21 May 18
A: River Y has become so polluted it is now toxic all the way down to its estuary. I am concerned for my family living on its eastern bank. What should we do about this pollution?
B: Nothing. Move your family to the River X area which is not so polluted. Leave River Y as it is. People can choose to live there if they wish. Its toxicity is no secret. That's the common-sense solution.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneI wouldn't want my kids subjected to what we see in the public school system today, and I'm speaking only of the political, atheist agenda in academia. That's not even considering the bullying and the possibility of being killed in a shooting spree. I'd post a video but I can't find it but the K-4 kids are taught to sing along with a pro LGBTQ song which tells them to ignore gender, it's ok if little boys want to cross-dress, just like it's ok if some little girls like catching snakes. I can't do it justice in text here in this forum but I think you understand. There is a system-wide effort from kindergarten through the end of college to shape the minds of kids to support liberal progressivism™ and to revise history and remove references to a Creator. etc. etc.
NO. This is classic Republican governance.
Screw things up so badly, that the only option is to bail out, which was really the plan from the beginning.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfRight because the average pay of teachers in Oklahoma is equally important to keeping people from dying from toxic poison.
A: River Y has become so polluted it is now toxic all the way down to its estuary. I am concerned for my family living on its eastern bank. What should we do about this pollution?
B: Nothing. Move your family to the River X area which is not so polluted. Leave River Y as it is. People can choose to live there if they wish. Its toxicity is no secret. That's the common-sense solution.
Your example would work if your family moved to an industrialized area willfully, knowing full well what the consequences would be, signed a contract releasing anyone from any damages, then sued the all the citizens of the entire state because of substandard air quality.
21 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyIs speaker B in my analogy offering a "common-sense" solution to the pollution problem in the River Y area?
Your example would work if your family moved to an industrialized area willfully, knowing full well what the consequences would be, signed a contract releasing anyone from any damages, then sued the all the citizens of the entire state because of substandard air quality.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWho said anything about one thing being "equally important" as the other?
Right because the average pay of teachers in Oklahoma is equally important to keeping people from dying from toxic poison.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyEven with you offering this analogy, no one has suggested that you think basket weaving is as "equally important" as teaching children.
I have a passion for basket weaving.
I have gotten real good at it, but no one in my area wants any baskets.
Option A: Do something else to earn a living
Option B: Move to where people want baskets and make and sell them there
Option C: Stay here and sell occasional baskets, but pickup another job to make ends meet.
Or apparently, Option D: ...[text shortened]... government step in and make people by my baskets at a price that makes me the profits I desire.
21 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfYou continue to dodge the crux of the discussion which is teachers elsewhere make plenty of money and a person pursuing a teaching career in Oklahoma knows that ahead of time. Your skipping the part where the person willfully entered into an agreement and changed the terms afterward.
I am not particularly interested in what emotions you have on this, whether you are hiding them, showing them, posting without them, so on and so forth. Your suggestion that the common-sense solution to teaching being a low paid profession is that teachers should act in their own selfish interests and go elsewhere is not a "common-sense solution" at all. It is ...[text shortened]... and selfish sense. The problem of the profession remaining underpaid has not been solved by it.
Read the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Some of the workers grumbled because another guy made more money than they did and he did less work. The employer rebuked them and reminded them that they made precisely the wage they agreed to. The gist of it is, at least in the context of this discussion, if you don't like your salary then you have no one to complain to but yourself - you signed the contract.
And the teachers in Oklahoma have every right to strike for money and more power to them. However, if they are replaced, then that's something they should have prepared for and their union allegedly will cut them checks. That's part of what union dues are for.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou saying this over and over again is not offering a common-sense solution to the problem of the teaching profession being underpaid in a given area.
You continue to dodge the crux of the discussion which is teachers elsewhere make plenty of money and a person pursuing a teaching career in Oklahoma knows that ahead of time. Your skipping the part where the person willfully entered into an agreement and changed the terms afterward.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfYou held me to the same standard. Basket weaving is not the equivalent of teaching kids. Fine. Likewise, teaching children is not the equivalent of keeping people from dying of toxic poison.
Who said anything about one thing being "equally important" as the other?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfYes it is. Your ignoring of my common-sense solution doesn't mean I'm not offering one. The common-sense solution is for the individual prospective teacher to weigh his or her career priorities and make a rational decision. Sure, I can *wish* that people with my position in my career field make twice what I make, but a common-sense solution would not be for me to assume the government is going to step in and make everyone else chip in the extra money. You're wanting a government-mandated, sweeping solution to a "problem" that can't just go away. People in one area make more money for doing the same thing than people in another area. This is just a fact of life. And one that you refuse to accept, to the point of going into pages of dodging and denial.
You saying this over and over again is not offering a common-sense solution to the problem of the teaching profession being underpaid in a given area.
21 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyNo,I didn't. Baskets and graduating children are different products which go on to fulfil different purposes after they are 'produced'.
You held me to the same standard. Basket weaving is not the equivalent of teaching kids. Fine. Likewise, teaching children is not the equivalent of keeping people from dying of toxic poison.
Why should children in one area be taught by struggling financially insecure teachers and taught by teachers not facing such struggles elsewhere? Why should teachers in one area have to buy classroom materials with their own money while children elsewhere in public schools have well resourced classrooms?
How is this discrepancy fair or wise for the children who are being taught? How do baskets correspond to this question?
They don't. This makes your analogy weak.
My analogy explores the idea that the common sense solution to a problem in area Y is not to solve the problem in area Y, but is to move to area X instead.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWhat kind of debating point is this?
People in one area make more money for doing the same thing than people in another area. This is just a fact of life. And one that you refuse to accept, to the point of going into pages of dodging and denial.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyLess lucrative? 17k is simply less lucrative? Wow.
No actually what seems typical, especially of today's entitlement culture--is someone willfully choosing a career path less lucrative than most others, then complaining about it later and demanding economic justice.
I am just explaining why children get bad educations. You get what you pay for.
People are leaving education because it pays so poorly.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyPeople do not know ahead of time. People are like you and don't know how bad it is.
You continue to dodge the crux of the discussion which is teachers elsewhere make plenty of money and a person pursuing a teaching career in Oklahoma knows that ahead of time. Your skipping the part where the person willfully entered into an agreement and changed the terms afterward.
Read the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Some of the worke ...[text shortened]... red for and their union allegedly will cut them checks. That's part of what union dues are for.