Although we are technically in New Jersey...

Hah! You know, I would never have associated that reference with something as stupid as politics, but you know the fuck of it is you're right! I mean, the state couldn't work if people saw it for what it was, so it would have to morph or evolve to survive that eventuality. You sir or madam have given me an interesting line of philosophical thought to pursue, and for that rarity I thank you.

OK, so I know I'm not supposed to read the fucking article. But for some reason I clicked. I don't know why, I just clicked, and I read it, and I'm sorry. I understand now. I understand why we must never, ever rtfa. Because it's just mindbogglingly retarded.

Seriously, though, did anyone else read that? I'm trying, I'm really trying to just type a well-reasoned response based on logic and rationality. But there's a big part of me that just wants to grab this blithering moron by the shoulders, shake her very hard, and scream loudly in her face.

OK, to briefly summarize her position, basically she says that anyone who cares enough about their own progeny to send them to private schools is a bad person because by doing so they deprive everyone else's children of what is apparently their fair share of the love and support these bad people shower upon their own kids, and are therefore impeding the development of her utopian vision of the public education system of the far future. To make up for their misdeeds, these bad people should immediately enroll their children in whatever public school exists in their area, where the children will receive a significantly worse education for generations to come (I shit you the fuck not, she actually says it's a good thing for current private schoolers to be given a shit education for generations to come, says the kid's grandchildren should expect a poor education, but it's all for the children of the distant future, which is a new tact: fuck the children, it's for the children). Her, ahem, logic for all this is that by shaming parents (she's explicit on that, she doesn't want to ban private schooling, we need a "morality adjustment" to make people look down on it) into dumping their kids into substandard schools, it will force parents to work to make public schools "better" (a term she doesn't qualify, but based on the overall piece one can assume better means everyone learns what she thinks is right. God help us all...).

Now, I don't think she could summarize her own point that articulately, because, as she mentions with an air of pride, she is poorly educated and doesn't read, and she clearly has no talent as a writer. But that is what she says. There's a lot of attempts on her part to show solidarity with people who are in genuinely horrific schools (the kind where you can fucking die) by pointing out her own hardships (apparently there was no soccer team).

OK, so as to a solid refutation, lets start with the core concept. She assumes that full participation, every parent sending their kid to the local pub school regardless of how shitty, and participating in booster clubs and bake sales and pta meetings, will, over what she estimates to be at least four or five generations, result in some miraculous, perfect public school systems for everyone. There are lots of stupid ideas here, so let's look at a few. First, whose idea of perfect? Has our dear author not noticed that the education of children is a somewhat contentious issue? That not everybody wants their children to be imbued with the same worldview as their neighbor's kids (like, for example, the notion that once upon a time there were people who sent their kids to private schools, and they were Bad People, or don't want their kids taking civics classes that teach them that everything is as it should be and America perfected government in 1776 and never looked back, or want a decent selection of language classes, or who care more about how effectively teachers use the technology at their disposal instead of just how much tech is at their disposal, or any of a million other conflicting one-or-the-other issues)? How does our dear author plan to resolve this contentious issue? If there are an endless array of opinions as to what and how to teach, how will the system eventually evolve into the perfect system that pleases everyone? Well, it won't and can't, but that's not an issue, because our dear author only wants it to teach how and what she and her chosen authority figures say it should. See, everyone who wants to teach children anything else in any other way is a Bad Person, so we must simply shame them until they repent and accept the One Truth (and probably send social services for their kids, although there I'm just extrapolating our dear author's probable view). So from the outset, this arguement is fucking stupid because it relies on pursuing the "ideal" of having everyone in the country agree on every aspect of how to educate their own fucking children. Good luck with that.

Then there's the actual entrenched institutions. School boards do not give a shit about parents. They fucking tag and track kids like cattle without even sending home a note, continue policies despite all protest, they do not care. And crappy teachers? What, just replace them? You ever tried to get a terrible teacher fired? Hell, you ever tried to get any union employee fired, much less a union member in a government job? Unless a teacher does something psychotic like rape a student in class, they NEVER get fired (and even then they could get off the hook if they said it was a "security search" or some shit).

Then there's jist the incredibly fucked up notion that people should intentionally sabatoge their own children's future by putting them in substandard shitholes not even for the nebulous benefit of the (other) children, but for the benefits to be reaped by unspecified chipdren at some unspecified time in the distant future, such benefits never to come to pass anyway, as precviously discussed. And... You know what, fuck it, I tried. The woman who wrote this claptrap is a fucking braindead, sanctimonious, condescending, borderline illiterate piece of shit sycophant who should be tossed into a raging inferno sufficient to destroy her genetic code lest someone ever get the idea to use it for anything.

Private schools offer huge advantages over public. They're not based on political bias, they're based on customer satisfaction and delivering on the promise of a quality education. Competition means different options in teaching philosophy and methodology, cirriculum choice, schedule options, etc. Instead of arguing endlessly about the "correct" way "we" should educated "our" children (I didn't fuck your wife, they're not my kids), the actual parents can make the decision. Basically, public schools are a politically motivated one-size-fits-none shitholes which occassionally teach by accident (and are the ultimate in statist propaganda, given the aforementioned political bias).

Private schools can suck, too, but if they do, you[ve got real options, and so do the other parents. You can move your kids to any other school you choose. If enough customers are unimpressed, the private school either improves or fails, so the incentive to improve is much stronger. Public schools can perform terribly year after year and keep getting funded, because I don't have the option to not pay taxes going to the school (at least without the armed thugs of the state coming for me). And since everyone already pays for pub schools via taxes, fewer can afford private schools, which reduces income for the private schools, some go under, some raise tuition, or scale back operations to stay afloat until they can reach an equilibrium, but not before private education has become much less accessible than it could be.

In closing, fuck you Allison. Eat a dick.

What is being seen in recent days, more openly than before, is not government "corruption". Corruption implies that the system is being manipulated to function other than intended. All talk of government corruption, or incompetence, or the inefficiency of the state, these views all spring from a misunderstanding of intent. If one assumes, for example, not that the state is an organization which exists to protect the members of society, both collectively and individually, from the actions of predatory, amoral people, but rather that the state exists as the enabler of the wildest dreams of the most predatory and amoral among us, then every action undertaken by every modern goverment makes perfect sense. It is not "corruption" we need fear from government, it is the possibility of government actually acheiving its true purpose which we should find deeply disturbing.

"And when I'm swept in to office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat. And I'll go in to people's houses at night, and wreck up the place! Mwahahaha!"

-Richard M. Nixon('s head)

It's nice that you have some all-encompasimg view of every violent situation as fitting a particular course of action, as well as being sure to point out that "civillians" are the ones with this limitation (using the common definition of civillian, this does 't apply to cops and the like then?), but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

A violent attacker can often be swayed to back down by the threat of physical harm used in self defense. If someone tries to beat you to death, they may be detered if you pull a gun. If not, they may be detered once they know it's loaded, and you are able and willing to pull the trigger. Sure, you could shoot them dead, and if they're still able and actively attempting to kill you, you should. But maybe you would prefer not to actually kill them. Are you trying to say it is somehow better to unhesitatingly kill someone when you could try to make them stop and reconsider? Of course, only if you're a "civilian", a mere mundane.

The same concept applies to any weapon. I have a machette. I use it to open coconuts (I live in a tropical paradise. Suck it.). But not long ago, a wired tweaker tried to break in to my truck in the middle of the night. While I was in it. That kind of wired speed freak that either doesn't see you sitting in the drivers seat, or just doesn't care, is dangerous. Potentially life threateningly so. By your logic, I should have kicked open the door, and slit him down the middle. Instead, I grabbed the machette and held it up in the window, and off he ran. Because the presence of a weapon can defuse the situation WITHOUT either party coming to harm.

In short, it's a bit more complicated than "perceive mortal threat, pull gun, shoot to kill." It's "perceive mortal threat, draw gun, determine if threat still imminent, if yes aim gun, determine if threat still imminent, if yes fire gun. If you can keep a cool head, you can stop when the threat ends. If you kill someone when you could have instead de-escalated the situation by simply demonstrati g your willingness to defend yourself, is it any better than if you haul off and kill someone who no longer represented a mortal threat?

You are saying that those in power have sole discretion over what they "allow" you to do? That when the "wrong" guy gets in to office and starts stepping on your throat that you should somehow take solace in the fact that you voted (or, as it is more properly called, simpering, whining, begging for scraps at the master's table)? And if there is no "right" guy, just a pair of equally power-mad shills, and you're forced to decide whether you prefer the 1st or 2nd amendment? What then? And if you have a minority who sees where the bleating majority is headed, they just have to accept that they don't really have rights, because the majority said so when they voted in the "wrong" guy?

And precisely from whence does the government obtain this "right" and others of which you speak? Just because a group of thugs calls themselves a "government" does not grant them some magical rights apart from those possessed by the citizens who consent to be ruled by that government. If individuals have no right to tax their neighbors, how can they confer that right to an elected representative? Are you suggesting that might makes right? That if you can get 50.1% of a group to agree with you, then anything you and your representatives do is legitimate? To me, that sounds more like hell on Earth than civilization. Unless you redefine "right" to mean anything one group can do to another with minimal fear of reprisal due to greater number and/or better armaments, your whole argument falls apart.

You seem to be confused between the drastically different concepts of "what government does" and "what government has a right to do". By your "logic", the government has the right to do anything the government says it has the right to do. Believe that's called "tyranny".

It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd. You're saying "this is what I believe", rather than "this is what I know". For the layperson (regarding any subject matter), there is much in common between faith in religion, and faith in science. Either way, you're generally accepting conclusions reached by others regarding a subject about which you have very little knowledge. You have to, as stated, examine the evidence available to you, and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. If you blindly accept what you saw on CNN, or read in a Slashdot summary, without further examination of the subject, you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.

And, seriously, the "falling on deaf ears" argument is a complete copout. I, for example, was raised catholic. Believed in creationism and the existence of god because that was how I was raised. Then I got a little older, started thinking for myself, examined the evidence, and concluded otherwise. If you write off an entire group of people because you disagree with them and think they're fools, hunkering down in your bunker with the others who agree with you, then nothing will ever change. I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.

I find it interesting that this was modded flamebait. It's a valid point. Whatever your opinion on the subject, rhetorical hyperbole serves only to inflame those who already disagree to disagree more. If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments. If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks, that will just entrench them in their position further. And who knows, do YOU have any research to support the idea that there is no benefit to, say, a more gradual vaccination schedule for infants? Has the issue been researched to a significant degree? I don't know of any studies on that specific subject (and note the difference between "I don't know" and "there are none"), so I couldn't counter the suggestion that it might be beneficial. If you disagree, back it up with the science, or you're no better than the "anti-science" crowd you claim to oppose. Blindly accepting "prevailing wisdom" without the knowledge to support it is every bit as "anti-science" as blindly accepting niche wisdom without the knowledge to support it. You look at the evidence available to you and form a conclusion, you don't just say "most scientists support idea A, so anyone who supports idea B is a fool." That helps no one and makes you look a fool.

And, for what it's worth, I was torn between posting a response to the fact this was modded flamebait, or modding it up. I chose the former.

https://xkcd.com/386/

You beat me to the punch. That was an excellent and insightful post, couldn't have phrased it better myself. So naturally, here on the free-thinking slashdot, it's been modded to zero. Hopefully someone with mod points will rectify this.

OK, mod this how you like, but having just read this entire thread, I am appalled that it seems to have deteriorated into a discussion of the supposed benefits to society to ENSLAVE people for a portion of their lives and force them to participate in organized butchery (or the support thereof). And yes, it is slavery. Just because your government passes a law and says it's for your own good doesn't change the fact that an unwilling participant in any such scheme is most definitely a slave.

And apart from that, I find it appalling that a seeming majority of people think military service is some kind of noble endeavor. The biggest nations and military alliances aren't fending off invasions of their homes. They ARE the invaders. They go to foreign lands, meet exciting new people and MURDER them. Usually on the flimsiest pretexts. "I was following orders" is not an excuse for killing someone. "They shot at me first" isn't an excuse when YOU are the invader. That's akin to a burglar claiming self-defense in shooting a homeowner who tried to defend his property. "I joined to do good and defend my country but a bad president started a bad war" is NEVER an excuse. You chose to join knowing that could happen (and based on, oh, say all of US history, you should have known it was damn likely), and when it comes right down to it, you choose to fire a weapon and take a life. Military service is NOT noble, it's despicable. Whatever the intentions, the soldiers make possible the wholesale slaughter of foreign peoples. Until people stop glorifying the trained attack dogs of the state, and stop making excuses for their actions, governments will have a plentiful source of cannon fodder and bullet sponges to continue invading and slaughtering.

Not really, use your own stem cells to grow the tissue, grow a new heart/arm/etc., and transplant it. Transplant tech has advanced enormously in recent years.