Do you think we should abolish private schools?

The emphasis shouldn't be placed on the parents though. The children should also have a say on whether or not they want to go to such schools, because believe it or not, they're people too and they might have a completely different mindset.

government is the only thing that *does* decide what kids are taught in state schools, or it delegates the authority to do so. who else decides the national curriculum? and who said I advocated promoting certain beliefs? do I need to explain what secularism is? it's an absence of teaching one thing or the other - it leaves that to the parents because surely the parents are the one's who are best suited for teaching kids about such controversial things like this? if you suggest that the government should teach *about* religion, then in my opinion there should be very specific circumstances for this e.g. a class about not only religion but also philosophy and politics where they'd learn *about* them, not that they're true or that they should regard some ideologies (e.g. the 6 "big" religions) over others (especially seeing as there are really only a couple of fundamental political ideologies, e.g. liberalism, conservatism, socialism, anarchism, etc where there aren't a billion variations on them like in religious traditions). that's different to banning ideas though - again, if we didn't teach kids about astronomy would that be banning astronomy? if we didn't teach kids about shintoism or daoism is that banning shinotism and daoism? so basically if you're logic follows our government is banning those ideas in schools?

The idea that not teaching something is 'banning' it is ludicrous. You surely can see the difference between not wanting to teach something, and therefore not, and wanting to but not being allowed to? Shinto, for example, cannot be said to be banned because if someone wanted to start up a Shinto based school then they could, in the same way Christian and Muslim free schools have been set up. It's just that there is no demand for it. Under what you propose it would be banned, because they could not even in theory.

who said I wanted to ban private religious schools? that's different from a free school which is publicly funded and thus a potential violation to the idea of separation of church and state if they are literally teaching it as fact

Ah, I was beginning to think you'd blocked me after your notable refusal to reply to my last few rebuttals of your arguments.

But this is the Daily Mail I'm talking about!

I would do you the charity of assuming this was a joke, but having read some of your other posts I just don't think it is.

Your views are hideous. But unlike you, I don't think disagreeing with me (or even really, really disagreeing with me) should be a thoughtcrime.

If we can put your patronising tone to the side, it was not a joke. The Daily Mail is an absolutely vile newspaper. Seriously, wtf?! I thought this was common knowledge!

So many bootlickers on this thread. How you've managed to adopt such a conservative mentality, given that you probably come from an even poorer background than me, is one of the mysteries of the universe. No wait, I think I have a possible answer to this. Perhaps growing up, you were bullied by the scum around you, and now you feel at home with your own, true kind at Oxford, nice and tucked away from all the riff raff.

Striving for equality and fairness is hideous? Okay. How is wanting to make education less biased towards a child's unchosen financial situation is hideous?

What I can't stand is that it's always that same 7% of people who are at the top of every sphere of influence. That fact that you favour productivity over equality says it all. You have an extremely cold view and absolutely no regard for the psychological impact of the little people who continue to be downtrodden. You're a typical Tory.

Believe it or not, I used to be just like you.

We're back to the same rational I called you out for using before. You are infallible, if someone disagrees with you there must be something wrong with them.

The opinion that I specifically called hideous is an excellent example of this. I don't actually believe opposing private schools is hideous, because I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person. It was your views on Daily Mail readership as a thoughtcrime that specifically exercised me. Yes, you feel the Daily Mail is vile. Many people agree with you, but so what? A lot of people do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of a free country that you are free to hold whatever opinions you wish. You cannot simply come out and say 'my opinion is the right one, dissenting opinions are vile and can therefore be fairly penalised', because it assumes an infallibility I really do not think you can claim. Incidentally this is the logic of every despot ever.

Then you think that because of my political views something must have gone awry in my upbringing. Can you not conceive that someone may honestly disagree with you, without there being some defect in their being?

I don't actually think I'm cold and heartless. I also don't think you can make these judgements based on someone's political stripes, but if I did it would be easy to turn your logic on its head. It was Thatcher who said of socialists' fetishism of equality that 'they would rather the poor be poorer, so long as the rich were less rich'. That doesn't sound like a particularly warm and fluffy view to me, but then this is where that entire thing about people naturally taking a range of different opinions comes in.

Look, I stick to my opinions. Otherwise, what's the point in having one? I'm a painfully shy person in real life, but the whole point of having an opinion is that it's your own. Why on earth would I try to agree with another point of view if I fundamentally disagree with it? Also, I don't think there's something wrong with people who don't agree with me. I never said that, so don't twist my words. I just genuinely, fundamentally disagree with you, and I'm a little astounded by how many conservative-minded people there still are in this day and age. I don't think all Tories are bad, but there's definitely a prevalence of conservative people who are selfish. After all, that's essentially what the whole philosophy is founded on. The 'it's my money and I can do what I want with it' mentality is utterly childish. Social mobility in Britain is terrible and many parents who've 'earned' their huge sums of money usually did so through their own unfair advantages in the first place.

I'd define myself as a lefty, yet there are aspects of conservatism I agree with too. But I'd rather speed up actual political progression and ignite some kind of second renaissance, rather than waste time pampering to the needs of conservative, counter-progressive thinkers, who are terrified that a little bit change for the greater good might put their already-comfortable little lives at risk.

At the risk of being subjected to further patronising remarks, I get the gist of what you're saying but remember, not all of us are Oxford-educated or philosophy-literate. Beneath the pretentious unreadability of what you're saying, it seems like another crybaby excuse to make me look like a terrible person. You attempt to decimate me with your self-righteousness by saying that although you disagree, you tolerate my point of view - because if you didn't, that would make you seem equally as bad as me. It's clever stuff but I can see through it...

It was just a guess, based on what you've said previously about your background. I never said 'this is what you are, hence...'; I said 'I reckon this is what happened, hence...'. But if what I theorised about you isn't the case then how come you're not denying it? If it is the case though, I'll admit this, it takes one to know one, and I used to be just like you. That's why I thought I'd make a guess and diagnose you.

No. I can conceive that someone may honestly disagree with me without there being some defect in their being. When did I say that just because I disagree with someone means that I think there's a defect in their being? I think it's more the case that you're distraught that you're having an argument with somebody on TSR who isn't pro-establishment, who may actually have a point.

Saying 'actually' like that suggests that you can see why other people would. The conservatives have a horrible reputation. I'm sorry but many people who vote conservative really do only care about themselves, don't let your 'range of different opinions' argument try to disguise that. 'Hey let's decrease taxes for the rich that could otherwise benefit the needy. Let's increase privatisation and cuts so we can piss even more people off and destroy their incentives (and their souls). As always, let's inflict the worst case scenario on everybody else for the supposed benefit of the country - obviously that should come first; not the people.'

Personally I wish it wasn't as black and white as this, but quite often it is...

EDIT: For the record, I don't have a problem with people solely for being rich. It's the general attitude and mentality that I can't stand.

This.

I live in Bedfordshire where there is quite a big private-school culture, but the state school I attended got better results than all of them for GCSE and A-Levels.

Look, for me our debate about private schools finished long ago. You have no points worth further discussion. By your own admission the main reason you despise private schools so much is because some private school pupils were mean to you at university. The reason this discussion has carried on is because I was a bit shocked by some of your other views.

I don't want to patronise you, but given you feel me basing my opinions in logic and reason rather than uncontrolled emotion is trying to trick you it's been difficult not to.

It goes without saying that we all believe our opinions to be correct, and our opponents to be wrong. It is something else to refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. When you judge people's character based on the opinions they hold that is what you are doing, and unfortunately this is something you have done repeatedly*. No one, not even the state (especially not the state), can say definitely which opinions are right and wrong, which is why liberal countries value freedom of speech so highly. To put it mildly this is not a principle you have shown much regard for.

*There are many others, but here is one example from this most recent post: "I'm a little astounded by how many conservative-minded people there still are in this day and age"

To you, that conservatism is wrong is an objective truth. That, as we become more educated and society progresses, people still persist in such backwards beliefs genuinely baffles you. If I told you that I care about people, and that the reason I believe in economic liberalism is because I believe it is best for all mankind, would you believe me?

If I could afford to send my kids to private school and private schools were abolished by the state. I would seriously consider sending my child to an elite boarding school abroad. Regardless, I am going to find a way to use my wealth to give my children an advantage. After all, there is nothing more important to spend my money on.

The way to seek equality without becoming a tyrant is to attempt to improve opportunity, not diminish privilege.

2) we should instead invest in our education system so ALL schools are as good as some of the best private schools, so more per pupil funding, better teachers and better funding for schools in general.

Yes, that's definitely going to happen; we could do it with all the spare money the treasury has just lying around.

I'm sure there's enough in there to pay for the added cost of educating all the extra pupils you've forced into the state system, too.

yes, two main reasons:

1) they enable an unequal system whereby the rich can pay for better education in terms of teachers these schools attract and also in terms of the funding per pupil and for the schools.

2) we should instead invest in our education system so ALL schools are as good as some of the best private schools, so more per pupil funding, better teachers and better funding for schools in general.

as an additional point removing private schools also gives the parents of more wealthy children more incentive to push for the changes in point 2 as well.

1) You're quite the little Stalin aren't you? Who gave you the right over other people's children?

2) We already invest a lot in state education and they aren't a scratch on private schools. What makes you think banning the decent schools will suddenly make the average ones better?

Were you bullied as a child?