Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Day Care Should Be Free
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 9

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  06:37:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Val, you apparently continue to be convinced that the quality and likelihood of a school or day care to push religion on kids is more influenced by whether or not it is run by the government, and less influenced by regional and economic factors. But observable evidence suggests otherwise. I've written a lot trying to point out that the crappiest institutions and conditions are more often found in low income communities, while the best are found in affluent communities, regardless of the level of government involvement. You ignore all of those arguments. You don't even bother to counter them. It is frustrating to say the least.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 06:38:57
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  08:18:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Val, you apparently continue to be convinced that the quality and likelihood of a school or day care to push religion on kids is more influenced by whether or not it is run by the government, and less influenced by regional and economic factors. But observable evidence suggests otherwise. I've written a lot trying to point out that the crappiest institutions and conditions are more often found in low income communities, while the best are found in affluent communities, regardless of the level of government involvement. You ignore all of those arguments. You don't even bother to counter them. It is frustrating to say the least.


But yet those institions cost the same when run by government in those areas. The money is more likely squandered or embezzled in the poorer communities or the money goes to replace stolen items in the poorer communities more often than the affluent ones. Its how Chicago works. Money is poured into the southside neighborhoods which have been economically depressed since the 1970's when US Steel closed up shop. Yet these districts pay much more per student that affluent communities and far more than poor rural communities.

I do not see government run daycare as a viable option.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  12:22:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Val wrote:
But yet those institions cost the same when run by government in those areas.
Ahem, public schools in more affluent communities most certainly do tend to have more money to spend than in poor communities because the funding is often tied to property taxes.

The money is more likely squandered or embezzled in the poorer communities or the money goes to replace stolen items in the poorer communities more often than the affluent ones. Its how Chicago works. Money is poured into the southside neighborhoods which have been economically depressed since the 1970's when US Steel closed up shop.
Yeah, poorer communities are more dysfunctional. That's one of the reasons we have social services for them in the first place. Of course they aren't going to run perfectly smoothly. Is that your big argument against such social programs? Are you suggesting that these communities don't benefit from the services at all or that they would be better off without the services?

Yet these districts pay much more per student that affluent communities and far more than poor rural communities.
Um, are you complaining that the government spends more money on social services for poor, densely-populated communities than affluent and sparely-populated ones? And this is bad because...?

I do not see government run daycare as a viable option.
Yeah, I know. I just don't see why since your arguments seem to mostly be nonsequiters or really vague platitudes.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  13:13:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Val wrote:
But yet those institions cost the same when run by government in those areas.
Ahem, public schools in more affluent communities most certainly do tend to have more money to spend than in poor communities because the funding is often tied to property taxes.

The money is more likely squandered or embezzled in the poorer communities or the money goes to replace stolen items in the poorer communities more often than the affluent ones. Its how Chicago works. Money is poured into the southside neighborhoods which have been economically depressed since the 1970's when US Steel closed up shop.
Yeah, poorer communities are more dysfunctional. That's one of the reasons we have social services for them in the first place. Of course they aren't going to run perfectly smoothly. Is that your big argument against such social programs? Are you suggesting that these communities don't benefit from the services at all or that they would be better off without the services?


No, marf. The argument refutes your contention that the programs cost less in depressed neighborhoods due to tax base. In Illinois, schools are disproportionally funded more for poor urban areas than middle class/rural working poor areas. There are not enough affluent areas in Illinois to make a valid argument that shifting more costs to poor urban areas will make an improvement.


Yet these districts pay much more per student that affluent communities and far more than poor rural communities.
Um, are you complaining that the government spends more money on social services for poor, densely-populated communities than affluent and sparely-populated ones? And this is bad because...?

I do not see government run daycare as a viable option.
Yeah, I know. I just don't see why since your arguments seem to mostly be nonsequiters or really vague platitudes.


While you're at it, how about you accuse me of kicking puppies for fun.

If this plan ever comes up for vote, I will be stringently opposing it.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 9 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.33 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000