[zk]

[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.

[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=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.

[zk]

[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.

[zk]

[quote=ucodegen]Actually your logic skills seem broken. It is proven that home schoolers on average score 37 percentile points higher than those that went to public schools. They also have a better success rate after high school. — just one of many links I can put up..

Are you saying that as a percentage, those that have a better future are more likely to resort to crime?.[/quote]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
Playing devil’s advocate here…what proof do you have that the govt wasn’t involved in 9/11? Do you believe that the U.S. government is altruistic, and that they are “defending liberty and freedom” when declaring wars on other people or when they claim the right to spy on U.S. citizens and/or detain them indefinitely (here or overseas) without a trial? Do you think the U.S. government has never killed American citizens who might have posed a threat to certain powerful people (both within and outside of the govt)? [/quote]
Proof that they weren’t involved? The same proof that there are no aliens controlling your mind. Are there aliens controlling your mind? No? What proof do you have?
[quote=CA renter]

Do you really think that all of the people who believe there was something strange about that whole incident are crazy “conspiracy theorists”?

How about these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth%5B/quote%5D
Yes, I believe they’re conspiracy theorists and can’t be taken seriously. Just because you’re an engineer or an architect doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to paranoia.
[quote=CA renter]
Do you believe that the 30,000 drones scheduled to fly over U.S. airspace within the next decade are there “for our own good”?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-09/uncle-sam-prepares-unleash-30000-drones-over-america-public-safety%5B/quote%5D
I think that they’re intended to be used for homeland security. Do you think the original intent is homeland security and you’re afraid they’ll eventually be used for something else? Or do you think that, right now, the intent is to somehow take away your liberty? These are not rhetorical questions; I think your answers are important to this discussion.

[quote=CA renter]
Do you believe that this data center — capable of storing every bit of multiple years’ worth of electronic communications — is being built “for our own good”?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/%5B/quote%5D
Same answer (and questions) as with the drones.
[quote=CA renter]

Do you think the TSA’s screening of all manner of Americans — elderly women and children, included — is being done “for out own good,” or might they be getting us accustomed to being regularly physically violated and “screened” by government officials?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tsa-335352-agent-rights.html%5B/quote%5D
Getting us “used to being …violated and screened?” I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone in that field is thinking that far ahead. And I think it’s paranoid to see the TSA screen people in a way that you don’t like and think that they’re “preparing” us for worse.
[quote=CA renter]
Anyone who thinks that our government isn’t willing or capable of violating our rights or doing any harm to us is frighteningly naive. [/quote]
Sure, a person thinks our government isn’t willing or capable of violating our rights at all or doing any harm is naïve. Sure, the government is capable of violating our rights and doing harm. But I’d say it’s usually in small and isolated cases. I think anyone who thinks that there are vast conspiracies perpetrated by the U.S. government against the U.S. people is paranoid.
[quote=CA renter]
And while it’s difficult to fight a well-armed force with hand weapons, it’s not impossible. Look to Iraq or Afghanistan to see how much trouble a poorly-armed, but fairly large, population is able to cause a major fighting force when they feel they are fighting for a just cause.[/quote]
If fighting against government tyranny is really why we’re allowing people to have guns, the whole debate changes. It’s a completely different thing from “we should be allowed to have guns so we can hunt and shoot target practice and defend our homes against intruders.” Gun advocates use a scattershot method and attack on all fronts. But, really, defending against government tyranny and those other uses are completely different subjects. If we’re defending against government tyranny, do we need a .38 under our pillow? No. We need organized, secure, large collections of automatic weapons and assault rifles. If you think that sort of thing would work. Which I don’t, but which is at least debatable. Key word there is secure.

[zk]

[quote=CONCHO]
You have no idea who produced this video, do you? During the last administration they were called “left-wing loonies” as they were 100% against all of the Bush wars. And before that they were “right wing crazies” again because they were against Clinton’s air wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Disagree with them all you want, call ’em crazy or label them tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists or fearmongers, but to call them “right-wing” is simply wrong.

Rolling Stone did a piece on these guys in 2011, it’s a pretty good read.[/quote]

You’re correct, I don’t know who produced this video. I’ll take your word for it. In any case, my point, as I said, wasn’t that its bias was important, but that the “Obama kills innocent people with drones” part of the video was meant to sell it to right wingers. Regardless of who produced it.

[zk]

[quote=paramount][quote=zk]

It’s not the method that counts. To conclude from the fact that Obama used drones more often than Bush that Obama was engaging in Democide more than Bush was is ludicrous.[/quote]

I don’t think it would be ludicrous, but the video doesn’t attempt to make that comparison nor do I.

The main point of the video is IMO: Gov’t’s have killed over 290 million (excluding war) in roughly the last 100 years.[/quote]

The video doesn’t directly make that point, you’re correct. My point was the video is biased, partly based on its complaining about Obama while not about Bush. Although, really, that it’s biased isn’t important. I think the complaining about Obama and not Bush is just a sales tactic. Right wingers have been brainwashed into hating Obama since before he took office. Throw a jab at him in your video, and they’re more likely to pump their fists, drink the koolaid, and sing along.

So governments have killed a lot of people. And you extend that to mean that you can never trust any government? People have killed a lot of people. Do you do the same with people? Do you not trust any people?

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

Certain drugs will land people in jail for a long time. Doesn’t look like it’s stopped anyone from possessing or using drugs (thought it’s made for a hell of a black market and very rich drug lords)…or do you think there are people out there who want to use drugs, but refrain from doing so because “it’s illegal”?[/quote]

If you think that drug laws haven’t stopped anyone from using drugs, that is a perfect illustration of your inability to understand that, just because a certain law doesn’t completely halt a problem doesn’t mean that it’s having no effect at all. This trait was also manifest in the discussion of Towns A and B, and also in your inability to see that very strict gun-control laws might work. You seem to think it’s all or nothing. If country A has strict gun-control laws and still has gun violence, those laws must not work. Not true. Perhaps that country’s violence would be far worse without those laws.

An argument could be made, of course, that the violence wouldn’t be worse, or that it would be better. I wouldn’t agree with it. But it could be made. As I’ve said, gun violence is a result of a combination of laws and culture.

So, back to your drug analogy. I think our drug laws are lame. But they do have some effect. I think there are a lot of people out there who want to use drugs but refrain from doing so because it’s illegal. I’m one of them. I can’t afford jail time, and it’s not worth the risk.

[zk]

[quote=no_such_reality]Shooting rampage kills 9

Oh wait, that’s the Philippines with only 1/20th our gun ownership rate, stricter gun laws and an even higher rate of gun violence.[/quote]

Gun advocates always want to take their statistics in a vacuum if it helps their side.

The Phillipines culture is vastly different from ours. Enough so that a comparison is useless.

[zk]

[quote=paramount][quote=zk](Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren’t complaining when Bush was killing innocent people). [/quote]

“Compare Mr. Obama’s use of drone strikes with that of his predecessor. During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days.[46]”

—Peter Bergen, April 2012, CNN National Security Analyst[/quote]

It’s not the method that counts. To conclude from the fact that Obama used drones more often than Bush that Obama was engaging in Democide more than Bush was is ludicrous.

[zk]

A video that would only appeal to the angriest, most paranoid among us. Ridiculously biased (Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren’t complaining when Bush was killing innocent people). Appealing to emotion. Paranoid (they think 9/11 was democide). Etcetera. Lame.

Really, anyone that thinks our government was involved in 9/11 just cannot be taken seriously.

[zk]

Flu, I’ve read it can cost $7,000 to eliminate a bed bug infestation. Would that change your opinion?

[Author]

Posts