[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Muscovite)
Your argument is driven by personal emotion and therefore is invalid.
I could easily say 'the right are like 'WEE NEED MOAR ECONOMIC FREEDURMM' herp derp

So if anyone has an emotional tie to some idea then any argument is automatically invalidated. If so god knows why I studied formal logic for two years...

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Muscovite)
Your argument is driven by personal emotion and therefore is invalid.
I could easily say 'the right are like 'WEE NEED MOAR ECONOMIC FREEDURMM' herp derp

Tehe, apart from the fact I am actually correct, find me 100 people who range from the far-left to the centre/center left (no, not labour, a right wing social democratic party, centre left being democratic socialism like the greens), and you will find 100 people that think there needs to be more equality in education, and that private schools shouldn't exist, and then maybe 70%ish think grammar schools shouldn't exist either.

Now take 100 from the (economic) right, from the anarcho capitalists on the far-right and the social democrats on the centre/centre right, and you will have a wide variety of idea on economic freedom, and, to hazard a guess, I'd say 35% say we don't need more economics freedom.

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
BS. That's like saying "you're more than welcome to take drugs but we'll lock you up when you do". Parents do not choose to pay twice. They are coerced into paying that tax (you know what happens when you owe HMRC money, right?). Sure they could pay for their child to go to a state school but the fact is they don't. And that is what matters.



LOL. You do realise that whether you are intelligent and hard-working are no less luck than having wealthy parents?

BTW I hope you, as a relatively wealthy westerner, would be prepared to accept the government taking huge amounts of your money to give in foreign aid (surely some Somalian's need for food outranks your desire for a new xbox, right?).

I would rather the xbox. Theyre hungry anyways

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
No, they don't. Why should the rich suffer because the poor are poor? Why do the rich have an enforceable duty to give money (indirectly ) to the poor?

Because capitalism is not infallible. Capitalism creates a curve of income disproportionate to the increase in skills or social value of the work done. Capitalism is not an ideal system; thus we mitigate it. This is known as 'Social Democracy', and means that we move towards an egalitarian society. Hurrah!

[Muscovite]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Tehe, apart from the fact I am actually correct, find me 100 people who range from the far-left to the centre/center left (no, not labour, a right wing social democratic party, centre left being democratic socialism like the greens), and you will find 100 people that think there needs to be more equality in education, and that private schools shouldn't exist, and then maybe 70%ish think grammar schools shouldn't exist either.

Now take 100 from the (economic) right, from the anarcho capitalists on the far-right and the social democrats on the centre/centre right, and you will have a wide variety of idea on economic freedom, and, to hazard a guess, I'd say 35% say we don't need more economics freedom.

What a load irrelevant incoherent drivel. I don't have a clue what that has to do with being emotional and insulting egalitarians such as you were?

[GdotL]

People forget that a) all private schools are not the same - there are academic ones and not-so-academic ones and b) the children usually have to pass rigorous entrance exams and interviews. If your average-incomed kid wants to try out the exam and interview, they are very welcome to do so and try to do well enough to win themselves a bursary.

[ApresAlkan]

'Education and Healthcare are not human rights you joker. They are good things and things we want but they aren't rights.'

Human rights are largely arbitrary. Do you think that somebody should be given a worse education by virtue of their birth, as for healthcare?
You think people should have a higher risk of dying because their parents aren't rich?

The state is obliged to educate the populace and keep them alive. Do you think that the Nordic model doesn't work? They have an incredibly banded tax system, and average taxation of more than 50%. They have one of the highest qualities of life in the world, and the second (?) best education system in the world. Pretty much no private schools. They have similarly good healthcare. Pretty much no private hospitals. They have the most affluent cultured people in the world... Do you really think that socialism doesn't work?

You think that banded tax systems are unfair. I have previously addressed this many time. Capitalism is not infallible. Capitalism increases equality, even though fundamentally there should be very little difference betwixt the top and the bottom of society if any. Any other suggestion is reactionary.

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by Muscovite)
What a load irrelevant incoherent drivel. I don't have a clue what that has to do with being emotional and insulting egalitarians such as you were?

Bunch of made up statistics and assumptions. All irrelevant anyways.

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
'Education and Healthcare are not human rights you joker. They are good things and things we want but they aren't rights.'

Human rights are largely arbitrary. Do you think that somebody should be given a worse education by virtue of their birth, as for healthcare?
You think people should have a higher risk of dying because their parents aren't rich?

The state is obliged to educate the populace and keep them alive. Do you think that the Nordic model doesn't work? They have an incredibly banded tax system, and average taxation of more than 50%. They have one of the highest qualities of life in the world, and the second (?) best education system in the world. Pretty much no private schools. They have similarly good healthcare. Pretty much no private hospitals. They have the most affluent cultured people in the world... Do you really think that socialism doesn't work?

You think that banded tax systems are unfair. I have previously addressed this many time. Capitalism is not infallible. Capitalism increases equality, even though fundamentally there should be very little difference betwixt the top and the bottom of society if any. Any other suggestion is reactionary.

Yeah so basically rich people should pay for poor peoples stuff

LOL

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Because capitalism is not infallible. Capitalism creates a curve of income disproportionate to the increase in skills or social value of the work done. Capitalism is not an ideal system; thus we mitigate it. This is known as 'Social Democracy', and means that we move towards an egalitarian society. Hurrah!

You didn't answer my question.

And why do we want egalitarianism (to paraphrase Parfit, " material equality is pointless because making people more equal does not in itself lead to anyone being better off").

And how do you reconcile private property with this redistribution of wealth?

[Planar]

(Original post by Hopple)
I think the argument is more along the lines of wanting equal opportunites (or as close to it as is possible) for as long as possible rather than jealousy.

You really just did that, didn't you? This thread has been done to death on TSR

[daviddd!1994]

(Original post by GdotL)
Lol I know, it's so ridiculous it's laughable. It's not rich people's fault if the government doesn't provide decent free education.

I got a decent education from a state school. It's what you make of it.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Planar)
You really just did that, didn't you? This thread has been done to death on TSR

Didn't take me long to type out, and I was sat at my computer anyway? Have a go at the OP if you're looking for who's responsible.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by dannyoh)
Furthermore I pity many of you publically schooled lot. You'll never get the real experience of dealing with real people - 15year old pregnant girls, smokers, alcoholics, those from real tough areas, those who'll be arrested and equally those who try really hard. Life will seem all cushion-y cushion-y in an unrealistic world.

What's wrong with that? Why do I need to deal with 15 year old pregnant girls?
Besides, what makes a 15 year old pregnant girl any more of a "real" person than a CEO, or a member of the nobility, or one of the many other types of people that the poor don't generally interact with much?

[GdotL]

(Original post by daviddd!1994)
I got a decent education from a state school. It's what you make of it.

Yes of course, many state schools are decent and have good facilities and interested teachers. If you work hard, you can do as well, or better, than privately educated children. The problem is the widespread lack of motivation from some pupils and lack of parental support. Well done for your great grades

[James0507]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
BS. That's like saying "you're more than welcome to take drugs but we'll lock you up when you do". Parents do not choose to pay twice. They are coerced into paying that tax (you know what happens when you owe HMRC money, right?). Sure they could pay for their child to go to a state school but the fact is they don't. And that is what matters.



LOL. You do realise that whether you are intelligent and hard-working are no less luck than having wealthy parents?

BTW I hope you, as a relatively wealthy westerner, would be prepared to accept the government taking huge amounts of your money to give in foreign aid (surely some Somalian's need for food outranks your desire for a new xbox, right?).

No, I said they choose to pay twice, which is true. They have no option in paying once, yes, but to pay for private education and thus to pay for education a second time over is entirely their own choice.

I disagree. Intelligence may be something that one cannot change, but effort is. I know very intelligent people who don't do well in school because they lack interest or already have a definite idea of what they want to do with their lives (for example, I have a friend who I know to be extremely intelligent, but his only desire is to inherit his father's farm, therefore school and acedimia is of little interest to him) where as, I know of people who are probably less intelligent than myself but work their arses off and therefore surpass me.

For the record, I 100% agree with foreign aid, although I don't entirely agree with how it's sometimes spent. Even though I earn little, I already give to a charity. I'm very aware of the privileges of being a "relatively wealthy westerner".

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Rosalind)
heaven forbid everyone have the same quality education irrelevant of their parents' income, those bastard poor kids who do they think they are

Nice idea. But how far do you take it?

For example: Should we start allowing all poor children from third world countries who can't afford school to come to the UK and get free state education? Should they not get the same quality of education, regardless of their parents' poverty/foreign nationality?

[daviddd!1994]

(Original post by GdotL)
Yes of course, many state schools are decent and have good facilities and interested teachers. If you work hard, you can do as well, or better, than privately educated children. The problem is the widespread lack of motivation from some pupils and lack of parental support. Well done for your great grades

Yeah I don't agree that private education should be banned but rather that state education should aim to reach those levels. I don't think many people are genuinely lazy, there's just a lack of encouragement from schools and parents. Thanks I've always wondered what it's like to go to a private school where high grades are the norm.

[daviddd!1994]

Just an observation but there does seem to be a higher proportion of private school students in TSR than in the real world.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

there are pros and cons...

personally, i regard this similar to simply giving your kid your business when they grow up rather than learning to appreciate the effort going into work and climbing ladders, such that you want whats best for them even if it disregards being fair...

yes parents, you have money, you love your kids, you want to do everything to make sure your kid shines and blossoms, you want your kids to be smart, you want them to be employable...but you dont think about the fairness of such an action...i dont see how it is fair that one can use their wealth to make sure their kids are academically decent while others cannot... education should be a right, a neccessity, it shouldnt be such that 'education is a neccessity, but good education is a special treatment/privilege (if thats the right word)'... ive done decent in a state school, its sad to think about how different life would have been, if my parents could afford it, not to say that theyre not awesome...

its sad that if i dont end up having a good job for whatever reason, then if i have kids, i wont be able to afford having them get the best education possible... to go to eton or whatever...

instead of having private schools, effort should be made in improving state ones... state schools arent exactly the pinnacle of awesomeness here... so improve them... in terms of those who want their kid to go to private school (as in want them to have a good education) dont divide the parents into 'those that can afford it' and 'those that cant', adding tension... sure there are people who dont give a crap, but not everyone is the same, nor does it justify it

improve our schools!