In a few decades, Americans will be posting, “If it weren't for Obamacare there would be chaos out there”.
Really? If all government schools in this nation were to magically disappear tomorrow do you honestly believe there would be chaos? Well?...Maybe for about 2 weeks.
In two weeks the Baptists, Catholics, main-line Christian churches, synagogues, Evangelicals and the rest would have schools open and staffed with volunteers. Day care center would soon add grades to their services, Teachers would open one room schools in their homes.
Mormons, though, would have schools open and run by volunteers by this Friday.
“Good teachers do not cooperate with destroying a child’s faith and teaching him to think and reason godless. “
Are you implying that the ability to reason is necessarily and inextricably linked to one’s religion, or to their exposure to religion?
Are you saying that a person never having been exposed to religious training is incapable of reason?
Just want to understand, you see.
I see reason and faith to be separate somehow.
Government schools can have good math teachers in them, yes or no? Can they have good English teachers, or good Spanish teachers? Can they have good Chemistry teachers? By good I mean ‘effective’. I would also assert, with some safety, that by good, I could also mean both ‘moral’ and in many cases ‘saved’. Government teachers are not outside of salvation, or are incapable of acting in a ‘moral’ way in the performance of their duties.
Your position is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a government teacher to be good. Your assertion is that this is an actually an ‘axiom’ - proven. This puts you in the very same crowd as the anthropomorphic global warming nuts. You assume that everyone regards your statement as ‘proven’, that it is impossible for a government teacher to be effective at teaching any subject.
“AGW is proven, and any debate from you is an indication that you are incapable of evaluating the accuracy and applicability of the evidence. In a word, sir, you are a mouth breathing, potentially malicious person for not believing in what 9 out of 10 climate scientists believe.”
This is the sort of thing you hear out of the more rabid, agenda-pushing liberal types.
So you see, ideology has nothing to do with this situation. I can guess that you believe and hold to generally conservative ideals, and yet you are quite mad in believing NOT ONLY that it is impossible for a government teacher to be effective, BUT ALSO that you believe EVERYONE ELSE TAKES THIS TO BE PROVEN ON ITS FACE.
Water is wet. That’s an axiom.
What you did was create a generalization. You then assert that it was a proven fact. You assume they are all bad, without having met even MOST public school teachers. You imply they are all Godless and/or godless.
Worse, you ignore evidence to the contrary, and in fact you rail against the effectiveness in those same teachers at pushing a godless, socialist agenda. If I were to assert, for example: “Government effectively uses public school education to indoctrinate young men and women into a life of godless socialism, and ultimately a numbed serfdom,” you’d likely agree with it. It may actually be true. I see evidence to support it and to reject it, actually.
Well, if no government teacher can be effective (good) and all are axiomatically not effective (bad), then what fear would one have of public school, other than its a waste of time (another topic worthy of debate perhaps). None are good at teaching anything at all, including a godless, socialist agenda, right?
You can’t POSSIBLY mean that all government teachers are immoral (bad), because as a good, Bible-believing LDS member, you’ll recall that all judgement belongs to the Lord, and judge not, lest ye be judged.
Seldom can you take such a large group of people, say public school teachers, make a general characterization of them, and then assert an axiom like “All are bad (ineffective or evil)”. There are always exceptions, isn’t that correct?
As such, if you are the one responsible for teaching your offspring what an axiom is, I’d have to say that you demonstrated here that you don’t know what one is. As such, I can state for a fact that you have no business asserting you are qualified at teaching him or her what one is.
Not that I have a problem with it, since there are a great many teachers out there teaching things they are not qualified to teach. Mind you, the difference between an axiom and a generalization, or the assertion of a generalization, is significant. You may be a stellar English teacher, but this lapse in understand could lead one to question other assertions - like the one where MOST parents would be qualified to educate their own children. You assert that ALL parents could and should.
I assert they shouldn’t. I further assert they can’t. I assert most are so afraid of math that they don’t even know the government stole the fortunes from most of them and gave it to the banks. I assert that if they understood basic math, and grasped what it will do to them unto retirement and death at this point, they may be tempted to riot.
Many on Wall Street believed they might, and packed ‘bug out bags’ for the day they finally ‘got it’. They never did, of course, and now they are looking for ways to create the next new weath transfer device. Wall Street compensation reached record levels in 2010 ($135B).
My assertion, that most parents are too stupid and too ignorant to teach their kids is something I could more readily get 12 reasonably prudent people to accept than your assertion, which is that ALL parents should be teaching their own kids at home, because all government teachers are bad. That’s my belief, and I’ve got nothing to back that up of course.
You’ve provided me evidence that you can’t distinguish an axiom from an assertion, or a generalization. ‘Warmers’ do that on purpose - forcing assertions on to people as axioms - ‘CO2 from people causes warming’. I can’t tell if you are doing it to push and agenda like they do, or whether its just ignorance.