- This topic has 52 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 6, 2013 at 6:54 PM #757277January 6, 2013 at 7:01 PM #757279
dumbrenter
Participant[quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
IEDs are considered after school activity. The only prerequisite is that you follow instructions and identify colors. Homeschoolers are excluded because they are “creative” and have trouble following instructions from a figure of authoritey!
Maybe you missed that in the options for such after school activities available to you. Wasn’t the local militia listed on the sheet for you? Maybe you picked dance instead 🙂January 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM #757280ucodegen
Participant[quote=zk]You think that my logic skills are broken because you’ve somehow (probably due to poor logic skills) mistakenly come to the conclusion that I’ve linked home schooling and crime rates. Read what I wrote again and see if you find anywhere that I’ve linked the two. I even stated that I don’t have any reason to believe that home schooling produces criminals. Not sure how you could miss that. You even quoted it.[/quote]No. You stated that larger numbers would show up on public school sides due to the lower numbers of kids going through home-schooling as a percentage of population (I think it is currently 2.3%). I reiterated that the term used was ‘percentage’ which takes into effect the number of individuals going through public school and going wacko divided by the number of kids going through public school. I didn’t think I had to clarify the definition of percentage. I also emphasized the use of percentage in
Are you saying that as a percentage
[quote=zk]I’m not even against home schooling, which you also seem to imply, again without any basis. Just because I think that some home schoolers might have a wacky curriculum does not mean that I am against home schooling. I might be against that particular wacky curriculum, but I’m not against home schooling. Just like I’m against people who are terrorists but not all people. The logic is pretty simple. Not sure how you’re missing it.[/quote]Where the heck did I state that you said that you were against homeschooling? Nowhere did I say that. I stated that homeschooling may in fact contribute fewer ‘unstable’ failures w/ a gun to society. It was an additive point to the statement, potentially in counterpoint to some of yours. In addition, you made the statement [quote=zk][quote=paramount][quote=zk] There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn’t be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children. [/quote]
Wow. You really are a conspiracy theorist.[/quote]
If you think a few wackos teaching their kids wacko things is a conspiracy, then you don’t know what a conspiracy is. At least not in the context we’re talking about them in.[/quote] and [quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
which while not exactly tying home-schooling to wackos, implies the connection when used in the current context – particularly when you consider that the current percentage of the population that is homeschooled is about 2.3% (which is already a low percentage). Are you stating 1% of 2.4%?? which is about 0.0024% of schooled kids?January 6, 2013 at 10:00 PM #757281CA renter
Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=CA renter] And I’ve never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.
But, hey, it’s “for our own good,” right? Don’t question authority![/quote]
While I don’t really disagree with what you have to say, you might want to get educated a little about “white”ness of the terrorists who belong to the moslem faith (generally considered to be terrorists). There are millions of them who are racially white and have been moslem for generations. Additionally many of those from the Levant will easily pass for white. I wonder how you will be able to screen them out.
They might even be your neighbors!! I think you should start on a procedure for “white”ness test and you might even save us some taxpayer money.
That way you can have TSA grope all blacks (or is it still ni*&ers for you?), yellow people, slit eyes and all but leave your “white US citizen” alone.You are correct about passengers on private flights not being subject to same level of inspection. You had my sympathy till you came up with this!
My apologies to other readers for this hijack.[/quote]
You are 100% correct, and I should have worded my post differently. When I said “white U.S. citizen,” I was referring to the “traditional white American,” going back multiple generations — the WASP-ish American (though including other Christian religions) and/or American of northern/western European decent. I’m sure you’ll find these descriptions offensive as well, and I apologize for that in advance. If you can find a better way to put it, please feel free to share it.
The point is that the vast majority of terrorists who hijack commercial airliners are Muslims, most often from the Middle East. Yes, this will bring about howls of criticism from those who believe we should never profile, but there has yet to be a more effective, cost-efficient way of screening people who are considered to be high risk. It is ridiculous that elderly grandmothers and young children are being subjected to this screening when they have never to my knowledge been involved in any hijacking event.
I also believe that any significant cultural changes have to come from within a particular group. Nobody wants to be told what to do by an “outsider” who doesn’t understand the culture, beliefs, and habits of a particular group. If enough law-abiding Muslims are inconvenienced to the point that they get sick and tired of the profiling, they might put more pressure on those who are causing the problems within their communities.
Of course, you might think it’s preferable to spend billions upon billions more so that we can be politically correct, but we can agree to disagree on that front.
January 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM #757282zk
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=zk]You think that my logic skills are broken because you’ve somehow (probably due to poor logic skills) mistakenly come to the conclusion that I’ve linked home schooling and crime rates. Read what I wrote again and see if you find anywhere that I’ve linked the two. I even stated that I don’t have any reason to believe that home schooling produces criminals. Not sure how you could miss that. You even quoted it.[/quote]
No. You stated that larger numbers would show up on public school sides due to the lower numbers of kids going through home-schooling as a percentage of population (I think it is currently 2.3%). I reiterated that the term used was ‘percentage’ which takes into effect the number of individuals going through public school and going wacko divided by the number of kids going through public school. I didn’t think I had to clarify the definition of percentage. I also emphasized the use of percentage in
Are you saying that as a percentage
[/quote]
Let’s start from the beginning. CA Renter tried to defend home schoolers by saying that, “The vast, vast, vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled.” I pointed out that that was not a logical defense, because, if about 98% of people are traditionally schooled, then the vast majority of criminals will be traditionally schooled whether home schooling produces criminals or not. This does not address the outcome of home schooling. It merely points out a flaw in CA’s logic. You said my logic was faulty, and proceeded to defend that assertion by pointing out statistics about how well home schoolers do and, by extension, the likelihood of them being criminals. As I had made no statement whatsoever about how well or how poorly home schoolers do, nor how likely they are to turn into criminals, either as a percentage or in numbers, that defense of your assertion does not work. If you have some other defense of your assertion about my logic skills, one that doesn’t involve a subject on which I have said nothing, I’ll address it.
[quote=zk]I’m not even against home schooling, which you also seem to imply, again without any basis. Just because I think that some home schoolers might have a wacky curriculum does not mean that I am against home schooling. I might be against that particular wacky curriculum, but I’m not against home schooling. Just like I’m against people who are terrorists but not all people. The logic is pretty simple. Not sure how you’re missing it.
[/quote]
[quote=ucodegen]Where the heck did I state that you said that you were against homeschooling? Nowhere did I say that. I stated that homeschooling may in fact contribute fewer ‘unstable’ failures w/ a gun to society. It was an additive point to the statement, potentially in counterpoint to some of yours. [/quote]I (apparently incorrectly) inferred from your attempting to point out to me the merits of home schooling that you thought I was against it.
[quote=ucodegen]
In addition, you made the statement [quote=zk][quote=paramount][quote=zk] There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn’t be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children. [/quote]Wow. You really are a conspiracy theorist.[/quote]
If you think a few wackos teaching their kids wacko things is a conspiracy, then you don’t know what a conspiracy is. At least not in the context we’re talking about them in.[/quote] and [quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
which while not exactly tying home-schooling to wackos, implies the connection when used in the current context – particularly when you consider that the current percentage of the population that is homeschooled is about 2.3% (which is already a low percentage). Are you stating 1% of 2.4%?? which is about 0.0024% of schooled kids?[/quote]I do think the home school group has a higher percentage of anti-government extremists than the public/private school group. If you’re an anti-government extremist, of course you don’t want to send your kid to be tended to by a public entity all day if you can avoid it. I’m sure it’s an insignificant percentage (far less than 1%). And it has nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of home schooling.
January 6, 2013 at 10:54 PM #757283Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=CA renter] And I’ve never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.
But, hey, it’s “for our own good,” right? Don’t question authority![/quote]
While I don’t really disagree with what you have to say, you might want to get educated a little about “white”ness of the terrorists who belong to the moslem faith (generally considered to be terrorists). There are millions of them who are racially white and have been moslem for generations. Additionally many of those from the Levant will easily pass for white. I wonder how you will be able to screen them out.
They might even be your neighbors!! I think you should start on a procedure for “white”ness test and you might even save us some taxpayer money.
That way you can have TSA grope all blacks (or is it still ni*&ers for you?), yellow people, slit eyes and all but leave your “white US citizen” alone.You are correct about passengers on private flights not being subject to same level of inspection. You had my sympathy till you came up with this!
My apologies to other readers for this hijack.[/quote]
Let’s take this a bit further, but from a different perspective. If there were a significant increase in “hate crimes” against black people, would you target your investigations toward people who look like this:
Or like this:
Granted, the people from the bottom link could be guilty of the crimes, but the *likelihood* is far greater that the people from the first group are guilty of these crimes.
As a taxpayer and citizen, I want our money to be used as efficiently as possible, and to preserve the rights of the greatest number of people possible. That’s not what we’re doing with the TSA.
January 6, 2013 at 11:33 PM #757284Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
The vast, vast, vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled. The fact that somebody doesn’t follow fads or do everything that they’re told without question doesn’t make them criminals. You do know that, right?[/quote]
Wow. Have you ever got that all wrong.
First of all, I was not disparaging all home schoolers. There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn’t be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children. Squat said, snarkily and rhetorically, that it should be in the curriculum. I pointed out that, while it obviously won’t be in a traditional-school curriculum, there is a possibility that it could be in some home-school curricula.
You show a glaring weakness in your logic skills, yet again, with your “vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled” comment. If 98% of people are traditionally schooled, then the vast majority of criminals will almost certainly be traditionally schooled, whether home schooling produces criminals or not (which I have no reason to believe it does).
Finally, to imply that I think that ”somebody [who] doesn’t follow fads or do everything that they’re told without question” is a criminal is completely ridiculous and has no basis whatsoever. You’ve twisted the fact that I don’t share your paranoia about our government into something completely unrelated.
[quote=CA renter]
But, hey, it’s “for our own good,” right? Don’t question authority![/quote]
My philosophy, which I believe has been manifest in all my posts, has been “be realistic, don’t be paranoid.” You’ve twisted this into “don’t question authority.” Two completely different things.
Some people are born to question authority. And everybody who’s known me for very long knows that I’m one of them. Although it might be less obvious now, and I certainly get into trouble because of it a lot less than I did before I learned to question authority without pissing people off. I learned to do that because I realized that you have a better chance of truly challenging authority and changing the status quo (if necessary and desired) if you don’t come off as angry and condescending. I believe that coming off as paranoid, unrealistic, and weak in logic also decrease your chances of effectively challenging authority.[/quote]
There is no weakness in my logic at all.
When I said that the “vast, vast, vast majority” of criminals were traditionally schooled, I meant that the percentage of traditionally schooled kids who commit crimes is probably greater than the percentage of homeschooled kids who commit crimes. I could not come up with reliable data to show specific percentages, so left it at “the vast, vast, vast majority.”
Yours isn’t the first post to indict homeschooling when it comes to crime of various sorts. Someone did it on the thread regarding the Connecticut shooting, too. While Lanza appeared to have been homeschooled in recent years, he spent most of his time in traditional public schools, so why didn’t anyone mention this as a probable source of his problems? He was bullied in public school, which is a much more common variable seen “crazy” killers than a history of being homeschooled, and this bullying is one of the main reasons why he was pulled out and homeschooled.
Quite franky, there is NO evidence at all showing that homeschoolers are more likely to commit these types of crimes. My point was that the majority of criminals are traditionally schooled, yet when they are arrested or identified, nobody bothers to say: “See, that’s because they were traditionally schooled.” It’s only on the **very rare** occasions that a homeschooler gets in the news that everyone makes the automatic assumption that it was their method of schooling that simply must have led to their criminal behavior…and this often leads to big debates about how homeschooling should be made illegal or more highly regulated.
It’s important that everybody understands the FACTS vs. the myths about homeschooling:
“Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Does school attendance effect crime rates?
I got the pointer to this from a local homeschool newsgroup.What Effect Does School Attendance Have on the Crime Rate?
Increasing the length of school attendance does not decrease the crime rate, according to the postwar trends in most industrialized countries. Arguing that requiring children to attend school longer would reduce crime is arguing from a statistical fallacy. Neither school uniforms nor longer school days or school years can be expected to reduce crime as long as schools themselves promote the development of youth culture. A much more effective set of crime control measures, as demonstrated by the experience of the United States in recent years, is vigorous police work, strict law enforcement, and allowing young people more choice in education.
Here are a few insightful quotes:
“As the labor of children has become unnecessary to society, school has been extended for them. With every decade, the length of schooling has increased, until a thoughtful person must ask whether society can conceive of no other way for youth to come into adulthood.”
A socialization used to mean something different.
Kett demonstrates, among other things, that the “peer group” of most children used to range in age from four to twenty-two– until age-segregated public schools became commonplace after the Civil War.
Montgomery reached the conclusion that any time a state adopted compulsory school attendance laws in the nineteenth century, its crime rate and youth suicide rate increased. United States census figures are cited throughout the book. Montgomery also reemphasized the point Cowper made a century earlier, that age-peer socialization produces more criminal behavior than socialization by parents.
This is a different point of view than those awful commercials promoting universal preschool.
A 1992 Associated Press article about Dr. Shyer’s research was widely reprinted in newspapers across the country. Dr. Shyers reports that direct observation by trained observers, using a “blind” procedure, found that home-schooled children had significantly fewer problem behaviors, as measured by the Child Observation Checklist’s Direct Observation Form, than traditionally schooled children when playing in mixed groups of children from both kinds of schooling backgrounds. Shyers concluded that the hypothesis that contact with adults, rather than contact with other children, is most important in developing social skills in children is supported by these data.”
http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-school-attendance-effect-crime.html
Some of this was taken from this link, where there is even more information about it:
http://learninfreedom.org/School_makes_crime.html
—————–
Parents whose children attend public schools are just as capable of “teaching their kids how to use IEDs” as parents who homeschool. It’s the ignorant comments about homeschooling that bother me the most. Don’t meant to unload on you, personally, but there is so much propaganda and misinformation out there regarding homeschooling (usually coming from teachers’ unions and people who think everyone should act and think the same — including government officials who want everyone under the control of the govt thought police*), it gets frustrating having to correct people all the time.
*Before you go labeling this as another “conspiracy theory,” I’ll show you how true it is in another post.
January 6, 2013 at 11:45 PM #757285Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=dumbrenter][quote=CA renter] And I’ve never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.
But, hey, it’s “for our own good,” right? Don’t question authority![/quote]
While I don’t really disagree with what you have to say, you might want to get educated a little about “white”ness of the terrorists who belong to the moslem faith (generally considered to be terrorists). There are millions of them who are racially white and have been moslem for generations. Additionally many of those from the Levant will easily pass for white. I wonder how you will be able to screen them out.
They might even be your neighbors!! I think you should start on a procedure for “white”ness test and you might even save us some taxpayer money.
That way you can have TSA grope all blacks (or is it still ni*&ers for you?), yellow people, slit eyes and all but leave your “white US citizen” alone.You are correct about passengers on private flights not being subject to same level of inspection. You had my sympathy till you came up with this!
My apologies to other readers for this hijack.[/quote]
You are 100% correct, and I should have worded my post differently. When I said “white U.S. citizen,” I was referring to the “traditional white American,” going back multiple generations — the WASP-ish American (though including other Christian religions) and/or American of northern/western European decent. I’m sure you’ll find these descriptions offensive as well, and I apologize for that in advance. If you can find a better way to put it, please feel free to share it.
The point is that the vast majority of terrorists who hijack commercial airliners are Muslims, most often from the Middle East. Yes, this will bring about howls of criticism from those who believe we should never profile, but there has yet to be a more effective, cost-efficient way of screening people who are considered to be high risk. It is ridiculous that elderly grandmothers and young children are being subjected to this screening when they have never to my knowledge been involved in any hijacking event.
I also believe that any significant cultural changes have to come from within a particular group. Nobody wants to be told what to do by an “outsider” who doesn’t understand the culture, beliefs, and habits of a particular group. If enough law-abiding Muslims are inconvenienced to the point that they get sick and tired of the profiling, they might put more pressure on those who are causing the problems within their communities.
Of course, you might think it’s preferable to spend billions upon billions more so that we can be politically correct, but we can agree to disagree on that front.[/quote]
Hey it was you who was going to suggest the “white”ness required to waive the TSA screening. So far all I hear is something about a “traditional white american” who can prove they came here some generations ago.
Interesting…maybe everybody should carry a card that shows their genealogy…not sure if this applies to black folk who were offspring of rape and all (will they fall under your western/northern european category?). But going by what you are saying, I guess not.
Maybe we should enforce a total race segregation so we can save a few dollars on TSA groping. Do you think it is worth it?
Assuming your worst conspiracy theories are true, I’d rather throw my lot with the drones and TSA since I now know that all you are concerned about is saving a few dollars but endanger us all with your ignorant correlations between ethnicity and religion.January 6, 2013 at 11:53 PM #757286Participant[quote=CA renter]
There is no weakness in my logic at all.
When I said that the “vast, vast, vast majority” of criminals were traditionally schooled, I meant that the percentage of traditionally schooled kids who commit crimes is probably greater than the percentage of homeschooled kids who commit crimes.
[/quote]
Well, that’s not what you wrote. In fact, it’s vastly different from what you wrote. There is weakness in the logic of what you wrote. And, as I am not telepathic, I’ll respond to what you write, not what you “mean.”
[quote=CA renter]
Yours isn’t the first post to indict homeschooling when it comes to crime of various sorts.
[/quote]I didn’t indict homeschooling when it comes to crime. I’m getting really tired of saying that. Show me where I did that.
[quote=CA renter]Parents whose children attend public schools are just as capable of “teaching their kids how to use IEDs” as parents who homeschool. It’s the ignorant comments about homeschooling that bother me the most. Don’t meant to unload on you, personally, but there is so much propaganda and misinformation out there regarding homeschooling (usually coming from teachers’ unions and people who think everyone should act and think the same — including government officials who want everyone under the control of the govt thought police*), it gets frustrating having to correct people all the time.
[/quote]It gets frustrating debating with someone who doesn’t write what they mean and doesn’t read what I write.
January 7, 2013 at 2:10 AM #757287Participant[quote=zk]
I didn’t indict homeschooling when it comes to crime. I’m getting really tired of saying that. Show me where I did that.
[/quote][quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
Did you say this or not? Why did you specifically mention homeschoolers regarding this issue?
January 7, 2013 at 2:19 AM #757288Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
There is no weakness in my logic at all.
When I said that the “vast, vast, vast majority” of criminals were traditionally schooled, I meant that the percentage of traditionally schooled kids who commit crimes is probably greater than the percentage of homeschooled kids who commit crimes.
[/quote]
Well, that’s not what you wrote. In fact, it’s vastly different from what you wrote. There is weakness in the logic of what you wrote. And, as I am not telepathic, I’ll respond to what you write, not what you “mean.”
[/quote]The reason I didn’t mention specific percentages is because I do not have tangible data to back up specific percentages. As a rule, I will not make a specific statement about something if I do not have the facts at hand.
The point I was making was that the vast (vast, vast — exaggerated to make my point) majority of criminals are traditionally-schooled (I believe a much higher ratio of traditionally-schooled to homeschooled population), yet we don’t hear anyone accusing their method of schooling as being responsible for their behavior, whether anti-government or otherwise.
On the other hand, whenever someone who has been homeschooled *at any point in their lives* gets into trouble, the first thing mentioned in the news headlines is that they were homeschooled; somehow implying that this was the reason for their wayward behavior. It’s totally ignorant of the facts, but that hasn’t stopped anyone from making these statements.
January 7, 2013 at 3:27 AM #757289Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=dumbrenter][quote=CA renter] And I’ve never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.
But, hey, it’s “for our own good,” right? Don’t question authority![/quote]
While I don’t really disagree with what you have to say, you might want to get educated a little about “white”ness of the terrorists who belong to the moslem faith (generally considered to be terrorists). There are millions of them who are racially white and have been moslem for generations. Additionally many of those from the Levant will easily pass for white. I wonder how you will be able to screen them out.
They might even be your neighbors!! I think you should start on a procedure for “white”ness test and you might even save us some taxpayer money.
That way you can have TSA grope all blacks (or is it still ni*&ers for you?), yellow people, slit eyes and all but leave your “white US citizen” alone.You are correct about passengers on private flights not being subject to same level of inspection. You had my sympathy till you came up with this!
My apologies to other readers for this hijack.[/quote]
You are 100% correct, and I should have worded my post differently. When I said “white U.S. citizen,” I was referring to the “traditional white American,” going back multiple generations — the WASP-ish American (though including other Christian religions) and/or American of northern/western European decent. I’m sure you’ll find these descriptions offensive as well, and I apologize for that in advance. If you can find a better way to put it, please feel free to share it.
The point is that the vast majority of terrorists who hijack commercial airliners are Muslims, most often from the Middle East. Yes, this will bring about howls of criticism from those who believe we should never profile, but there has yet to be a more effective, cost-efficient way of screening people who are considered to be high risk. It is ridiculous that elderly grandmothers and young children are being subjected to this screening when they have never to my knowledge been involved in any hijacking event.
I also believe that any significant cultural changes have to come from within a particular group. Nobody wants to be told what to do by an “outsider” who doesn’t understand the culture, beliefs, and habits of a particular group. If enough law-abiding Muslims are inconvenienced to the point that they get sick and tired of the profiling, they might put more pressure on those who are causing the problems within their communities.
Of course, you might think it’s preferable to spend billions upon billions more so that we can be politically correct, but we can agree to disagree on that front.[/quote]
Hey it was you who was going to suggest the “white”ness required to waive the TSA screening. So far all I hear is something about a “traditional white american” who can prove they came here some generations ago.
Interesting…maybe everybody should carry a card that shows their genealogy…not sure if this applies to black folk who were offspring of rape and all (will they fall under your western/northern european category?). But going by what you are saying, I guess not.
Maybe we should enforce a total race segregation so we can save a few dollars on TSA groping. Do you think it is worth it?
Assuming your worst conspiracy theories are true, I’d rather throw my lot with the drones and TSA since I now know that all you are concerned about is saving a few dollars but endanger us all with your ignorant correlations between ethnicity and religion.[/quote]No, I never suggested a “whiteness” test. What I said was that it was absurd that elderly “white” (would “Euro-American” or “WASP-ish” be preferable?) women and children were being groped by TSA agents for the sake of political correctness.
Stuff like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/tsa-pats-down-3-year-old-_n_1361843.html
and this…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/tsa-defends-95-year-old-womans-pat-down-13939775
and this…
and this…
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-pats-down-4-year-old-after-she-hugs-grandmother-732776
(I could go on and on.)
…are complete and utter BULLSHIT, and I don’t give a damn about political correctness or race/religion/ethnic relations regarding this topic.
Here is a list of terrorists from the National Counterterrorism Center:
http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/index.html
If you think that the people on this list match the description of the people from the above links, you’re insane. There IS a profile for terrorists, and we should be spending our precious and dwindling resources in pursuing those who are most likely to be terrorists, political correctness be damned! Not only that, but the fact that they are using this same political correctness to justify spying on (and possibly detaining, indefinitely) American citizens who do not in any way fit the profile of terrorists is completely and utterly wrong and totally unjustifiable.
————-
“Victor Asal, a political science professor at State University of New York at Albany, and Karl Rethemeyer, a professor of public administration and policy at SUNY at Albany, have studied 395 terrorist organizations in operation between 1998 and 2005, and Asal concludes, “What makes terrorist organizations more lethal is religious ideology. When you combine religion and ethno-nationalism, you get a dangerous combination.”’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/29/airport-security-lets-profile-muslims.html
January 7, 2013 at 7:28 AM #757292Participant[quote=CA renter]
The reason I didn’t mention specific percentages is because I do not have tangible data to back up specific percentages. As a rule, I will not make a specific statement about something if I do not have the facts at hand.
[/quote]
The difference between what you wrote and what you later said you meant goes far beyond mentioning specific percentages.
Saying “the vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled” is completely different from saying “the traditionally schooled commit more crimes as a percentage then the home schooled.” Whether you mention any percentages or not.
January 7, 2013 at 7:59 AM #757291Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk]
I didn’t indict homeschooling when it comes to crime. I’m getting really tired of saying that. Show me where I did that.
[/quote][quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
Did you say this or not? Why did you specifically mention homeschoolers regarding this issue?[/quote]
“Mentioning” a small subgroup of homeschoolers is not “indicting homeschooling when it comes to crimes.” Especially if you don’t mention any crimes. It is not a crime to teach your kids to make ieds. As I said in a previous post:
I do think the home school group has a higher percentage of anti-government extremists than the public/private school group. If you’re an anti-government extremist, of course you don’t want to send your kid to be tended to by a public entity all day if you can avoid it. I’m sure it’s an insignificant percentage (far less than 1%). And it has nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of home schooling.
That seems to be common sense. And it really does have nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of home schooling. It has to do with anti-government extremists.
The other reason I mentioned home schoolers is that you obviously won’t find ied construction in public school curricula. (I forgot about private schools. It is remotely possible that a small, anti-government-extremist-run school could have this in their curriculum).
Lots of groups have subgroups that join for the wrong reason or misrepresent the group. Having such a subgroup is not an indictment of the whole group. Nor is mentioning that subgroup an indictment of the whole group.
January 7, 2013 at 8:30 AM #757295Participant[quote=CA renter]
Parents whose children attend public schools are just as capable of “teaching their kids how to use IEDs” as parents who homeschool. [/quote]Yes, they are. But it wouldn’t really be called part of the “curriculum.” Hence my comment. Besides, any parent who is that paranoid of the government isn’t likely to send their kid to be watched over all day by an extension of the government (a public school).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.