worpswede wrote:This is specifically addressing Chris G:
Help me understand how it is possible to argue (or debate if you prefer) against the way I feel?
Well policy positions shouldn't be driven by emotional whims. There are plenty of things I might be inclined to do, if I was only driven by emotion. Facts and solid objective analysis of the situation is what drives my positions. You're right on this point. Few people base their decisions on objective analysis, even on how they vote (some would say, especially on how they vote). They don't talk about issues or policy, they talk about how they feel about a candidate. That's how we get people like Bush in office.
worpswede wrote:You’ve indicated that you’re not a Libertarian, but then later on you state that you are. I’m confused.
Philosophically, I consider myself a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, just like you consider yourself a Liberal, but I'd bet you're not a member of the Liberal Party.
worpswede wrote:I’m going to assume that you’re a subscriber to the whole Objectivist Center philosophy. Indeed, your praise of Ayn Rand and continual name-dropping of Jefferson certainly points to an Objectivist thought.
In large part, I support the Objectivist Center philosophy. I don't think any of us agree 100% with anyone. For the record, I've used one Jefferson quote, but I did use it twice.
worpswede wrote:For me to specifically address these points in which you would like me and others to do is as tiring as “debating” against a Conservative who can only manage to recite facts, figures, and carefully selected quotes from Fox News.
Yes, it's almost as tiring, but not nearly as futile as "debating" a liberal that offers no facts or figures at all, and just talk about how they feel. As if it's just some mystical feeling that guides them through life, from whim to whim.
worpswede wrote:I will give you that at least Objectivists are more challenging and more well read, which you certainly demonstrate.
worpswede wrote:Nonetheless, you’re right, I just don’t have time to go over and rebut every single issue with you and, you’re right, it is much easier to resort to personal attacks with you. More on that later.
But if you must, I’ll pick one topic that you and I disagree with wholeheartedly:...
Thanks for taking the time.
worpswede wrote:...school vouchers. I'd like to know specifically how a voucher program is going to be a great idea for someone like me who lives in a rural state with a diminishing population? My hometown has a Catholic High School and the public high school. So forgive me if I have a big issue with someone receiving a voucher from the government to send their child to the Catholic High School. As an atheist Chris, I’m sure you can appreciate why I have a problem with this.
Introduce vouchers, and in most areas that Catholic school won't remain the only school around, and it will force your public school to compete for those dollars, which will improve your school. Right now, the public system is a state funded monopoly. What we need isn't vouchers per se, what we need is a way to introduce competition into the system. Vouchers are just a simple way to do that without building a whole new infrastructure and bureaucracy. The biggest obstacle to this is the Teachers' Union. This is thier state funded Microsoft, and boy they're not going to give that up without a fight.
worpswede wrote:In urban areas like yours, I believe that a voucher program would be another opportunity for lower income families to get the shaft. One has to assume that a kick-ass private school is going to have a lot of people pining to send their children there. In other words: demand will far exceed supply. So I’ve got to assume that it’s going to be the “active” parents (the ones who regularly go to school functions, have stable jobs with regular work hours, two parent families, etc.) that will be the ones who tend to get into said kick-ass schools before the kid with the single Mother that is working just to make ends meet.
The household with two parents and stable income are always going to have the upper-hand in every situation. Do you really think the current system helps them compete with these children of privilege? In the current system, they don't have a chance. Man, they are just born to lose!
worpswede wrote:The fear that I have is that voucher programs will ultimately create a larger gap between the haves and have nots,
Not likely to convince one another, we will just have to agree to disagree. The current system creates the gap. I'd probably piss you off if I went back to my statistics on school performance.
worpswede wrote:...and as a continual proponent of liberty, I think you’d agree that wouldn’t be cool, even with French lovin’ Libertarian like Jefferson.
I suppose your heart is in the right place, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You're supporting a system that by design creates a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. Let those without have the chance to be educated at better schools. Most students will show they can rise to the occassion. We need a return to a meritocracy where the have-nots will have the opportunity to become haves, instead of just sympathy and handouts.
worpswede wrote:Finally, the personal attacks bullshit. Dude, I’m going to go out on a limb that you’d see a lot less of them if you stopped...
I did not instigate this, but I did participate in escalating it.
worpswede wrote:...with counting the words in a reply post, smug zingers (“Happy enough with my voting record?”),...
'Dude', you did write a "300 word" diatribe to put me in my place.
worpswede wrote:...and overly defensive posture of who said what when and why. But hey, your reply made me defensive too, so I relate and will try to be more conscientious of it in the future. Let me throw out a "You're a pussy" before everyone thinks we'll end up spooning each other in bed tonight.
I'd put a picture of my wife up here, and make you wish you were as big a pussy as me, but she forbids such behavior and if she caugh me, I wouldn't get any... spooning tonight.
worpswede wrote:This debate would have been so much cooler over too many beers in a bar by Lake Erie with AC/DC blaring in the background.