Declaration of the Separation of the States of America

[SallyNow]

SallyNow quote

Solid education and health care are both RIGHTS, not LUXURIES

Response

Is a Solid education and health care a RIGHT for a person that will not study or will not avoid unhealthy practices?

Maybe a statement of responsibilities is needed.

As strange as the idea might be, everyone is entitled to medical care, clean water, and an education. Whether people choose to utilize it is up to them. And yes, even if a person smokes, hangglides, base jumps, skis out of bounds, and eats only friend things, they are entitled to medical care. And yes, even if some 6-18 year old doesn't want to study, they should still be required to sit there and listen, because some of it will sink in, and it will give them a much better opportunity in life than if they're allowed to drop out in grade 5 and work in sweat shops.

But that's my siggy. Why do you care about by siggy so much?

Anyways, I'm still waiting for my delivery of Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Point Roberts and Northewest Angle. Can you hurry up please? It would be nice to have some liberals and democrats around for the next election, whenever that might be, or at least for the next next one or next next next one whenever those might be.

 

[clirus]

SallyNow quote

As strange as the idea might be, everyone is entitled to medical care, clean water, and an education. Whether people choose to utilize it is up to them. And yes, even if a person smokes, hangglides, base jumps, skis out of bounds, and eats only friend things, they are entitled to medical care. And yes, even if some 6-18 year old doesn't want to study, they should still be required to sit there and listen, because some of it will sink in, and it will give them a much better opportunity in life than if they're allowed to drop out in grade 5 and work in sweat shops.

Response

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I frequently show people that something will not work, but the reply comes back, "I know it won't work, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it did"

I don't know how you deal with people that hope something will happen, but really know it will not.

Obama is a merchant of hope, but very little reality. There are enough hopers out there to elect a hope merchant.

Hope is like a drug. It makes you feel really good, but when it wears off there is a deep depression.

James 2:17 states, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

I would rephrase that as, "Even so hope, if it hath not realism, is dead, being alone."

I can understand a mother basing her care for a child on hope, but that cannot be the bases of a government.

Do you really believe forcing a 6-18 year old to sit and listen will keep them out of swear shops?

Too often the disruptive kids hold back those that desire to learn. But then if you separate the disruptive from the studious, the ACLU takes the school to court

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you really believe forcing a 6-18 year old to sit and listen will keep them out of swear shops?

Yes. The results of not keeping children in schools is a whole plethora of negative externalities upon other members of society. Recognizing this, the Commonwealth Government wisely decided that it was going to commit its resources to keeping kids in school for as long as possible.

Too often the disruptive kids hold back those that desire to learn. But then if you separate the disruptive from the studious, the ACLU takes the school to court

I can see why some would want to separate "the disruptive from the studious". However, it only generates a climate of tenuous emotion. The 'disruptive' as they are labelled, will feel discarded and trodden upon - hopeless even - and in this situation shall occur learnt helplessness, which may led to a pattern of behaviour that ultimately results in helplessness in adult life, and perhaps even, welfare dependency (a situation I am sure that you would oppose.) On the other hand, the 'gifted', as they are labelled, may feel under the constant pressure to perform studiously in order to avoid being discarded and trodden upon like the 'disruptive'. The 'studious' may even become snobby, with an inflated ego, believing that his intellect grants him more entitlement that any other to rule over others. The sheer stress that the studious shall face, competing with each other, may perhaps even drive them to perfectionism, a side-effect of which is anxiety. And once they fail to achieve their standards - as all individuals at some point do - what then shall they feel other than depressed?
It is also important to note that this is not simply a distinction between the 'disruptive' and the 'studious'. Many students fall under neither category. If they are uncritically then labelled 'disruptive' and so taught in this manner, then how shall they develop and refine their talents and skills if they are constantly in an environment that simply reinforces hopelessness and helplessness?
In addition, it just seems plain wrong to label children in this way. They are children! And what may occur, and what I hypothesize would occur if such classroom distinctions were to be made plain, the children would adapt to fit the label they are given. If they are labelled 'disruptive', they will internalize this categorization and exhibit the expected traits of one that is disruptive. Labeling a child as something outright does not do well to reverse the behaviour at all. Instead, it creates a mold into which the child develops a consistent pattern of behaviour.

 

[clirus]

bjspurple quote

I can see why some would want to separate "the disruptive from the studious". However, it only generates a climate of tenuous emotion. The 'disruptive' as they are labelled, will feel discarded and trodden upon - hopeless even - and in this situation shall occur learnt helplessness, which may led to a pattern of behaviour that ultimately results in helplessness in adult life, and perhaps even, welfare dependency (a situation I am sure that you would oppose.) On the other hand, the 'gifted', as they are labelled, may feel under the constant pressure to perform studiously in order to avoid being discarded and trodden upon like the 'disruptive'. The 'studious' may even become snobby, with an inflated ego, believing that his intellect grants him more entitlement that any other to rule over others. The sheer stress that the studious shall face, competing with each other, may perhaps even drive them to perfectionism, a side-effect of which is anxiety. And once they fail to achieve their standards - as all individuals at some point do - what then shall they feel other than depressed?
It is also important to note that this is not simply a distinction between the 'disruptive' and the 'studious'. Many students fall under neither category. If they are uncritically then labelled 'disruptive' and so taught in this manner, then how shall they develop and refine their talents and skills if they are constantly in an environment that simply reinforces hopelessness and helplessness?
In addition, it just seems plain wrong to label children in this way. They are children! And what may occur, and what I hypothesize would occur if such classroom distinctions were to be made plain, the children would adapt to fit the label they are given. If they are labelled 'disruptive', they will internalize this categorization and exhibit the expected traits of one that is disruptive. Labeling a child as something outright does not do well to reverse the behaviour at all. Instead, it creates a mold into which the child develops a consistent pattern of behaviour.

Response

Classic textbook physiology. Are you a school physiologist?

I believe being a disruptive student is an early indication of an Atheistic Lifestyle that can be changed only by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

My experience is that people really do not easily change. Some say a child is formed by the age of 5 or 6, but the Bible indicates the child is formed in the womb.

Is there any valid data that shows that disruptive people really change? The second divorce is easier than the first, the second crime is easier than the first, the second sin is easier than the first, etc.

Some believe the purpose of life is to make life comfortable for everyone, but I see life as a test of the mental - physical condition of the person and the choices that the person makes, based on those mental and physical conditions. The most important choice is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

America was founded on a meritorious system in which some would excel and some would fail. It is better to fail with your soul intact than to win by losing your soul.

I believe it is better to play the game honestly instead of winning or losing. Too often the rich show their trophy toys and the poor a jealous of the trophy toys.

A Christian should not play the game for trophy toys, but rather to be in conformance with the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Classic textbook physiology. Are you a school physiologist?

You mean psychology, not physiology, right? In which case I am a student of psychology.

I believe being a disruptive student is an early indication of an Atheistic Lifestyle that can be changed only by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Or alternatively it is simply an indication that the student is disengaged with the curriculum or not suited to the style of pedagogy...

Is there any valid data that shows that disruptive people really change? The second divorce is easier than the first, the second crime is easier than the first, the second sin is easier than the first, etc.

There is common sense and personal experience that shows that 'disruptive' people really change. I have met some 'disruptive' students throughout my schooling. And now, they are not 'disruptive' persons. Indeed, many still are students, but not disruptive ones, because they have found a course of their choosing that engages their interests. Yes. 'Disruptive' behaviour patterns can change over the course of personal development. But segregating students is hardly likely to be conducive to that positive change for it generates a climate of hopelessness among the 'disruptive' so labelled, whereby they internalize that message and inhibit the behaviour that is expected of them by virtue of that label.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe being a disruptive student is an early indication of an Atheistic Lifestyle that can be changed only by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

My experience is that people really do not easily change. Some say a child is formed by the age of 5 or 6, but the Bible indicates the child is formed in the womb.

Is there any valid data that shows that disruptive people really change? The second divorce is easier than the first, the second crime is easier than the first, the second sin is easier than the first, etc.

Some believe the purpose of life is to make life comfortable for everyone, but I see life as a test of the mental - physical condition of the person and the choices that the person makes, based on those mental and physical conditions. The most important choice is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

So, are all Atheist children disruptive? What will you do to a family that refuses to convert?

America was founded on a meritorious system in which some would excel and some would fail. It is better to fail with your soul intact than to win by losing your soul.

Interestingly enough, Christianity was not founded on a meritorious system -- all are given forgiveness, even though nobody's earned it.

I believe it is better to play the game honestly instead of winning or losing. Too often the rich show their trophy toys and the poor a jealous of the trophy toys.

A Christian should not play the game for trophy toys, but rather to be in conformance with the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Except you consider your salvation to be such a trophy toy, and want the government to help you show it off.

 

[clirus]

Gov. Schwarzenegger Proposes Eliminating Welfare

I would prefer a no "new" heath care/welfare policy, but this proposal is on the right track.

The purpose of government was to provide protection to the people and never to provide services to the people.

This could get Schwarzenegger elected president.

---------------------------------

Gov. Schwarzenegger Proposes Eliminating Welfare

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/05/gov-schwarzenegger-proposes-eliminating-welfare/

By Bob Ellis on May 23rd, 2009

Faced with a $21.3 billion budget deficit and proposed tax hikes, California voters rejected the tax increases, essentially telling their state government to get it's act together and quit driving the state over a financial abyss.

In response, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has come up with a proposal that has the "mainstream" media and other Leftists swallowing their snuff.

From the LA Times:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state's welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students.

Several years ago, Californians got rid of Governor Gray Davis and his ignominious leadership, replacing him with The Terminator.

Unfortunately the tendency of many people on the Left Coast to want to have everything without paying for it has rendered even Schwarzenegger ineffective in turning California around.

But now it seems the voters have got fed up enough with fiscal irresponsibility to give Schwarzenegger a hand.

Schwarzenegger said the message from the voters when they rejected tax increases was this: "Live within your means."

What a radical concept.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This could get Schwarzenegger elected president.

Don't you have to be born in the US or in a territory under US jurisdiction in order to even qualify to run for the Presidency? Or was that just my assumption?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state's welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students.

Okay. Interesting. So mothers are essentially going to be forced to choose between being good wage workers and being good parents?
Those who cannot afford even basic medical care will have to go without it, at precarious risk to life and health? Okay. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

 

[tanzanos]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I frequently show people that something will not work, but the reply comes back, "I know it won't work, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it did"

I don't know how you deal with people that hope something will happen, but really know it will not.

Obama is a merchant of hope, but very little reality. There are enough hopers out there to elect a hope merchant.

Hope is like a drug. It makes you feel really good, but when it wears off there is a deep depression.

James 2:17 states, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

I would rephrase that as, "Even so hope, if it hath not realism, is dead, being alone."

I can understand a mother basing her care for a child on hope, but that cannot be the bases of a government.

Do you really believe forcing a 6-18 year old to sit and listen will keep them out of swear shops?

Too often the disruptive kids hold back those that desire to learn. But then if you separate the disruptive from the studious, the ACLU takes the school to court

By all accounts Clirus; you are a heretic and will burn in eternal damnation.
Is there not a single Christian here who cares enough to convert Clirus to Christianity and save him from the torment of fire and brimstone?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't you have to be born in the US or in a territory under US jurisdiction in order to even qualify to run for the Presidency? Or was that just my assumption?

Nope, you're right -- Barring a new Constitutional amendment, we'll never have a "Prezinator."

Okay. Interesting. So mothers are essentially going to be forced to choose between being good wage workers and being good parents?

Serve the state or serve your children -- clirus sounds very socialist to me.

Those who cannot afford even basic medical care will have to go without it, at precarious risk to life and health? Okay. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

They'll have to convert to Christianity, and then they won't need basic medical care -- as we all know, TRUE Christians never get sick.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Serve the state or serve your children -- clirus sounds very socialist to me.

I've always wondered why some people deplore the notion of assisting single mothers with welfare; and the added requirement that, as a mode of reciprocation, mothers' must engage in additional work to boost economic activity. Is mothering children not a socially valuable task in and of itself? (Great article on this by Elizabeth Anderson in the Journal of Applied Philosophy).

It may even be argued that many women seek abortions because they are aware that they will have to raise this child on their own with little support and the added burden of having to work as a form of reciprocation for whatever State assistance they receive. This establishes a difficult situation where mothers' are forced to balance their parental duties with the compulsory reciprocation requirement of work. If Christians are serious about reducing the incidence of abortions then it is not merely a matter of criminalizing the practice outright, but modifying the social institutions and frameworks that make abortion seem like such an appealing option.

They'll have to convert to Christianity, and then they won't need basic medical care -- as we all know, TRUE Christians never get sick.

And ALL diseases are LIFESTYLE diseases resulting from (of course) the 'Atheistic Lifestyle'. Even if one is a Christian, by supporting evolutionary theory, they are participating in this abhorrent disease-ridden lifestyle! Because diseases never just happen by chance mutations in genes or other environmental determinants. If you get sick... it's your fault! (somehow).

 

[clirus]

Mithrandir Istarn quote

Okay. Interesting. So mothers are essentially going to be forced to choose between being good wage workers and being good parents?

Those who cannot afford even basic medical care will have to go without it, at precarious risk to life and health? Okay. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

Response

The question you pose is impossible to answer because there is no cure nor good answers after a sin has been committed.

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Even married couples should be sure they can afford a child before they produce a child.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Mithrandir Istarn quote

Okay. Interesting. So mothers are essentially going to be forced to choose between being good wage workers and being good parents?

Those who cannot afford even basic medical care will have to go without it, at precarious risk to life and health? Okay. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

Response

The question you pose is impossible to answer because there is no cure nor good answers after a sin has been committed.

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Even married couples should be sure they can afford a child before they produce a child.

Who ever said that the single mother that I was speaking of was a single mother by virtue of an illegitimate child? I never made such a stipulation, and indeed, many single mothers are so for other reasons, such as their husband's death or even their husband leaving them after a marriage has occurred.

 

[Chajara]

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Tell that to a pregnant woman who just got notice that her husband died in a car accident on the way to work.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The question you pose is impossible to answer because there is no cure nor good answers after a sin has been committed.

So you've got no solutions for problems which already exist -- color me surprised.

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Certainly not from "Christian principles."

Even married couples should be sure they can afford a child before they produce a child.

Which would require a guarantee that there won't be any severe changes in their lives -- parents can't get laid off, no major medical emergencies, etc.

Lotsa luck with that.

 

[Chajara]

Which would require a guarantee that there won't be any severe changes in their lives -- parents can't get laid off, no major medical emergencies, etc.

Lotsa luck with that.

Don't you get it, dude? If you're a good little Christian you'll always have good health and plenty of money. You only get sick or end up in the poorhouse due to sin!

Right, Clirus?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

The question you pose is impossible to answer because there is no cure nor good answers after a sin has been committed.

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Even married couples should be sure they can afford a child before they produce a child.

You still haven't answered the question I have posed (and this will be the fourth time) about what sin the medieval Europeans committed to be smitten by God with the Black Death:

 

[tanzanos]

The original sin was the woman committing fornication that led to the baby which is now the problem for which there is no good answer.

Fornication is what brought you into this world! Fornication is the bringer of life! Face it and get a life Clirus! Your scaremongering posts are of no value to neither Atheists nor Christians!

 

[tanzanos]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So now you are advocating BAD INTENTIONS? Wow Clirus you really have to decide if you are a Christian or not! I am sure there are plenty of people here who can help you follow the path of Christ!

Less hate Clirus, less hate!

 

[Nathan45]

Kinda surrounded though...throw in TX and maybe we can work something out...

I'm not going anywhere.