentally challenged don't need to be cut. Those serving those who do not learn do.
I think you'll find that earning minimum wage helps a lot more than not earning anything.

Who are those who do not learn?

So, take the money from those that need it the most?



So can the smart ones, if you're going to go down that road. Apparently, education raises the value of life of the normal children. Why should it not of those who are challenged?



Say only people who only see "purpose" in "contribution to society," and nothing else. How would these children not contribute? And why should "contribution to society" matter? And why should we judge people thusly?



Then advocate taking the money from her, rather than from people much more needy, and IMHO deserving.


1st: No. Take it from those that aren't using it well. That doesn't include those that can still learn a good amount of knowledge (junior high).

2nd: Because they cannot use it. (Those who are challenged that can should get it, though.)

3rd: Why would it matter? Here, lets say nobody contributed anything, at all. Socity would fall directly apart.

4th: Actually, yeah, that is a good idea. But that's not enough money to fully fund this.

When I said sufficiently gifted I thought it would be understood that the child in question was some manner of super genius, on the level of Stephen Hawking or possibly above for example.
Who went to oxford.

Universitys are partly funded by the student and I think society and our country is much better off for having someone educated to such a high level. Even if the person just becomes a fisherman its sad hes not using his full potential but many will and they're the ones who write amazing novels and run our country and companys.
Around here universities are free. And the reason is: "society and our country is much better off for having someone educated to such a high level" ;)
So we agree on that one.

I think you'll find that earning minimum wage helps a lot more than not earning anything.

Who are those who do not learn?

Well, it helps, but it's not enough and it's better for it to be paid by omeone with the money.

And an example is on the first page, below my first post in this topic.

Who are those who do not learn?

He tried it earlier with calling them "brain-dead." He wants to make us believe that these are not children, but worthless empty shells that we lug around because, well, that's the only way he can justify what he wants us to do with them - by dehumanising them, by reducing them as close to an inanimate object as possible.

I'm somewhat conflicted. On one hand, I can't bring myself to support eugenics and such. I would surely be inhumane if I called for denying them help and it would certainly go against my anarchist views to favor such hierarchies. On the other hand, my experiences with Nietzsche have given me much reason to doubt such feelings. I'm tempted to wonder if we would be better off discarding this sentimentality concerning the mentally handicapped and letting nature take its course, as dreadful as that may sound.

I can't help but wonder how many of these opinions would differ if the people offering them had a child or a sibling who was mentally retarded.
I find myself wondering that as well. If they did, they would know that none of these people (yes, they are still people, contrary to what several people seem to think) are "brain dead".

The United States currently has laws ensuring a "free and adequite education in the least restrictive of environments" for all students.

These (http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html) are the people who are served by IDEA and OSEP

Everyone has the right to achieve their potential. If that potential is to live on their own and sweep floors at McDonalds, so be it. They deserve the help required to get to that point. It is not a drain of resources any more than it is a drain of resources to educate a "normal" child.

He tried it earlier with calling them "brain-dead." He wants to make us believe that these are not children, but worthless empty shells that we lug around because, well, that's the only way he can justify what he wants us to do with them - by dehumanising them, by reducing them as close to an inanimate object as possible.

You simply did not understand my post.

They are humans, of course. But they cannot use an education, and thus they don't need it.

Why should we, as a societ, invest money in something with a guaranteed zero return?

No, I'm not implying cutting funds for the education of all retards, just the ones who could not possibly support themselves (by getting a job, and thus repaying society). There are others that could accomplish this, who would merit an investment.

And about the morals: I REFUSE TO LIVE AS A SERVANT OF THE RETARDED. I exist only for myself. That is my morality. (If you disagree with this, please allow me to make a fool of you by getting in an argument with me)
Besides, there are other people like Fass who care deeply for the retarded and would make sure they had enough money to live (you would be willing to pay out of your own pocket after all those remarks, right?).

And the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone: IT HURTS TAXPAYERS!! even if it doesn't hurt students.

Then the grandma comments: The grandma *surely* has been paying social security, so it is absolutely fair for her to get free help with no intent of repayment - she has already paid.

This argument is totally unrelated to "dumb" people - they will likely repay their debts. Saying that only shows your dumb-ness.

Who went to oxford.
Stephen Hawking was just an example. You seem to be having trouble with the idea of this hypothetical person who could educate him/herself.

Why should we, as a societ, invest money in something with a guaranteed zero return?

No, I'm not implying cutting funds for the education of all retards, just the ones who could not possibly support themselves (by getting a job, and thus repaying society). There are others that could accomplish this, who would merit an investment.

And about the morals: I REFUSE TO LIVE AS A SERVANT OF THE RETARDED. I exist only for myself. That is my morality. (If you disagree with this, please allow me to make a fool of you by getting in an argument with me)
Besides, there are other people like Fass who care deeply for the retarded and would make sure they had enough money to live (you would be willing to pay out of your own pocket after all those remarks, right?).

And the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone: IT HURTS TAXPAYERS!! even if it doesn't hurt students.

Then the grandma comments: The grandma *surely* has been paying social security, so it is absolutely fair for her to get free help with no intent of repayment - she has already paid.

This argument is totally unrelated to "dumb" people - they will likely repay their debts. Saying that only shows your dumb-ness.


So you agree with me?

Actually, it does make it logical. Other groups in the past have called for, using the same line of logic you are using, a refusal to support the mentally disabled. The same contempt for human life is visable in both their and your arguments. I suggest that you think if you want to hold life in such contempt.

I don't hold life in contempt. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd say that he who says that purpose of one person's life is to support the flaws of a weaker person is the one who holds life in contempt. I live for myself, and think that the true, moral purpose of life is to maximize potential and achievement. That's contempt for life? And I'm very much offended by being effectively called a Nazi sympathizer.

Just because the general path of logic is the same, doesn't mean the place they took it is logical. Understand this: Exterminating people was not rational, and was not a warranted extrapolation of the position I'm espousing. Period. They acted irrationally and not in their own interests, violated the rights of others massively, initiated the use of force in a non-defensive or -retributive context, and justified their actions with a pile of irrational, illogical, factually incorrect crap. The fact that they hijacked legitimate arguments for a completely different issue to try to legitimize their activities in no way reflects upon that argument. You're making the "association implies equivalency" mistake.

Assuming you live in the United States, it is a legally binding resolution and hense is considered to be law. In the United States, the government has an obligation to provide a free education to everyone. Its the same for other countries as well.

[sigh] And that doesn't make it a right. It makes it a law. Just because legalities written by a government say something is a right doesn't mean it is. Also, the UNDHR isn't legally binding. It's a declaration of the UN's beliefs, not a mandate that its components be implemented as universal and legally binding directives. If that were so, 90% of the world would be in violation.

1st: No. Take it from those that aren't using it well. That doesn't include those that can still learn a good amount of knowledge (junior high).

I've already stated I do not share the sentiment that it is not used well, and you have failed to convince me that it is.

2nd: Because they cannot use it. (Those who are challenged that can should get it, though.)

"Cannot use" in what sense? The sense you would like? Well, fuck that!

3rd: Why would it matter? Here, lets say nobody contributed anything, at all. Socity would fall directly apart.

It would fall apart because we cut the mentally challenged some slack? Please. :rolleyes:

4th: Actually, yeah, that is a good idea. But that's not enough money to fully fund this.

I don't think you understand how much money the Queen gets. I don't think you understand how much corporate welfare is doled out. I guarantee you it's much more than we (well, we have a royal family, too) spend on special needs programmes. Special needs programmes are a piss in the ocean compared to what else we spend our money on. You've yet to argue for why we should take the money from there.

I've already stated I do not share the sentiment that it is not used well, and you have failed to convince me that it is.



"Cannot use" in what sense? The sense you would like? Well, fuck that!



It would fall apart because we cut the mentally challenged some slack? Please. :rolleyes:



I don't think you understand how much money the Queen gets. I don't think you understand how much corporate welfare is doled out. I guarantee you it's much more than we (well, we have a royal family, too) spend on special needs programmes. Special needs programmes are a piss in the ocean compared to what else we spend our money on. You've yet to argue for why we should take the money from there.


As this argument has degraded into anger and swearing from Fass's side, and he does not seem to want a civil debate, I suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

Why should we, as a societ, invest money in something with a guaranteed zero return?

No, I'm not implying cutting funds for the education of all retards, just the ones who could not possibly support themselves (by getting a job, and thus repaying society). There are others that could accomplish this, who would merit an investment.

And about the morals: I REFUSE TO LIVE AS A SERVANT OF THE RETARDED. I exist only for myself. That is my morality. (If you disagree with this, please allow me to make a fool of you by getting in an argument with me)
Besides, there are other people like Fass who care deeply for the retarded and would make sure they had enough money to live (you would be willing to pay out of your own pocket after all those remarks, right?).

And the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone: IT HURTS TAXPAYERS!! even if it doesn't hurt students.

Then the grandma comments: The grandma *surely* has been paying social security, so it is absolutely fair for her to get free help with no intent of repayment - she has already paid.

This argument is totally unrelated to "dumb" people - they will likely repay their debts. Saying that only shows your dumb-ness.
Maybe you havent' realised that you can't choose where your tax money goes.

And if you had read the whole threaf you would have noticed that repayment is only one viewpoint on the issue.

Why should we, as a societ, invest money in something with a guaranteed zero return?

No, I'm not implying cutting funds for the education of all retards, just the ones who could not possibly support themselves (by getting a job, and thus repaying society). There are others that could accomplish this, who would merit an investment.

And about the morals: I REFUSE TO LIVE AS A SERVANT OF THE RETARDED. I exist only for myself. That is my morality. (If you disagree with this, please allow me to make a fool of you by getting in an argument with me)
Besides, there are other people like Fass who care deeply for the retarded and would make sure they had enough money to live (you would be willing to pay out of your own pocket after all those remarks, right?).

And the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone: IT HURTS TAXPAYERS!! even if it doesn't hurt students.

Then the grandma comments: The grandma *surely* has been paying social security, so it is absolutely fair for her to get free help with no intent of repayment - she has already paid.

This argument is totally unrelated to "dumb" people - they will likely repay their debts. Saying that only shows your dumb-ness.
If you exist only for yourself then why do you care how society invests it's time effort and money? What does it matter to you if anything hurts the taxpayers? 'Dumb' people repaying debts? Why do you even mention it, since you exist only for yourself the debts of others, regardless of their intelligence, would surely mean nothing to you?

Why should we, as a societ, invest money in something with a guaranteed zero return?

No, I'm not implying cutting funds for the education of all retards, just the ones who could not possibly support themselves (by getting a job, and thus repaying society). There are others that could accomplish this, who would merit an investment.

And about the morals: I REFUSE TO LIVE AS A SERVANT OF THE RETARDED. I exist only for myself. That is my morality. (If you disagree with this, please allow me to make a fool of you by getting in an argument with me)
Besides, there are other people like Fass who care deeply for the retarded and would make sure they had enough money to live (you would be willing to pay out of your own pocket after all those remarks, right?).

And the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone: IT HURTS TAXPAYERS!! even if it doesn't hurt students.

Then the grandma comments: The grandma *surely* has been paying social security, so it is absolutely fair for her to get free help with no intent of repayment - she has already paid.

This argument is totally unrelated to "dumb" people - they will likely repay their debts. Saying that only shows your dumb-ness.

So wait, you want to live in a society, but when it comes to pitching in and helping society and people in society, you'll go "me, me, me, me, me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My taxmoney, me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

As this argument has degraded into anger and swearing from Fass's side, and he does not seem to want a civil debate, I suggest that we simply agree to disagree.
I'd also want to know what are your thoughts about all the taxpayers money that goes to royal family and corporate welfare.

I don't hold life in contempt. Quite the opposite, in fact. And I'm very much offended by being effectively called a Nazi sympathizer.

Just because the general path of logic is the same, doesn't mean the place they took it is logical. Understand this: Exterminating people was not rational, and was not a warranted extrapolation of the position I'm espousing. Period. They acted irrationally and not in their own interests, violated the rights of others massively, initiated the use of force in a non-defensive or -retributive context, and justified their actions with a pile of irrational, illogical, factually incorrect crap. The fact that they hijacked legitimate arguments for a completely different issue to try to legitimize their activities in no way reflects upon that argument. You're making the "association implies equivalency" mistake.

I wasn't calling you a nazi sympathizer. I'm merely pointing out that you're on quite the wrong side of history and public opinion. A fairer comparision (which is what I was making) would be the mess that resulted following Buck v Bell in the United States. Same argument.



[sigh] And that doesn't make it a right. It makes it a law. Just because legalities written by a government say something is a right doesn't mean it is. Also, the UNDHR isn't legally binding. It's a declaration of the UN's beliefs, not a mandate that its components be implemented as universal and legally binding directives. If that were so, 90% of the world would be in violation.
Yes, I do believe it does. Look at the wording. It has been held to be a listing of the basic human rights of any person, and countries have been chastized for violating the list.

Enforcement is another issue.

I'd also want to know what are your thoughts about all the taxpayers money that goes to royal family and corporate welfare.

Both?

Perhaps a little bit of corporate welfare, but the Royal Family?

Pssh, NO!

As this argument has degraded into anger and swearing from Fass's side, and he does not seem to want a civil debate, I suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

Yes, do use that one instance of profanity not even directed at you as cover for getting out of not being able to defend taking the money from the special needs programmes.

Yes, do use that one instance of profanity not even directed at you as cover for getting out of not being able to defend taking the money from the special needs programmes.

*sigh*

No, I'm not about to bother, better thigs to do. In the end, this won't influence actual funding at all.

Both?

Perhaps a little bit of corporate welfare, but the Royal Family?

Pssh, NO!
So let's take the money from there and we are all happy. It's all about values anyway.

*sigh*

No, I'm not about to bother, better thigs to do. In the end, this won't influence actual funding at all.

As if anything here would influence anything at all.

*sigh*

No, I'm not about to bother, better thigs to do. In the end, this won't influence actual funding at all.
Nothing on NS will ever influence anything. We don't even influence each others opinions, much.

Look here.
I'm not saying that we should stop funding them entirely and just execute them.
It's the fact that a class of about 6-7 of these LLS students has 3 fucking teachers and the school buys all sorts of technology for them.

I'm not talking about wheel-chair bound kids here or physically crippled, I'm talking about mentally, the ones who takes them a life time just to reach grade two education. The ones that need attention ever god damn second of the day, needing teachers who are all getting paid of course by the school.

They should have as much chance as anybody else.
They shouldn't have more, they just aren't worth more.

I wasn't calling you a nazi sympathizer. I'm merely pointing out that you're on quite the wrong side of history and public opinion. A fairer comparision (which is what I was making) would be the mess that resulted following Buck v Bell in the United States. Same argument.

I don't really care about being on the "right side" of history or public opinion. I care about what is logical and right. Using "79% of Americans like taxes" or "Saddan Hussein had a minimum wage!" as an argument means nothing.

Yes, I do believe it does. Look at the wording. It has been held to be a listing of the basic human rights of any person, and countries have been chastized for violating the list.

Chastized, sure. Held to be in violation of legally binding statute? Nope. Not the same thing. Well, actually, considering how the UN "punishes" treatybreakers, I suppose they are rather similar in that case.

Enforcement is another issue.

It can't even be called an issue. Just leave it at "The UN is incapable of enforcing its snack order at the bar."

So wait, you want to live in a society, but when it comes to pitching in and helping society and people in society, you'll go "me, me, me, me, me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My taxmoney, me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

I'm better off with a good society. Wasted money hurts my society.

Look here.
I'm not saying that we should stop funding them entirely and just execute them.
It's the fact that a class of about 6-7 of these LLS students has 3 fucking teachers and the school buys all sorts of technology for them.

I'm not talking about wheel-chair bound kids here or physically crippled, I'm talking about mentally, the ones who takes them a life time just to reach grade two education. The ones that need attention ever god damn second of the day, needing teachers who are all getting paid of course by the school.

They should have as much chance as anybody else.
They shouldn't have more, they just aren't worth more.

They DON'T HAVE AS MUCH CHANCE AS EVERYBODY ELSE! They never will! That's why they need more help! Christ on a bloody pogo-stick, people! They are already disadvantaged. It is not in any sense of the word "fair" to make them even more so.

I'm better off with a good society. Wasted money hurts my society.
Now I'm very interested to know in which society you live.

I'm better off with a good society. Wasted money hurts my society.

No, people like you hurt society.

I don't really care about being on the "right side" of history or public opinion. I care about what is logical and right. Using "79% of Americans like taxes" or "Saddan Hussein had a minimum wage!" as an argument means nothing.

And saying that you believe that treating the mentally disabled as second class (worse yet, not even) humans is somehow better?

Wasted money hurts my society.

So the money is "wasted" because it doesn't help you?

So the money is "wasted" because it doesn't help you?

Because it doesn't help society, and through that, me. So in a sense, yes.

They DON'T HAVE AS MUCH CHANCE AS EVERYBODY ELSE! They never will! That's why they need more help! Christ on a bloody pogo-stick, people! They are already disadvantaged. It is not in any sense of the word "fair" to make them even more so.

They aren't worth all that fucking money.
What's the most they will ever ammount to?
Maybe some Christian foundation will slap their face on a pamphlet and write "AN INSPIRATION TO US ALL"

They won't support a family.
They won't cure an illness.
They won't change the world in any way.
Nor will they help society, they drag it down by wasting tax money.

Just put them in one specialized program, don't give them multiple.
If they need such drastic attention then put them in the damn looney bin.

snip
how old are you?


edit: Just because you sound like a person who's too young to know anything about life. A little hint: money isn't the most important thing in the world.

Because it doesn't help society

Who is "society"?

16.
Which is why I'm dealing with the topic of mental retardation in education facilities, such as my high school.
And please, don't bring any of your right-winged morals, I'm talking about the money and purpose.

16.
Which is why I'm dealing with the topic of mental retardation in education facilities, such as my high school.
And please, don't bring any of your right-winged morals, I'm talking about the money and purpose.
Heh, I repost my edit

edit: Just because you sound like a person who's too young to know anything about life. A little hint: money isn't the most important thing in the world.

Who is "society"?
Society is mankind as a whole. Some (not all) retards, although they are regarded by some as part of this, have nothing to offer the rest of society. Why should the rest of society pay them for nothing?

Heh, I repost my edit

edit: Just because you sound like a person who's too young to know anything about life. A little hint: money isn't the most important thing in the world.

I told you not to bring morals into this.
And yes, money provides education, out of that education provides intelligence and knowledge which later can be used towards the better of mankind.

I'm sure a few of the 900'ish students in my high school can achieve great heights if given the proper education. A little hint: this is hard to do without money for teachers or teaching utensils

And saying that you believe that treating the mentally disabled as second class (worse yet, not even) humans is somehow better?

Is not giving SocSec payouts to 50-year-olds treating them as second-class citizens? No! Is it wrong to not build bridges in an area with no rivers? Does a suburb in Orange County need lots of subsidized housing money? No and no! Spending money wisely is not analogous to treating people as less than human.

Society is mankind as a whole. Some (not all) retards, although they are regarded by some as part of this, have nothing to offer the rest of society. Why should the rest of society pay them for nothing?

Because they are human beings, deserving of human dignity and decent treatment.

Why shouldn't "society" decide to randomly shoot people? For the same reason.

Is not giving SocSec payouts to 50-year-olds treating them as second-class citizens? No! Is it wrong to not build bridges in an area with no rivers? Does a suburb in Orange County need lots of subsidized housing money? No and no! Spending money wisely is not analogous to treating people as less than human.
Except when you are deliberatly withholding a human right.


That appears to be the crux of the issue, and whether you like it or not, the US supported the UNDHR and thus considers free education a human right.

They aren't worth all that fucking money.

We do not put monetary value on people. As I said, at least not those of us who have a shred of decency in out bodies.

What's the most they will ever ammount to?

What's the most you will amount to? And why should that decide the value of your life?

Maybe some Christian foundation will slap their face on a pamphlet and write "AN INSPIRATION TO US ALL"

They won't support a family.
They won't cure an illness.
They won't change the world in any way.

Apart from supporting a family, neither will most people. And even the first is iffy with people like you.

Nor will they help society, they drag it down by wasting tax money.

You do not prove they drag us down, nor that they waste it. No, I do share your view that it is waste in any sense. Helping disabled children is not waste. I'd rather money go there than to people who do not need it.

Just put them in one specialized program, don't give them multiple.
If they need such drastic attention then put them in the damn looney bin.

Grow up, kid.

I told you not to bring morals into this.
And yes, money provides education, out of that education provides intelligence and knowledge which later can be used towards the better of mankind.

I'm sure a few of the 900'ish students in my high school can achieve great heights if given the proper education. A little hint: this is hard to do without money for teachers or teaching utensils

Where is the proof that it is because of special needs programmes that you do not get that?

Grow up, kid.

Wonderful.
You openly show your maturity and make a fool of yourself infront of the forum users.

I'd respond to you but you're a hopeless bigot.

Because they are human beings, deserving of human dignity and decent treatment.

Why shouldn't "society" decide to randomly shoot people? For the same reason.

What other "human being" gets paid for nothing? Where's my human dignity and decent treatment should I decide not to work?

And "society" doesn't go out and shoot random people because it would fall apart if it did. That's why societies are formed.

I told you not to bring morals into this.
And yes, money provides education, out of that education provides intelligence and knowledge which later can be used towards the better of mankind.

I'm sure a few of the 900'ish students in my high school can achieve great heights if given the proper education. A little hint: this is hard to do without money for teachers or teaching utensils
"What's the most they will ever ammount to?"

Oh yes, we need money. Did I say we don't? But we can't put a price on everything.

Anyway you have a very different idea of mentally retarded people.
"I'm talking about mentally, the ones who takes them a life time just to reach grade two education. The ones that need attention ever god damn second of the day..."
I don't see things as black and white as you do.

Wonderful.
You openly show your maturity and make a fool of yourself infront of the forum users.

Says the person who wants us to put special needs children in "looney bins." Oh, the hypocritical irony...

I'd respond to you but you're a hopeless bigot.

I don't think you understand what that word means. How have I been bigoted here? Have I called you a ******? A fag? A gook? A spic? A wetback?

What other "human being" gets paid for nothing? Where's my human dignity and decent treatment should I decide not to work?

When you are old and incapable of working, you will deserve the same. When you were a child, you received the same.

And "society" doesn't go out and shoot random people because it would fall apart if it did. That's why societies are formed.

Then "society" could go out and shoot only some people, say, blacks, or gays, or Christians, or Objectivists. No "chaos," just tyranny. But it would still be wrong, even though such a moral code "enslaves" some people to the needs of others to live.

Apart from supporting a family, neither will most people. And even the first is iffy with people like you.

heey, his ignorance is inspiring

Because they are human beings, deserving of human dignity and decent treatment.

Why shouldn't "society" decide to randomly shoot people? For the same reason.

Really really old people need lots of help. If we poored millions into a couple of 80 year old individuals I'm sure we could keep them alive a good 20 years longer than their supposed to. But its not the governments responcibility to fufill everyones needs. Which is why they should ensure they offer the same to everybody and the individual makes of it what he will.

Oh yes, we need money. Did I say we don't? But we can't put a price on everything.


That contradicts your entire post.
A price is put on furthering their education and the schoolboard, KLSD, is paying a pretty penny to pay this price.
I'm not saying we cut off funding for them, I'm saying we reduce it.
They have personal laptops, private tutors, the works.

The 'stupid' kids, the ones who just got the wrong education, do not recieve any such help as the ones who actually have a mental deficiency. Why don't we help save the savables instead of wasting money to just speed up the process of learning the alphabet for the mentally retarded ones?

Really really old people need lots of help. If we poored millions into a couple of 80 year old individuals I'm sure we could keep them alive a good 20 years longer than their supposed to. But its not the governments responcibility to fufill everyones needs.

No, it's society's. But because the rich hoard the wealth, society tends to have a hard time without collective democratic institutions (like governments sometimes are, to a degree) lending a hand.

Which is why they should ensure they offer the same to everybody and the individual makes of it what he will.

But people are different from one another. People who have a harder time - say, the mentally retarded - deserve additional help in order for true equality to be achieved. It isn't as if these people are being deliberately lazy becuase of their capability to exploit other people's labor, like the privileged classes tend to.

Which is why they should ensure they offer the same to everybody and the individual makes of it what he will.

Which is basically pure disciminination as the special needs kids cannot get by on the same amount as everybody else. That's whole point in being someone who needs help. It is not in any sense of the word "fair" and "equal" what you are suggesting. All it is is cheap and, well, jerkish.

When you are old and incapable of working, you will deserve the same. When you were a child, you received the same.



Then "society" could go out and shoot only some people, say, blacks, or gays, or Christians, or Objectivists. No "chaos," just tyranny. But it would still be wrong, even though such a moral code "enslaves" some people to the needs of others to live.

When I am old and incapable of working, I will either have paid enough into social security to have earned it, or have saved up money for the same (or both). As a child, my government found it wise to invest in my education - because I'm likely to have a large return (in the form of taxes).

If blacks, or gays, or Christians, or Objectivists (thank you for recognizing that, by the way) contributed nothing to society, merely lived off of it as a parasite, I would see no problem shooting them (personally I would just kick them out of the country, though - to save ammunition).

That contradicts your entire post.
A price is put on furthering their education and the schoolboard, KLSD, is paying a pretty penny to pay this price.
I'm not saying we cut off funding for them, I'm saying we reduce it.
They have personal laptops, private tutors, the works.
You just don't get it.

The 'stupid' kids, the ones who just got the wrong education, do not recieve any such help as the ones who actually have a mental deficiency. Why don't we help save the savables instead of wasting money to just speed up the process of learning the alphabet for the mentally retarded ones?
We should. We have the money for it. One poster was ready to cut the money that goes to support royal family. I'm pretty sure we could save the savables with that money.

I don't think you understand what that word means. How have I been bigoted here? Have I called you a ******? A fag? A gook? A spic? A wetback?

You really need to take a browse through a dictionary more, boy.
Anybody can be a bigot, they don't have to be apart of the god damn Klan.
Bigot means stubborn, they refuse to ever go along anyone's opinions that differ from their own on a situation.

I will accept an opinion if somebody presents a good case of why these kids need money poured into them, besides the obvious fact they are humans, we've already established this. You, on the other hand, have been battling everyone that has ever said anything different of your views in a flaming fashion.

No, it's society's. But because the rich hoard the wealth, society tends to have a hard time without collective democratic institutions (like governments sometimes are, to a degree) lending a hand.



But people are different from one another. People who have a harder time - say the mentally retarded - deserve additional help in order for true equality to be achieved.

hoard the wealth? They make it. Its motivation to succeed, its what makes the economy competative and successful. How you want to keep the country stable when you seem to suggest unlimited spending to help those who need help (even if its an old person needing help to stay alive for another number of years).

In that kinda of society, my initial reaction is that my motivation would be to look needy and in need of help rather than to look/act successful and responcible. Vastly inefficient and how on earth you seek to run a competative economy is beyond me.

When I am old and incapable of working, I will either have paid enough into social security to have earned it, or have saved up money for the same (or both). As a child, my government found it wise to invest in my education - because I'm likely to have a large return (in the form of taxes).

If blacks, or gays, or Christians, or Objectivists (thank you for recognizing that, by the way) contributed nothing to society, merely lived off of it as a parasite, I would see no problem shooting them (personally I would just kick them out of the country, though - to save ammunition).
Why can't you just post with your true identity. Are you afraid of your own opinions?

(99% of the time, posters with a postcount less that 10 are just puppets)

Why can't you just post with your true identity. Are you afraid of your own opinions?

(99% of the time, posters with a postcount less that 10 are just puppets)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

And somehow, these posters always appear from nowhere at the same time when some of the "old posters" disappear from the conversation.

When I am old and incapable of working, I will either have paid enough into social security to have earned it, or have saved up money for the same (or both).

Not necessarily. In fact, you will quite possibly receive more than you paid in.

As a child, my government found it wise to invest in my education - because I'm likely to have a large return (in the form of taxes).

Why were you fed? Because your parents valued a return on their investment? If that were really true, the costs of maintaining you would have been minimized, and you would have quite possibly been beaten into obedience in order to maximize returns. I would bet a great deal that that was not the case.

If blacks, or gays, or Christians, or Objectivists (thank you for recognizing that, by the way)

Surely you could be more obvious. Next time, try carrying around a sign.

contributed nothing to society, merely lived off of it as a parasite, I would see no problem shooting them (personally I would just kick them out of the country, though - to save ammunition).

What if society made the choice that, for whatever reason, it didn't want them anymore?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
Ok, I take your word for it.

(99% of the time, posters with a postcount less that 10 are just puppets)

Everyone on this forum at some point had less than 10 posts ;)

You really need to take a browse through a dictionary more, boy.
Anybody can be a bigot, they don't have to be apart of the god damn Klan.
Bigot means stubborn, they refuse to ever go along anyone's opinions that differ from their own on a situation.

Your opinion is wrong. That's why I'm not buying it. Not because I'm a bigot, but because you are wrong.

I will accept an opinion if somebody presents a good case of why these kids need money poured into them, besides the obvious fact they are humans, we've already established this.

They need more money because they are disabled. It's as simple as that. And I'm not really particularly sorry at all that I'm not the kind of jerk to resent the help mentally challenged children get. On the contrary, I'm quite glad I didn't grow to be one.

You, on the other hand, have been battling everyone that has ever said anything different of your views in a flaming fashion.

Because calling someone a bigot is not at all flaming, and you're thus quite the little angel, aren't you?

(99% of the time, posters with a postcount less that 10 are just puppets)

Or maybe, I don't know for I might be thinking a bit radical for you, they are people who are new to the forums. You honestly believe out of all the new posters, only 1% of them are actually people who aren't a puppet of someone previous?

Everyone on this forum at some point had less than 10 posts ;)
Damn!

*ashamed of stupidity*

HEY! I need more education! Send me money!

Your opinion is wrong. That's why I'm not buying it. Not because I'm a bigot, but because you are wrong.

A+ Debating skills.

A+ Debating skills.
LOL

edit
huoh, not typical of me. Excuse me. I just couldn't help myself.

hoard the wealth? They make it.

Off the labor of others, who work far harder than they do and make a pittance in comparison.

Its motivation to succeed, its what makes the economy competative and successful.

Class privilege does not provide much motivation. It suppresses talent in those undermined by it, and permits the non-expression of talent in those benefited by it.

How you want to keep the country stable when you seem to suggest unlimited spending to help those who need help (even if its an old person needing help to stay alive for another number of years).

I never said "unlimited spending."

In that kinda of society, my initial reaction is that my motivation would be to look needy and in need of help rather than to look/act successful and responcible. Vastly inefficient and how on earth you seek to run a competative economy is beyond me.

Things like mental retardation are not things any sane person would want to fake.

Not necessarily. In fact, you will quite possibly receive more than you paid in.



Why were you fed? Because your parents valued a return on their investment? If that were really true, the costs of maintaining you would have been minimized, and you would have quite possibly been beaten into obedience in order to maximize returns. I would bet a great deal that that would not be the case.



Surely you could be more obvious. Next time, try carrying around a sign.



What if society made the choice that, for whatever reason, it didn't want them anymore?

More than I paid in? Inflation. Plus it would actually be the younger people's money that is being spent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I invested in social security.

If my parents beat me too much I wouldn't be nice to them when they were old. :)

Yes, my NationState's flag is the sign, lol.

A reasonable society wouldn't mak that decision, unless for some reason these groups changed drastically.

A+ Debating skills.

Why you are wrong I have already elaborated. D- for your reading skills of the rest of the thread. It would be an F, but it would be kind of mean of me to give you an F, what with me saying that those that need extra help learning to read should get it...

They need more money because they are disabled. It's as simple as that. And I'm not really particularly sorry at all that I'm not the kind of jerk to resent the help mentally challenged children get. On the contrary, I'm quite glad I didn't grow to be one.


Sounds like if I don't want to work its in my best interest to be disabled. Sure being disabled sucks but I'll become real needy and people will cater to my every whim cause I can't do it myself.

Honestly, if a country were to become "truely" communist, whats to stop all the intelligent people running the heck out of the country to a place that respects their property and intelligence...?

Your opinion is wrong. That's why I'm not buying it. Not because I'm a bigot, but because you are wrong.
You crack me up.

LOL

edit
huoh, not typical of me. Excuse me. I just couldn't help myself.

Yes sorry, my debating skills are obviously inferior to somebody who can dicate the rights and wrongs of the universe.
YOU'RE WRONG!
YOU'RE RIGHT!
He must be the rebirth of Jesus to know such infinite knowledge.
That, or another one of the cocky twenty-year-olds who knows everything because they have an income, right?

It's because you guys pay taxes that your opinion is more valid.
I see, I see.

More than I paid in? Inflation. Plus it would actually be the younger people's money that is being spent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I invested in social security.

Except you do not receive benefits based on what you paid in. You receive equal benefits to everyone else, regardless of your former income.

If my parents beat me too much I wouldn't be nice to them when they were old. :)

Sure you might be. Certain attitudes could be instilled. And you still haven't explained why your parents didn't minimize the costs of maintaining you.

A reasonable society wouldn't mak that decision, unless for some reason these groups changed drastically.

What if that society valued something else than monetary profit? Perhaps they were religious fundamentalists and white supremacists. Or perhaps they were Communists, and decided that the parasitic capitalist class didn't deserve to extract wealth from the proletariat any longer, prompting a mass slaughter of, say, the major shareholders and the top five percent of income earners.

Sounds like if I don't want to work its in my best interest to be disabled. Sure being disabled sucks but I'll become real needy and people will cater to my every whim cause I can't do it myself.

It shows the kind of character you have to denigrate the disabled by alluding to them having become disabled to mooch off the rest of us.

Honestly, if a country were to become "truely" communist, whats to stop all the intelligent people running the heck out of the country to a place that respects their property and intelligence...?

Where is the communism in helping mentally challenged children? I'm sorry, but I'm not all that stupid to understand something so stupid at a first glance. I don't see how helping children is communism, and why helping more those children who need more help is wrong.

Why you are wrong I have already elaborated.

Why you are wrong I already elaborated.
You see, your words aren't gold set.

Off the labor of others, who work far harder than they do and make a pittance in comparison.
That's ridiculous. They EMPLOY the other guys.
No force was involved. The others voluntarily decided to work for them. If their work was worth so much more, why couldn't they find an employer willing to pay a more reasonable price for it?

Yes sorry, my debating skills are obviously inferior to somebody who can dicate the rights and wrongs of the universe.
YOU'RE WRONG!
YOU'RE RIGHT!
He must be the rebirth of Jesus to know such infinite knowledge.
That, or another one of the cocky twenty-year-olds who knows everything because they have an income, right?

It's because you guys pay taxes that your opinion is more valid.
I see, I see.

Still having trouble reading? See, with people like me around, you would have had a chance to learn it. Ironic, no?

Off the labor of others, who work far harder than they do and make a pittance in comparison.
.

When a single ordinary labour worker can make a company millions I'll be right in line to campaign he should be paid in relation to that. As it stands labour is cheap becomes its worth little. Machines are taking the place of many of the physical jobs you value so much, not to mention places like Eastern Europe and china have an ubundance of workers while their is a shortage of qualified skilled workers. Supply and demand :rolleyes:


Class privilege does not provide much motivation. It suppresses talent in those undermined by it, and permits the non-expression of talent in those benefited by it.
.

True. Which is why I support everyone being funded the same should they go to a public school system and as much social mobility as possible is important because it improves motivation. Why do you think America flourished so well - because of the "American dream" regardless of how real it is its a method that motivates people and I think its something that should be made as possible as it can be.


Things like mental retardation are not things any sane person would want to fake.

Not to that extreme mabey. But fake beeing needy in other ways. I certainly wouldn't want to make myself look independent and intelligent, then I'd get no help and I'd be left on my own.

Still having trouble reading? See, with people like me around, you would have had a chance to learn it. Ironic, no?

You are still making a fool of yourself.
You make the argument that you have proved me wrong when in fact I could just as easily say I have proved you wrong.

Why you are wrong I already elaborated.

Actually, you didn't. You have failed to give a reason for why we should not help the mentally challenged. Apart from saying "they're not worth it, because I say so."

You see, your words aren't gold set.

Ah, but if only your words were dirt even...

That, or another one of the cocky twenty-year-olds who knows everything because they have an income, right?

It's because you guys pay taxes that your opinion is more valid.
I see, I see.
Well, we are the ones who are paying your education...

Hey Fass! I don't think this guy deserves an education. Maybe we should just kick him out?
No seriously, no-one's opinion is more valid. That's the whole point!

Except you do not receive benefits based on what you paid in. You receive equal benefits to everyone else, regardless of your former income.



Sure you might be. Certain attitudes could be instilled. And you still haven't explained why your parents didn't minimize the costs of maintaining you.



What if that society valued something else than monetary profit? Perhaps they were religious fundamentalists and white supremacists. Or perhaps they were Communists, and decided that the parasitic capitalist class didn't deserve to extract wealth from the proletariat any longer, prompting a mass slaughter of, say, the major shareholders and the top five percent of income earners.
I'm not sure if I agree with how social security works. However, that's not relevant, only the fact that I paid for it is.

Parents not minimizing my cost? Social contract. Their parents did the same for them. I admit this isn't the most impressive reasoning, but it works.

And none of those positions are reasonable.

You are still making a fool of yourself.

You are still bringing irony upon you.

You make the argument that you have proved me wrong when in fact I could just as easily say I have proved you wrong.

Seeing as you've yet to prove anything, for example your claim that the special needs programmes are at fault for you not having teaching utensils (not that we should believe you there, either, despite the poor reading skills), and do anything apart from going "they're not worth it because I'm worth more and can thus say they are worth less."

That's ridiculous. They EMPLOY the other guys.

In the benevolent tradition of Southern slave-masters and European feudal lords, who also employed people, out of the kindness and decency of their hearts, of course.

No force was involved.

Except the threat of starvation.

The others voluntarily decided to work for them.

And slaves "voluntarily" chose not to attempt escape.

If their work was worth so much more, why couldn't they find an employer willing to pay a more reasonable price for it?

Lots of reasons.

1. Other employers might already have the workers they need.
2. Other employers are quite possibly just as willing to exploit workers as their counterparts.
3. Access to other employers may be limited.

Actually, you didn't. You have failed to give a reason for why we should not help the mentally challenged. Apart from saying "they're not worth it, because I say so."


Sigh.

I'm not saying we cut off funding for them, I'm saying we reduce it.


Oh wait, what is this comic gold?
Ahah, here she is.

D- for your reading skills of the rest of the thread.

Good job, fool.

Without increasing funding, giving one individual more help means someone else will get less help as a result.

Incorrect. Because the funding that the mentally challenged receive does NOT come out of the same budget as 'everyone else', it comes our of their own funding.

So basically, if y'all think the funding should be stopped because it's not cost effective, then let's stop handing out scholarships as well. After all, why should poor people get money for college if everyone doesn't? Why should women get money over men? Why should African Americans have their own scholarships, and Latinos? And why, for god's sake should SMART PEOPLE get them? After all, they ALREADY are at an advantage -- if they're so smart, they can make their own damned money for college!

The amount of heartless, selfish, childishness in this thread is sickening. You all would be first on line begging for help if God forbid someone in YOUR family were in this predicament.

Parents not minimizing my cost? Social contract. Their parents did the same for them. I admit this isn't the most impressive reasoning, but it works.
.

Mabey love :rolleyes: Giving your child a nice life and making them happy makes you happy, rather than using feirce discipline to make them cost effective :p :p

Well, we are the ones who are paying your education...

Hey Fass! I don't think this guy deserves an education. Maybe we should just kick him out?
No seriously, no-one's opinion is more valid. That's the whole point!
So all opinions are worth the same? What about Neo-Nazis? Surely your opinion is more valid than theirs?

So all opinions are worth the same? What about Neo-Nazis? Surely your opinion is more valid than theirs?
Of course it isn't.

Even those not needing much help need teachers and classrooms.

And they certainly would not get a special education teacher -- as the amount of training she needed to get her special ed license would be utterly wasted on a mainstream kid.

So it's NOT a matter of taking a teacher away from an able student.

I'm not sure if I agree with how social security works. However, that's not relevant, only the fact that I paid for it is.

Sure it is. Mentally retarded people contribute something to society, just not as much as you think they should.

Parents not minimizing my cost? Social contract. Their parents did the same for them. I admit this isn't the most impressive reasoning, but it works.

No, it doesn't. It contradicts your insistence that the only justification for monetary allocations is a return.

And none of those positions are reasonable.

To you. You could well share different values than that given society.

The point is that all of those actions would be wrong, because whatever the preferences of a society, be it ultra-violent Communism, fundamentalism, bigotry, or monetary profit, human beings still deserve decent treatment.

Sigh.

Oh wait, what is this comic gold?
Ahah, here she is.

Reduce = not help. We've already established that to get adequate help, they need more money. Really, if all you have to stick to now is futile semantics when I didn't touch upon your choice of words, then I guess we'll expect you to go on as you have so far, not substantiating anything.

Good job, fool.

Yeah, silly me for quoting you verbatim. Wait, I didn't do that at all. I guess not so silly me.

In the benevolent tradition of Southern slave-masters and European feudal lords, who also employed people, out of the kindness and decency of their hearts, of course.
Southern slave-masters did not employ people. There is a fundamental difference. Slaves don't have a choice.

So wait... you mean they'd rather work than starve? And you're saying this employer should pay them more for... what, exactly? You are arguing for socialism, which doesn't work!

It's naturally a touchy subject, because naturally everything for someone comes at someone else's expense. It also comes at a conflict from the two standards of the spectrum of equality... Equal opportunity and equal life chances, the former being allowance for the same and the latter being a societal mechanism that sets people up on the same ground for the purpose of the former.

Unfortunately, the latter is inherently flawed; people are not going to be on the same ground no matter how hard you try, as they aren't empty bins for information and skills to be tossed in to.

In the end, it should obviously be on an individual basis for determination for allocation of resources, as cases of disability will vastly differ. However, current (U.S.) policy seems to promote educating them for the same testing as the non-disabled students, as if there's some mislead belief that they can do just as well.

The (rather disappointing) fact of the matter is, they can't. Therefore, teachers are pressured to spend more hours and resources on those students to bring them up to that level. However, average and gifted students are hurt terribly, in more ways than just the time allocation: Gifted student programs and higher level course availability in high schools are limited because of the resources that have to be allocated for the handicapped students to bring them to a level that, in many cases, isn't reasonable for them to acheive. (Again, I emphasize the importance of individual cases. Still, it's important to recognize that disabled means that they are handicapped sufficiently.)

So while I admire the efforts of those that try to educate the handicapped, at the same time I strongly believe policy is addressing it in exactly the wrong way by placing the higher expectations on them. Not only is it worse for their goals and esteem, but worse for those that are deprived by the effort spent on others.

Incorrect. Because the funding that the mentally challenged receive does NOT come out of the same budget as 'everyone else', it comes our of their own funding.

So basically, if y'all think the funding should be stopped because it's not cost effective, then let's stop handing out scholarships as well. After all, why should poor people get money for college if everyone doesn't? Why should women get money over men? Why should African Americans have their own scholarships, and Latinos? And why, for god's sake should SMART PEOPLE get them? After all, they ALREADY are at an advantage -- if they're so smart, they can make their own damned money for college!

The amount of heartless, selfish, childishness in this thread is sickening. You all would be first on line begging for help if God forbid someone in YOUR family were in this predicament.

Because the funding that the mentally challenged receive does NOT come out of the same budget as 'everyone else', it comes our of their own funding.

Yes but if "their own" funding was less (equal) the government would have more money for other affairs. I'd hope that would go to raising education standards for everyone (including special needed kids) equally.
Universities are about taking on the smartest individuals to as high a level in their subject as they can. If someones shown exceptional merit I'm fine for the government or a company to sponser an individual to ensure they get to partake in this extra education (as it should benefit the interlectual world, and mabey even the economy).
I'm not sure about helping people based on the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. I think investing in people equally regardless of their race should fix things eventually without positive discrimination.

Nope. This is admittedly anecdotal evidence, but I'm at a school that lives in a basically perpetual state of budgetary crisis, and the Special Needs budget has remained stable and well-off. As has the football team. Yet the school's screwed-up computer network and relatively tiny Internet connection remain unaided, the wildly successful debate team (which is constantly in the red; the coach has to pay for entry fees out of her own pocket sometimes) gets nada, and the buildings are often filthy and poorly maintenanced. Yet the Special Ed program, the football team, and the renovation plans for the building with the administrator's offices and visitor's area have remained cushily funded. What does that say?


It says that the Special education budget is federally funded separately, at least in the US.

And it also says your admin and school board should be called on the carpet for misuse of the OTHER funds.

1st: What kind of rebuttal is that? *sigh*

2nd: Would you rather have dollars wasted than put to something that wil lbring about a better future?

A better future for whom?Godwin's law, Kat.... Godwin's law....

Reduce = not help. We've already established that to get adequate help, they need more money..

No, we've established they are getting help.
They have private classrooms but money is being wasted for entirely specialized programs, for just a few kids, which requires text books, computers, everything a program needs.
And for anyone wondering, the school funds it all, there is no 'special people program' that hands the school briefcases full of money to set up these programs.

When a single ordinary labour worker can make a company millions I'll be right in line to campaign he should be paid in relation to that. As it stands labour is cheap becomes its worth little. Machines are taking the place of many of the physical jobs you value so much, not to mention places like Eastern Europe and china have an ubundance of workers while their is a shortage of qualified skilled workers. Supply and demand :rolleyes:

No single individual makes a company millions, unless he is vested with sufficient power within the company to do so - a privilege that plenty of workers, however talented, can never achieve.

An explanation is not a justification.

True. Which is why I support everyone being funded the same should they go to a public school system and as much social mobility as possible is important because it improves motivation. Why do you think America flourished so well - because of the "American dream" regardless of how real it is its a method that motivates people and I think its something that should be made as possible as it can be.

The American Dream was never true, and is not true today. Our society as it stands today is largely structured on lines of class privilege; that is why, for one example of many, the most demeaning and disliked jobs are not done by the highest income earners, as simple supply and demand would imply, but rather by the lower classes.

Not to that extreme mabey. But fake beeing needy in other ways. I certainly wouldn't want to make myself look independent and intelligent, then I'd get no help and I'd be left on my own.

Mental retardation and a willingness to remain ignorant and servile are very different things. One would be aided; the other would not be.

Unfortunately, the latter is inherently flawed; people are not going to be on the same ground no matter how hard you try, as they aren't empty bins for information and skills to be tossed in to.

In the end, it should obviously be on an individual basis for determination for allocation of resources, as cases of disability will vastly differ. However, current (U.S.) policy seems to promote educating them for the same testing as the non-disabled students, as if there's some mislead belief that they can do just as well.

The (rather disappointing) fact of the matter is, they can't. Therefore, teachers are pressured to spend more hours and resources on those students to bring them up to that level. However, average and gifted students are hurt terribly, in more ways than just the time allocation: Gifted student programs and higher level course availability in high schools are limited because of the resources that have to be allocated for the handicapped students to bring them to a level that, in many cases, isn't reasonable for them to acheive. (Again, I emphasize the importance of individual cases. Still, it's important to recognize that disabled means that they are handicapped sufficiently.)

So while I admire the efforts of those that try to educate the handicapped, at the same time I strongly believe policy is addressing it in exactly the wrong way by placing the higher expectations on them. Not only is it worse for their goals and esteem, but worse for those that are deprived by the effort spent on others.

Very well said.

Sure it is. Mentally retarded people contribute something to society, just not as much as you think they should.



No, it doesn't. It contradicts your insistence that the only justification for monetary allocations is a return.



To you. You could well share different values than that given society.

The point is that all of those actions would be wrong, because whatever the preferences of a society, be it ultra-violent Communism, fundamentalism, bigotry, or monetary profit, human beings still deserve decent treatment.
If you remember, I didn't say take away funding for the ones that can contribute to society (get a job, or, if there's some less tangible contribution, someone charitable person will fund them), only the ones unable to do this.

Their parents took care of them, therefore they have an obligation to take care of their children. If it didn't work, society wouldn't work - and a man is better off in a good society.

REASON IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. So, like I said, unless any of the groups suffers some fundamental change (and probably not even then), then that's crazy.

No, we've established they are getting help.
They have private classrooms but money is being wasted for entirely specialized programs, for just a few kids, which requires text books, computers, everything a program needs.
And for anyone wondering, the school funds it all, there is no 'special people program' that hands the school briefcases full of money to set up these programs.
Just a little note
"the school" does not say anything to us. It seems that this is not the case in most of the countries presented (by posters) in this thread.

1st: Brain-dead means "very very very mentally challenged".
No. Brain-dead quite specifically means NO BRAIN ACTIVITY. Flatline. And such a person who has no cognition would not be in school. But please, don't let little details like definitions and accuracy get in the way of bad argument.[/QUOTE]

Southern slave-masters did not employ people. There is a fundamental difference. Slaves don't have a choice.

And plenty of workers today do not have choices. Opportunities are very limited for many, and tend to be allocated not on the basis of merit, but rather on the basis of class privilege. However smart or talented someone is, if he has access to wealth he will have plenty of chances to waste and plenty of opportunities to exploit, and if he does not he will likely not.

So wait... you mean they'd rather work than starve?

Yes. Is that a surprise?

And you're saying this employer should pay them more for... what, exactly?

For the labor they perform.

You are arguing for socialism, which doesn't work!

Yes, I am. Thank you for catching it.

What any of this has to do with mental retardation can be questioned.

In Ontario, the school board handles all these issues.
No third party is involved in payment, so if the schoolboard spents $100,000 in one area, what do you think will happen to the other areas?

It's kind of like having a big jug of water and a variety of glasses.
You start pouring the water equally but you arrive at one glass and pour it to the brim, that will eventually mean one of the future glasses will not recieve the same ammount of water as the previous ones.
Lets for instance, say that future glass, is labelled "Science Department".

No, we've established they are getting help.

Your claim is their needs are more expensive -> they thus need more money to get help. Otherwise you wouldn't be bitching about them getting more money. Which of course they don't in the total, and you've yet to prove any adverse effects on you or anyone anyone else on them getting the money they need (not said that they do, I'd they probably don't get the money they need), but I've sort of realised you're never going to do that, because you probably can't and have nothing but your resentment of those needier than you getting more than you as basis for this.

They have private classrooms but money is being wasted for entirely specialized programs, for just a few kids, which requires text books, computers, everything a program needs.

And here again you fail to substantiate that it is wasted. I'd say it goes to where it's needed. It's not wasted at all if it helps the child, because that's what it's meant to do.

And for anyone wondering, the school funds it all, there is no 'special people program' that hands the school briefcases full of money to set up these programs.

I don't know the situation in other countries, but here the schools do get additional funding to meet the special needs of these kids. So, there is indeed a "special people programme."

No single individual makes a company millions, unless he is vested with sufficient power within the company to do so - a privilege that plenty of workers, however talented, can never achieve.

An explanation is not a justification.



The American Dream was never true, and is not true today. Our society as it stands today is largely structured on lines of class privilege; that is why, for one example of many, the most demeaning and disliked jobs are not done by the highest income earners, as simple supply and demand would imply, but rather by the lower classes.



Mental retardation and a willingness to remain ignorant and servile are very different things. One would be aided; the other would not be.




No single individual makes a company millions, unless he is vested with sufficient power within the company to do so - a privilege that plenty of workers, however talented, can never achieve.

If these workers used their education well and flourished than I'm sure they would be able to enter a company as more than just labour. And if an individual can't work well within the education system how should we expect them to handle large responcibilities of power inside a company...if labour is all you've learnt to do, and labour is paid poorly why try to bring everyone down to your level.


We have a supply of many people who can clean streets and do many unpleasent jobs. Those people cannot do high level economics for a company even if its a fun job. Supply and demand isn't measured by how fun a job is. But by how many people are qualified and willing to do a job.

If would seem desirable to make your case look worse or dely any possible recovery/improvement in order to ensure as much help as possible.

Canada isn't Sweden.

If you remember, I didn't say take away funding for the ones that can contribute to society (get a job, or, if there's some less tangible contribution, someone charitable person will fund them), only the ones unable to do this.

What do you classify as a "contribution to society"?

Their parents took care of them, therefore they have an obligation to take care of their children. If it didn't work, society wouldn't work - and a man is better off in a good society.

Except an individual's betrayal of his society in this circumstance does not harm him, merely the generation after him, at most.

REASON IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

No, but values are.

The American Dream was never true, and is not true today. Our society as it stands today is largely structured on lines of class privilege; that is why, for one example of many, the most demeaning and disliked jobs are not done by the highest income earners, as simple supply and demand would imply, but rather by the lower classes.
And I'm sure the fact that these jobs require little to no education has nothing to do with it. Then there's the thought that perhaps they're in the lower class because they have these jobs?

Universitys are partly funded by the student and I think society and our country is much better off for having someone educated to such a high level. Even if the person just becomes a fisherman its sad hes not using his full potential but many will and they're the ones who write amazing novels and run our country and companys.

While they are gutting fish? Or knee-deep in manure?
:)

What do you classify as a "contribution to society"?

Paying the government for their services towards you, in the form of taxes.

Canada isn't Sweden.
o_0

Canada isn't Sweden.

No shit.

Yes, I am. Thank you for catching it.
Touche.

o_0

DIFFERENT COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT EDUCATION SYSTEMS?!
:O

I'm somewhat conflicted. On one hand, I can't bring myself to support eugenics and such. I would surely be inhumane if I called for denying them help and it would certainly go against my anarchist views to favor such hierarchies. On the other hand, my experiences with Nietzsche have given me much reason to doubt such feelings. I'm tempted to wonder if we would be better off discarding this sentimentality concerning the mentally handicapped and letting nature take its course, as dreadful as that may sound.

My respect for your views has plummeted.

DIFFERENT COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT EDUCATION SYSTEMS?!
:O
Sherlock ;)

While they are gutting fish? Or knee-deep in manure?
:)

This individual would not be a majority and yes not living up to his potential. But should I ever meet them in a pub or should they ever do anything in the feild they dedicated their life to for 3/4 years (even as a hobby) they might advance the interlectual world.

What do you classify as a "contribution to society"?



Except an individual's betrayal of his society in this circumstance does not harm him, merely the generation after him, at most.



No, but values are.
Anything that other people like. Anything.

It doesn't? When his children grow up and he becomes old and decrepit? There is also some satisfaction to be had knowing that you played a part in that child's accomplishments.

Really? Because values don't strike me as unrelated to reason. I don't value... say, Spagettios, very much because they don't help me much. So saying a society had overall reasonable values....

Wonderful.
You openly show your maturity and make a fool of yourself infront of the forum users.

I'd respond to you but you're a hopeless bigot.

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle.

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle.

I wanted to be the teapot! I already have the perfect-sized spout... ;)

You really need to take a browse through a dictionary more, boy.
Anybody can be a bigot, they don't have to be apart of the god damn Klan.
Bigot means stubborn, they refuse to ever go along anyone's opinions that differ from their own on a situation.

Pot... kettle... black.

Sherlock ;)

That is why I'm a secret agent.

That is why I'm a secret agent.
damn scary...

And I'm sure the fact that these jobs require little to no education has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has something to do with it. Education is one of the clearest manifestations of class privilege in today's society.

Anything that other people like. Anything.

All human beings capable of living comfortable lives provide me with happiness because of that capability. There, that's a contribution.

It doesn't? When his children grow up and he becomes old and decrepit?

No. Why would it help him to have indulged his children in decades preceeding? If he were being perfectly "rational self-interest" about it, he would have saved up the money he did not waste on his children, and use it in his old age.

There is also some satisfaction to be had knowing that you played a part in that child's accomplishments.

An "irrational" satisfaction, by the logic that similarly imposes irrationality on those who have values differing from "maximize my monetary benefit."

I don't value... say, Spagettios, very much because they don't help me much.

But if you did value them, they would help you. If your objective in life is to maximize your consumption of Spagettios, they would be essential.

If these workers used their education well and flourished than I'm sure they would be able to enter a company as more than just labour.

Yes, those Nike child laborers in Thailand clearly just slacked off during school. Serves them right.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for any proof that the more intelligent can't get the education they need (?!) because mentally retarded are wasting the "education money". Hoken claims that this is the situation in Ontario. Usually we want some evidence around here, not just hearsay, but can anyone else back this claim by any facts? Not just saying that the money is away from something else because that just ridiculous.

Yes, those Nike child laborers in Thailand clearly just slacked off during school. Serves them right.

God damn, not another one of these sweat shop debates.
It's not like Nike crept into a village one night and stole all the children and threw them in a workhouse.
The company sets up a manufacturing facility and searches for employment, the people come to them for jobs.

Because the funding that the mentally challenged receive does NOT come out of the same budget as 'everyone else', it comes our of their own funding.

Yes but if "their own" funding was less (equal) the government would have more money for other affairs.
Great! let's take the money for emergency medical technicians, police, and firefighters and put it into waterparks! Not everyone will have a heart attack, a fire, or be robbed, so it's not fair we all should pay for it! But everyone loves waterparks!

I'd hope that would go to raising education standards for everyone (including special needed kids) equally.
Yes. Removing funding from those who need it certainly would raise educational standards for them, wouldn't it?

Universities are about taking on the smartest individuals to as high a level in their subject as they can. If someones shown exceptional merit I'm fine for the government or a company to sponser an individual to ensure they get to partake in this extra education (as it should benefit the interlectual world, and mabey even the economy).
So, give MORE to those who are more able.

I'm not sure about helping people based on the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. I think investing in people equally regardless of their race should fix things eventually without positive discrimination.
Of course. Because everyone has had the same opportunities and life experiences no matter what neighborhood he has grown up in.

Of course it has something to do with it. Education is one of the clearest manifestations of class privilege in today's society.
.
So we should offer everyone free education and thus sort that out. I wouldn't end private education though, since that would go against my beliefs of peoples freedom of money/property and a somewhat free market.


All human beings capable of living comfortable lives provide me with happiness because of that capability. There, that's a contribution.
.
It brings me happyness to know they've earnt it. Knowing someone has done little in their lives and is being supported by the government/society to live comfortably because he iwas financial worse off than others makes me very sad.


No. Why would it help him to have indulged his children in decades preceeding? If he were being perfectly "rational self-interest" about it, he would have saved up the money he did not waste on his children, and use it in his old age.
.
Mabey seeing his kids well off living a good life makes him more happy than keeping all his money to himself. Enlghtend self interest doesn't mean being selfish and nasty, its benefiting yourself whenever possible, I can't wait for the joys of parenting and providing for a family myself, it brings people more joy than any cheap consumer good could.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for any proof that the more intelligent can't get the education they need (?!) because mentally retarded are wasting the "education money". Hoken claims that this is the situation in Ontario. Usually we want some evidence around here, not just hearsay, but can anyone else back this claim by any facts? Not just saying that the money is away from something else because that just ridiculous.

There is also the fact that these programs need private classrooms.
And I don't even want to get into the debate about how much schools need more space for teaching, already in our shop class we have thirty kids working in a small little room with only two power saws, three sanders and two bandsaws.

Canada isn't Sweden.

Nor thank God is it the US -- are these the progressive policies we Americans are always being hit over the head with? I'd hate to think the US is actually more forward thinking about how to treat human beings than Canada.

Yes, those Nike child laborers in Thailand clearly just slacked off during school. Serves them right.

Their not being provided with any decent education at all. Its not them slacking off its them being provided no opportunity to excell. Besides were we not talking about the western world? Or should we extend 3rd world special needed kids into this?

Of course. Because everyone has had the same opportunities and life experiences no matter what neighborhood he has grown up in.

Although not the point of the topic, but closely related...

The same idea from my last post applies here. People won't have the same life experiences, and people will never have the same abilities... And as horrible as it sounds to say, those in less fortunate situations, by tendency (not as much to be generality, even, but tendency) have behavioural matters that set them up in such a way. As any good psychologist recognizes, you're basically a product of your peer environment and your parent's traits. If they show promise, cater it, but don't push exception on them at the expense of others.

Of course it has something to do with it. Education is one of the clearest manifestations of class privilege in today's society.



All human beings capable of living comfortable lives provide me with happiness because of that capability. There, that's a contribution.



No. Why would it help him to have indulged his children in decades preceeding? If he were being perfectly "rational self-interest" about it, he would have saved up the money he did not waste on his children, and use it in his old age.



An "irrational" satisfaction, by the logic that similarly imposes irrationality on those who have values differing from "maximize my monetary benefit."



But if you did value them, they would help you. If your objective in life is to maximize your consumption of Spagettios, they would be essential.
I admit my reasoning around here is a little blurry (it's based somewhat on Kant's categorical imperative, which strikes me as ironic since Rand hated Kant). Ayn Rand isn't perfect, I understand that. Seriously, though, why would somebody have children if he didn't want to take care of them?

Do retarded people make you feel better? That's hard to imagine.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'll think about this some more later.

Bye, it's been fun arguing with you, Soheran.

Although not the point of the topic, but closely related...

The same idea from my last post applies here. People won't have the same life experiences, and people will never have the same abilities... And as horrible as it sounds to say, those in less fortunate situations, by tendency (not as much to be generality, even, but tendency) have behavioural matters that set them up in such a way. As any good psychologist recognizes, you're basically a product of your peer environment and your parent's traits. If they show promise, cater it, but don't push exception on them at the expense of others.

Which is almost exactly what I have been saying.
I still feel some of the, dope-heads, so to speak have promise even if they don't show it.

God damn, not another one of these sweat shop debates.
It's not like Nike crept into a village one night and stole all the children and threw them in a workhouse.
The company sets up a manufacturing facility and searches for employment, the people come to them for jobs.

You know, you could have actually been paying attention to the point being contended instead of just spouting irrelevancies.

So we should offer everyone free education and thus sort that out.

There are plenty of other institutional inequities, one primary one being the hierarchies and exploitation inherent in the current system of ownership and management of the means of production. Furthermore, even public education is considerably undermined by economic inequities. People lacking access to parents with time and money at home are at a considerable disadvantage.

It brings me happyness to know they've earnt it. Knowing someone has done little in their lives and is being supported by the government/society to live comfortably because he iwas financial worse off than others makes me very sad.

What if he is being supported by the government/society to live comfortably because he was financially well off?

Mabey seeing his kids well off living a good life makes him more happy than keeping all his money to himself. Enlghtend self interest doesn't mean being selfish and nasty, its benefiting yourself whenever possible, I can't wait for the joys of parenting and providing for a family myself, it brings people more joy than any cheap consumer good could.

As soon as you turn "rational self-interest" into pursuing whatever values you believe in, or which add happiness and meaning to your life, you have made it meaningless. No one does what they do not value.