|
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What?? Sure, I support smaller government. Not sure how I'm presenting myself as the model citizen here. I'm just saying that taxpayers handing academia a blank check has been tried...and failed.
Interesting, but nothing to do with what I said.
The word or topic of academia is nowhere in my post. Are you confusing me for someone else?
As for the model citizen part, I hope you did your hair 'cause a mirror is here.
For reference:
Originally Posted by MMM
It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."
Nothing to do with academia.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why are we talking about social programs? I thought the debate was about how to pay for college.
Why? IDK. It's going on.
The current topic was pondering what role the gov't takes in education will produce the best results. The schools are public schools and are therefore part of a social program. The gov't's involvement makes it a social program.
I'm exppanding from that onto a greater, more generalized observation about your overall message as a participant in this thread.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What "time of need"? We're talking about an 18 year old, presumably living with his parents, who wants to go to college. There are a myriad of ways to make that happen. Alot of them require a moticum of effort. Yet somehow we're talking about "times of need" for kids who don't get to live in a dorm and play 'frat boy' without going into debt?? Someone find me a tiny violin....
Ahh. The mirror bit.
I'm not talking about anyone but you. This is the first I've heard of this 18-year-old, and it's not relevant aside from exemplifying my point about your overarching political message. This whole hypothetical example, devoid of the nuance inherent in human decision-making, has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with you setting standards for other people's behavior based on your own limited life experiences and personal capabilities.
You're saying that other people should do like you do (or would do) in that situation. If they don't, then that's their own fault and they should certainly not expect your sympathy, let alone any gov't support.
So you're the model citizaen, whose behavior sets the bar for other people's behavior.
The violin bit is childish bravado, intended to mock me or my point while over-simplifying the humanity of people you've never met.
It lends no credibility to the maturity of your position.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I support policy changes that encourage meritocracy. If a high school graduate can't earn a living, then the problem is in high schools, not the lack of college. That's the government's responsibility.
What is and isn't the gov't's responsibility is what isn't at all clear. That's the whole point of these political conversations. We're exploring the idea-space of people with different interactions with this same society and the gov't that we find ourselves in. As member-citizens of the government, it is our collective will which is manifest in this gov't. This is why these conversations are so vital. We need to see perspectives which are dramatically different than our own and to see the relative equality (when the other people are deemed "intelligent" and "upright citizens") in both what we perceive and what others perceive.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As I said earlier, the system should be set up so everyone can acheive "average" pretty easily. If you work harder, you get farther. Makes sense to me.
... so it should make sense to everyone?
Everyone should be like you, the model citizen?
(Never mind that this is def. not how the system is set up. Tons of people who do not work hard at one thing have more social priveleges and advantages than people who work equally hard or harder at multiple things.)
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you make mistakes like dropping out, or having babies you can't support, then your quality of life should reflect that. Yes people make mistakes that are virtually impossible to overcome, and are doomed to that lower quality of life. For those people, we have safety nets like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and more. I'm fine with that.
Ahem...
"If you can't do the things banananananana has done, or would do, then you deserve whatever shit life is out there."
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What I see are regular kids wanting the same privileges that rich kids get. Specifically, the residential college experience. You're telling me that we need a social program to fix that inequality. I'm telling you we had one, and it failed miserably. Now I'm telling you that we really don't need one because A) It won't work, and B) even without it, kids still have the opportunity to be successful. It just so happens you have to work a little harder. Why is that so terrible?
What you see is not what everyone sees.
In fact, as a physicist, I can assure you that there is no other presence in the known universe which shares the view of the universe you see with your eyes.
Your perspective is universally unique.
People feeling entitled to stuff is totes a human thing. Rich kids feel entitled, poor kids feel entitled, janitors and presidents... all feel entitled. I don't see how this is any part of any intelligent criticism of anything at all. Unless you're lamenting the convoluted nature of wanting things as a living being.
"You're telling me..."
No, I never told you anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you've gotten the impression that these are my positions.
"I'm telling you"
What, now? I mean... that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, so I'll not address it.
"Why is that so terrible?"
It's only terrible in the egocentric assertion that all people can be expected to handle the same stresses of their lives at least as well as you have handled the stresses of your own life. It's only terrible in the implicit idea that everyone is 100% responsible for their situation with 0% being due to outside factors beyond their control.
|