Slate: If you send your kids to private school, you are a bad person

[Jerchap2]

People who use private restrooms are bad people. Not quite open carry bad, but leave the seat up and not flush the toilet bad. So, pretty bad. If everyone used public restrooms instead of private restrooms, the quality of pubic restrooms would improve dramatically. Because, well, we all know that everyone using something automatically makes it better.

Disclaimer: I personally have no problem with OC. But this is a gun forum and I had to think of something some folks here might identify as "bad".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

sorry, but i feel you're really fishing on this one. how does the opinion of one woman (who never was a teacher by the way) hold any sort of sway over society's norms?

I couldn't give less of a crap about this woman, but the fact that WaPo published it is what's depraved about it.

Edit: Hah, had no idea. WaPo owns Slate. Nevermind, nothing to see here folks.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

first amendment rights being exercised by both the author and the washington post. i see no reason to silence someone merely because i disagree with her opinion.

 

[Lex Concord]

Abstinence is taught, but America's values are changing (as is most of the rest of the world). The Christian belief of sex before marriage isn't ideal and I don't think it ever really was fully accepted. Why do you think VD and other STDs were so prevalent during WWII, Vietnam era, and whatnot?

Truly if anyone thinks teaching only abstinence is useful, well I have magic beans to sell them. Safe sex is a viable alternative and pushing the idea that sex should be something one does when they're comfortable doing it. It should go without saying that adults preying on children don't factor into this.



I do, however, understand and agree with your underlying point. Education in general should be about facts.

Abstinence only is a straw man in this discussion; you're the first to introduce the concept; nice job knocking it down, though.

 

[Lex Concord]

first amendment rights being exercised by both the author and the washington post. i see no reason to silence someone merely because i disagree with her opinion.

Talk about a straw man. I saw no mention of silencing anyone, just an assessment that their choice to publish was "depraved".

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

fair enough, no implication of silencing the author was ever made in a previous post. now, may i ask, what was the point of linking to said article? is there something wrong about allowing people a means of voicing their opinion, no matter your personal thoughts on it? i was under the impression that it's understood that opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the publisher's views.

 

[jamil]

fair enough, no implication of silencing the author was ever made in a previous post. now, may i ask, what was the point of linking to said article? is there something wrong about allowing people a means of voicing their opinion, no matter your personal thoughts on it? i was under the impression that it's understood that opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the publisher's views.

So giving opinions is fine, but giving opinions on opinions are somehow nafarious?

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

not at all, just honestly wondering what was trying to be accomplished by bringing up this article. if only to claim the author is whacko, i wholeheartedly agree. if it was to further some claim against the idea of pulic education, it's quite a non sequitur.

 

[Jerchap2]

Then what does Christianity have to do with whether abstinence or safe sex is "ideal"?

You may not have noticed, but you've already identified why America's values are changing. You said, "Safe sex is a viable alternative and pushing the idea that sex should be something one does when they're comfortable doing it"

Pushing that idea is exactly what has happened over the last 50 years. The problem is, 50 years ago, the other side of the argument had some say in the matter. They don't anymore. "Ideal" is an opinion, which means that others may have different opinions. But the only opinion you hear in the mainstream, is exactly the one that you believe. Do you think that's a coincidence?

Entropy: A system will decay over time unless energy is put into it to maintain it and build it.

That is what has happened to values and morality in the US. We have allowed the morality to decay and not put the energy into it to keep that from happening. Not only that, but the Godless Left has devoted considerable energy into promoting moral and societal decay, accelerating the pace of the downward slide. Much of that has been targeted toward young people and families. The family is the foundation of a civil society, and the promotion of: ● killing unborn children as an acceptable "choice" ● sex as a recreational activity with no consequence rather than being an intimate, personal, unique and special sharing of ones' self that is the most personal thing one will ever do ● aberrant behavior as the accepted norm and the condemning of civil and proper behavior ● marginalization of the importance of the difference between men and women and the drive to make men more like women and vice versa rather than recognizing and embracing their synergistic nature, and ● the push to get rid of any vestiges of personal responsibility in favor of feeling entitled and expecting the government to take care of your every need -- all work to destroy a natural order and a great society and replace it with a Utopian fantasy that has been tried countless times and always failed and always created misery.

A fish does not know that it is wet. Too many fish in the world that do not consider there are other lenses by which to view life and its responsibilities and sacredness. Some see God and our responsibilities in a much different way than the Left has unfortunately succeeded in making the norm. Here is one:

?Duck Dynasty? Stars Speak Movingly About Faith, Abstinence, Adoption, And Being Pro-Life // Mr. Conservative

To me they make a lot of sense. If more believed and thought this way, what a better world we would have.

 

[Lex Concord]

not at all, just honestly wondering what was trying to be accomplished by bringing up this article. if only to claim the author is whacko, i wholeheartedly agree. if it was to further some claim against the idea of pulic education, it's quite a non sequitur.

apt analysis.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

fair enough, no implication of silencing the author was ever made in a previous post. now, may i ask, what was the point of linking to said article? is there something wrong about allowing people a means of voicing their opinion, no matter your personal thoughts on it? i was under the impression that it's understood that opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the publisher's views.

Hah, wow. You reached... and you missed. Good try.

Nah, I'd argue that if WaPo allowed the article without telling the woman she's bat**** ****ing nuts, they condone it. All "journalist" outlets should have a shred of standards.

I can't remember the last time I saw a "Pro-KKK" article in a news outlet... yet... those people do exist.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

i'll disagree with your argument on opinion pieces being condoned by those that print it. other than that, i believe we are actually of pretty similar opinion on the articles you linked in both the op and the wapo post. as a public school teacher, i have zero issues with the idea of kids being educated at home or private school. i have seen individual cases of homeschooling gone the complete train wreck route, but that doesn't mean it can never be done correctly.

 

[jamil]

i'll disagree with your argument on opinion pieces being condoned by those that print it. other than that, i believe we are actually of pretty similar opinion on the articles you linked in both the op and the wapo post. as a public school teacher, i have zero issues with the idea of kids being educated at home or private school. i have seen individual cases of homeschooling gone the complete train wreck route, but that doesn't mean it can never be done correctly.

If we were talking about more objective journals I'd agree with you. Many mainstream journals lean one way or another, but they're still objective enough to publish opinion pieces from opposing views. But we're talking about Slate here. They are not mainstream and their very existence has one purpose, which is to promote a set of ideals.

Slate is not objective. You could compare them to conservative media outlets like Breitbart. Not that I don't like Breitbart, all journalism is biased. Sites like Slate and Breitbart are at least honest about it. You are about as likely to find an opinion piece extolling the virtues of a free market school system published on Slate as you are to find an opinion piece like this one published on Breitbart.

Slate may or may not agree with the superficial point of the article, that only bad people send their kids to private schools, but I'd betcha they agree with the underlying principle, that our nation's children should be educated by the state.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

you may very well be right; i am not familiar with slate at all and am in no position to argue this point one way or the other. that's the rub with internet journalism; if ad revenue is based on the number of hits, extreme viewpoints get a lot of play.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

My kids both attended public schools, but were both thoroughly and comprehensively home-schooled along the way, oftentimes to the consternation of some of their teachers.

And, I've never understood why I should be concerned, upset, or even interested in any labels put on me by groups of politically idealistic people.