They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
New phrases for me this week: rCLDIY economicsrCY and rCLreceived unwisdomrCY.
As in, rCLwhat I read in the Guardian that has no logical or empirical basis, but IrCOll chuck it about as though itrCOs gospelrCY.
TL/DR
- DIY economics takes hold not because it is true, but because of pseudo-moral and emotional appeal to votersrCO self-interest and ignorance.
- Detractors of independent schools donrCOt want you to believe what is obvious and true: educating children is good, educating them really well
is better, and saving the state money is great.
- So they claim the penetration of elite positions by independent school alumni is evidence of unfairness. No exploration of causes, effects,
rights or wrongs. The disparity is the harm.
- I offer a range of more probable reasons why thererCOs disparity. Rather than unfair rCLOld Boy NetworksrCY, itrCOs far more likely those appointments
reflect family nature and nurture and educational effectiveness.
- Indeed, thatrCOs where the evidence points, but the DIY economists brazenly fib about it.
- ItrCOs not at all clear thererCOs any evidence of harm, but if there is, the answer is with proportionate measures to improve state education,
and adopt the inexpensive cultural facets of independent schools and families, rather than try to tear down whatrCOs working well elsewhere.
- This points firmly to equalising the staterCOs funding, via vouchers, of state and independent schools, so that empowered parents can have free choice.
- The Sutton Trust should crack on with their outreach work, and should campaign for the first rungs of the career ladder, for economic policies supporting job creation, and should stop obsessing about the top rungs
that are statistically irrelevant for most people, regardless of their school...
https://isabelpaterson.substack.com/p/tall-poppies-off-with-their-heads
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, allowing for more individualized instruction.
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >allowing for more individualized instruction.
--New phrases for me this week: oDIY economicso and oreceived unwisdomo.
As in, owhat I read in the Guardian that has no logical or empirical
basis, but IAll chuck it about as though itAs gospelo.
TL/DR
- DIY economics takes hold not because it is true, but because of
pseudo-moral and emotional appeal to votersA self-interest and ignorance.
- Detractors of independent schools donAt want you to believe what is
obvious and true: educating children is good, educating them really well
is better, and saving the state money is great.
- So they claim the penetration of elite positions by independent school
alumni is evidence of unfairness. No exploration of causes, effects,
rights or wrongs. The disparity is the harm.
- I offer a range of more probable reasons why thereAs disparity. Rather
than unfair oOld Boy Networkso, itAs far more likely those appointments
reflect family nature and nurture and educational effectiveness.
- Indeed, thatAs where the evidence points, but the DIY economists
brazenly fib about it.
- ItAs not at all clear thereAs any evidence of harm, but if there is,
the answer is with proportionate measures to improve state education,
and adopt the inexpensive cultural facets of independent schools and
families, rather than try to tear down whatAs working well elsewhere.
- This points firmly to equalising the stateAs funding, via vouchers, of
state and independent schools, so that empowered parents can have free
choice.
- The Sutton Trust should crack on with their outreach work, and should
campaign for the first rungs of the career ladder, for economic policies
supporting job creation, and should stop obsessing about the top rungs
that are statistically irrelevant for most people, regardless of their
school...
https://isabelpaterson.substack.com/p/tall-poppies-off-with-their-heads
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
--
New phrases for me this week: oDIY economicso and oreceived unwisdomo.
As in, owhat I read in the Guardian that has no logical or empirical
basis, but IAll chuck it about as though itAs gospelo.
TL/DR
- DIY economics takes hold not because it is true, but because of
pseudo-moral and emotional appeal to votersA self-interest and ignorance. >>>
- Detractors of independent schools donAt want you to believe what is
obvious and true: educating children is good, educating them really well >>> is better, and saving the state money is great.
- So they claim the penetration of elite positions by independent school >>> alumni is evidence of unfairness. No exploration of causes, effects,
rights or wrongs. The disparity is the harm.
- I offer a range of more probable reasons why thereAs disparity. Rather >>> than unfair oOld Boy Networkso, itAs far more likely those appointments >>> reflect family nature and nurture and educational effectiveness.
- Indeed, thatAs where the evidence points, but the DIY economists
brazenly fib about it.
- ItAs not at all clear thereAs any evidence of harm, but if there is,
the answer is with proportionate measures to improve state education,
and adopt the inexpensive cultural facets of independent schools and
families, rather than try to tear down whatAs working well elsewhere.
- This points firmly to equalising the stateAs funding, via vouchers, of >>> state and independent schools, so that empowered parents can have free
choice.
- The Sutton Trust should crack on with their outreach work, and should >>> campaign for the first rungs of the career ladder, for economic policies >>> supporting job creation, and should stop obsessing about the top rungs
that are statistically irrelevant for most people, regardless of their
school...
https://isabelpaterson.substack.com/p/tall-poppies-off-with-their-heads
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
On 23/02/2026 18:07, Dude wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
There is a substantial cohort of parents that are willing to
endure relative financial hardship to enable their kids into
independent schools. There is also a substantial cohort who
would love to afford it.
There are few parents who choose to move their kids from independent to
state while they can afford it. That is some kind of evidence. Make of
it what you will.
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Many parents agree.
The government also agrees and thus wants to eliminate the sector.
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIYSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.-a Do
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIYSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIYSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the
schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class
sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.-a Do
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make >>>>>>>>> forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the >>>>>>>> schools.
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close >>>>>>>> to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class >>>>>>>> sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such
schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the >>>>>>> trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your >>>>>>> life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.-a Do >>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same?-a Too >>>> bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>> tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
On Feb 23, 2026 at 1:30:27?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 18:07, Dude wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
There is a substantial cohort of parents that are willing to
endure relative financial hardship to enable their kids into
independent schools. There is also a substantial cohort who
would love to afford it.
There are few parents who choose to move their kids from independent to
state while they can afford it. That is some kind of evidence. Make of
it what you will.
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Many parents agree.
The government also agrees and thus wants to eliminate the sector.
I had a child in private school (Branksome Hall in Toronto) until grade 5 when >I moved her into a public school who skipped her to a higher grade. She was a >grade ahead because of the quality of education she received at the Private >schl. It evened out after a few years though.
On 23/02/2026 21:26, Wilson wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the
schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class >>>>>>> sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.a Do
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
The Leftwaffe break things, not make things.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIYSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIYSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the
schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class
sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.-a Do
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On 2/23/2026 1:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>>>>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
Apparently, you've not thought this through, having no progeny.
Property taxes are mandatory obligation: Property taxes are not a "fee
for service." They are a tax on ownership that funds education,
regardless of whether you have children or where they attend school.
On 2/23/2026 1:26 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So many questions. So few answers.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:35:51 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make for >>>>>>>> exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY >>>>>>>> economics" and belongs in the bin.So, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have >>>>>>> families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the
schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the >>>>>>> High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class >>>>>>> sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations.a Do
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
On Feb 23, 2026 at 1:30:27rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 18:07, Dude wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools.
Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
There is a substantial cohort of parents that are willing to
endure relative financial hardship to enable their kids into
independent schools. There is also a substantial cohort who
would love to afford it.
There are few parents who choose to move their kids from independent to
state while they can afford it. That is some kind of evidence. Make of
it what you will.
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Many parents agree.
The government also agrees and thus wants to eliminate the sector.
I had a child in private school (Branksome Hall in Toronto) until grade 5 when
I moved her into a public school who skipped her to a higher grade. She was a grade ahead because of the quality of education she received at the Private schl. It evened out after a few years though.
On 2/23/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
On Feb 23, 2026 at 1:30:27rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 23/02/2026 18:07, Dude wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
There is a substantial cohort of parents that are willing to
endure relative financial hardship to enable their kids into
independent schools. There is also a substantial cohort who
would love to afford it.
There are few parents who choose to move their kids from independent to
state while they can afford it. That is some kind of evidence. Make of
it what you will.
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Many parents agree.
The government also agrees and thus wants to eliminate the sector.
I had a child in private school (Branksome Hall in Toronto) until grade 5 when
I moved her into a public school who skipped her to a higher grade. She was a
grade ahead because of the quality of education she received at the Private >> schl. It evened out after a few years though.
By "evened out" it sounds like she just reverted to the public school statistical mean? That's pretty much what they do overall, by limiting
high achievers.
I intensely disliked school, and found it to be repressive and unfair.
Good training for factory work though. And it showed me I can endure
things I hate, so there's that.
On 2/23/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
On Feb 23, 2026 at 1:30:27?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 23/02/2026 18:07, Dude wrote:
On 2/23/2026 9:49 AM, Julian wrote:
They say independent schools don't educate kids, they just make forSo, I've been thinking about this for several years now. We have
exclusive networks and access to power. This is confected "DIY
economics" and belongs in the bin.
families around here in Sonoma County that moved here for the schools. >>>> Some are paying a million dollars for a house just to be close to the
High School.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
There is a substantial cohort of parents that are willing to
endure relative financial hardship to enable their kids into
independent schools. There is also a substantial cohort who
would love to afford it.
There are few parents who choose to move their kids from independent to
state while they can afford it. That is some kind of evidence. Make of
it what you will.
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes, >>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Many parents agree.
The government also agrees and thus wants to eliminate the sector.
I had a child in private school (Branksome Hall in Toronto) until grade 5 when
I moved her into a public school who skipped her to a higher grade. She was a
grade ahead because of the quality of education she received at the Private >> schl. It evened out after a few years though.
By "evened out" it sounds like she just reverted to the public school >statistical mean? That's pretty much what they do overall, by limiting
high achievers.
I intensely disliked school, and found it to be repressive and unfair.
Good training for factory work though. And it showed me I can endure
things I hate, so there's that.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So >>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy >>>>>>>> schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic
and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching
in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life >>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >just a vague "they should be spending more".
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, >you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic
and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching
in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>> just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private >>> schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>> better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, >> you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic
and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching
in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
Different system. Schools in canada are federally funded. In the us
they are funded by local property taxes, which results in, guess what,
much poorer educations for kids in poor neighborhoods, especially in
inner cities.
Canadians get good educations.
mostly don't have those nasty inner cities neighborhoods. Although
some are poorer than others, but regardless they still get a good
education, because ottawa says so.
So, a step in improving us schools. Have them be federally funded and whether your tax goes to public or private schools is a check off on
your tax form.
Maybe. Think about it maybe. I'm sure us libertarians would be
screaming in the streets if something like that were attempted.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
High grade parents would be a product of high grade
schools.
So we are playing the long game.--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
How many generations would it take to replace those crummy parents?
The one thing we do know is that continuing as things are or sending
your kids to private schools does not benefit society. About which libertarians care nothing.
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to >give their kids more.
High grade parents would be a product of high grade
schools.
Often but not necessarily.
--So we are playing the long game.
How many generations would it take to replace those crummy parents?
The one thing we do know is that continuing as things are or sending
your kids to private schools does not benefit society. About which
libertarians care nothing.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to >> give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of sacrifice.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
High grade parents would be a product of high grade
schools.
Often but not necessarily.
As always. It is an odds game.
So we are playing the long game.
How many generations would it take to replace those crummy parents?
The one thing we do know is that continuing as things are or sending
your kids to private schools does not benefit society. About which
libertarians care nothing.
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>>
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>>
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to >>> give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>>>
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>>>
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to >>>> give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>>>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>How much should be spent per pupil?
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>>>>
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>>>>
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school. And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>How much should be spent per pupil?
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>>>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>>>>>
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school. >> And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state schools.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
Further info about the cost of private school.
Catholic schools are considered public in canada. That is what that
check off on your tax return is about.
Private private schools in canada are all tuition based and not
religion supported.
those?
45 thou/year for early grades. At about 6th grade it goes to 60 thou.
Those numbers are comparable to the 34 tho in ny public schools.
Schoolastic results of those private private schools are quite good.
There is no inherent reason why us public schools could not be as
good, if people were willing to pay the taxes, and parents could
understand that teachers and parents are actually on the same side
rather than adversaries.
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>How much should be spent per pupil?
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoThe question is, are private schools superior to public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or >>>> mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of education no matter where you live. ?
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>How much should be spent per pupil?
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoThe question is, are private schools superior to public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>>>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or >>>>> mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of education no >> matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
Further info about the cost of private school.
Catholic schools are considered public in canada. That is what that
check off on your tax return is about.
Private private schools in canada are all tuition based and not
religion supported.
Not so - for example: St Mikes private school for boys is Catholic. And Bishop Strachan is Anglican based. Both in Toronto.You'd get fewer hallucinations from a beta version of a Chatbot 1.0.
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoThe question is, are private schools superior to public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>>>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or >>>>>> mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of education no >>> matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
On 24/02/2026 20:27, Tara wrote:
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:You'd get fewer hallucinations from a beta version of a Chatbot 1.0.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>>>> just a vague "they should be spending more".
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>
Further info about the cost of private school.
Catholic schools are considered public in canada. That is what that
check off on your tax return is about.
Private private schools in canada are all tuition based and not
religion supported.
Not so - for example: St Mikes private school for boys is Catholic. And
Bishop Strachan is Anglican based. Both in Toronto.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous >>>>>>>> tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just >>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>> just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private >>> schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>> better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation >>>
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, >> you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic
and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching
in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
Different system. Schools in canada are federally funded. In the us
they are funded by local property taxes, which results in, guess what,
much poorer educations for kids in poor neighborhoods, especially in
inner cities.
Canadians get good educations. It probably helps that canadian cities
mostly don't have those nasty inner cities neighborhoods. Although
some are poorer than others, but regardless they still get a good
education, because ottawa says so.
So, a step in improving us schools. Have them be federally funded and whether your tax goes to public or private schools is a check off on
your tax form.
Maybe. Think about it maybe. I'm sure us libertarians would be
screaming in the streets if something like that were attempted.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoThe question is, are private schools superior to public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>>>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or >>>>>>> mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private school. >>>>>> And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best >>> places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
On 2/24/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>Not sure you've thought this through.
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>> just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private >>>> schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>> better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, >>> you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic >>> and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching >>> in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
Different system. Schools in canada are federally funded. In the us
they are funded by local property taxes, which results in, guess what,
much poorer educations for kids in poor neighborhoods, especially in
inner cities.
Apparently, Canadian public schools are primarily funded and managed at
the provincial/territorial level, not by the federal government.
--Canadians get good educations. It probably helps that canadian cities
mostly don't have those nasty inner cities neighborhoods. Although
some are poorer than others, but regardless they still get a good
education, because ottawa says so.
So, a step in improving us schools. Have them be federally funded and
whether your tax goes to public or private schools is a check off on
your tax form.
Maybe. Think about it maybe. I'm sure us libertarians would be
screaming in the streets if something like that were attempted.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious
indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with".-a That's >>>>>>>>>>>>> a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private >>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best >>> places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious
indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with".a That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best >>>> places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
On 2/24/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>Not sure you've thought this through.
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too >>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do >>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>> just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private >>>> schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>> better results.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return, >>> you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic >>> and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching >>> in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty
much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
Different system. Schools in canada are federally funded. In the us
they are funded by local property taxes, which results in, guess what,
much poorer educations for kids in poor neighborhoods, especially in
inner cities.
Apparently, Canadian public schools are primarily funded and managed at
the provincial/territorial level, not by the federal government.
Canadians get good educations. It probably helps that canadian cities
mostly don't have those nasty inner cities neighborhoods. Although
some are poorer than others, but regardless they still get a good
education, because ottawa says so.
So, a step in improving us schools. Have them be federally funded and
whether your tax goes to public or private schools is a check off on
your tax form.
Maybe. Think about it maybe. I'm sure us libertarians would be
screaming in the streets if something like that were attempted.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>Not sure you've thought this through.
wrote:
Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything, >>>>> just a vague "they should be spending more". Meanwhile there are private >>>>> schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve >>>>> better results.
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your >>>>>>>> nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds >>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be >>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel >>>>>>>>>> about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency >>>>> at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and >>>>> college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce >>>>> it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
So it's not about how much is spent.
In Canada, Catholic schools are not considered Private. On your tax return,
you specify which one you want to support ( Catholic or Public). Catholic >>>> and Public schools have separate boards and except for religious teaching >>>> in the Catholic schools, the quality of teaching and outcome are pretty >>>> much the same. Maybe a tad better and stricter in the Catholic system.
Different system. Schools in canada are federally funded. In the us
they are funded by local property taxes, which results in, guess what,
much poorer educations for kids in poor neighborhoods, especially in
inner cities.
Apparently, Canadian public schools are primarily funded and managed at
the provincial/territorial level, not by the federal government.
The federal government funds education through transfers to Provinces and
to equalize it, some provinces get more and some less.
Each province is responsible for managing their public educational system.
Canadians get good educations. It probably helps that canadian cities
mostly don't have those nasty inner cities neighborhoods. Although
some are poorer than others, but regardless they still get a good
education, because ottawa says so.
So, a step in improving us schools. Have them be federally funded and
whether your tax goes to public or private schools is a check off on
your tax form.
Maybe. Think about it maybe. I'm sure us libertarians would be
screaming in the streets if something like that were attempted.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. DoThe question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class
sizes,
allowing for more individualized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers.
You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How
about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of
course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with
that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a lot of >>>>>>>>> sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending and/or >>>>>>> mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the best >>> places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02rC>PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious
indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private >>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 20:59:25 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>.
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:27, Tara wrote:
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:You'd get fewer hallucinations from a beta version of a Chatbot 1.0.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately funded systems >>>>> can be superior to government state run systems.
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to improve anything,
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:How much should be spent per pupil?
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You don't need answers from me. They are right there in front of your
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The question is, are private schools superior to public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience through smaller class sizes,
allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can afford such schools. So
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody else go to the trashy
schools. Because we really don't give a fuck about you, or your life
prospects or anything else. Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most such situations. Do
not improve public schools. Simply allow it to be possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for that. Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and do the same? Too
bad that becomes a tax issue. And we know how well off people feel
about that. "I'd rather pay tuition for my kids than taxes. It >>>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being well off, than more onerous
tax duty. In that battle, privilege wins every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never any answers. >>>>>>>>>>
nose. They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring them. How >>>>>>>>>> about a property tax increase enough to give public schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. No? Of course not. >>>>>>>>>
It is not up to you and me to figure that out. Call a bean counter. >>>>>>>
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private education does. >>>>>> Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion that public >>>>>> schools would need more, but you are right, I have no numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for fiscal year 2026 >>>>>>> was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, transportation, >>>>>>> and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-schools >>>>>>>
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. And they >>>>>>> consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA proficiency at ~70% >>>>>>> in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support from rome. How >>>>>> about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and emphasize rigor, >>>>>>> discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by catholic schools. >>>>>> I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. Again, that >>>>>> suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student.
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools another 11,000 >>>>>> per student and see how that helps as a starter. I bet a lot more. >>>>>>
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based education. Of >>>>>> course they do. Guess why public schools have such a hard time with >>>>>> that. Would it be something about the "don't touch my kid", and "my >>>>>> kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you are rotten >>>>>> teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. That along with >>>>>> the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". That's a biggie. >>>>>
Further info about the cost of private school.
Catholic schools are considered public in canada. That is what that
check off on your tax return is about.
Private private schools in canada are all tuition based and not
religion supported.
Not so - for example: St Mikes private school for boys is Catholic. And
Bishop Strachan is Anglican based. Both in Toronto.
Fuck you too julian. My point stands.
Compare ny average per student at public schools with private school
tuitions at schools that do not get support from a religious
organization. Those two probably do get that.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>>
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because >>>>> housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what >they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools.
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more".
They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems.
So private systems are not superior,
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private >>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because >>>>>> housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So private systems are not superior,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>>>>
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state >>>>>>>>> schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because >>>>>>> housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>>>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what >>> they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That's nuts.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara
<tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So private systems are not superior,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's >>>>>>>>>>> lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private >>>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better >>>>>>>>> state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there
because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course
there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what >>> they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That's nuts.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot. >>>>>>>>>>>>
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because >>>>>>>> housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are >>>>>>>> exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what >>>> they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the
needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara
<tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding-our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their
children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >>> needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
--Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
Are you nuts? People are free to have as much property as they can afford.
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools?Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in NYC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a willingness to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary spending >>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there because >>>>>>>>> housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets what >>>>> they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >>> needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring >customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve >equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food >allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
Are you nuts? People are free to have as much property as they can afford.
On 2/25/26 6:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding-our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >>>> needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring
customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve
equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food
allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
hopefully that kind of blind idiocracy with die with ur generation u
stupid fking boomer
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Are you nuts? People are free to have as much property as they can afford. --Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:54:47 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding-our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >>>>> needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring
customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve
equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food
allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
hopefully that kind of blind idiocracy with die with ur generation u
stupid fking boomer
Nah, it is much too attractive to people to people who have more than
the need.
>Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
Are you nuts? People are free to have as much property as they can afford.
On 2/25/26 8:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:54:47 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding-our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to the >>>>>> needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring >>>> customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve >>>> equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food
allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
hopefully that kind of blind idiocracy with die with ur generation u
stupid fking boomer
Nah, it is much too attractive to people to people who have more than
the need.
idk. it's really hard to tell what people who've been saturated in
watching lives on social media few will ever live will think about how >inequitable the world really is
yeah yeah u might argue mass media might have done that for boomers ...--
but that was all carefully crafted and ultimately fake media, not the
rather raw experiences you can find filmed on social media.
>Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
Are you nuts? People are free to have as much property as they can afford. >>
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
Equity:
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve equal outcomes.
On 2/25/26 8:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:54:47 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Equity:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?The question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who can
afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck
about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet for
that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids
than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No?-a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas to
improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service,
transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding-our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public, and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic-
religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholics.
Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touch my
kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> privately
funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid >>>>>> to the
needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
I said sufficient whatever that is.
In a social context, equity means fairness and justice, often requiring >>>> customized resources to accommodate different circumstances and achieve >>>> equal outcomes.
Keep it transparent, according to need. Not everyone needs baby food
allowance. Everyone is born equal, but not with all the same needs.
hopefully that kind of blind idiocracy with die with ur generation u
stupid fking boomer
Nah, it is much too attractive to people to people who have more than
the need.
idk. it's really hard to tell what people who've been saturated in
watching lives on social media few will ever live will think about how inequitable the world really is
yeah yeah u might argue mass media might have done that for boomers ...
but that was all carefully crafted and ultimately fake media, not the
rather raw experiences you can find filmed on social media.
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
On 2/26/2026 6:50 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Can you believe this? These two guys are confused. Apparently, they
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
don't even understand the free market as opposed to a closed society.
They both argued for destruction of the free market, but on got mixed up
and championed the communism instead and in the next sentence tried to >justify capitalism.
You just can't make this up!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
- Karl Marx
A core Marxist principle
It envisions a stateless, post-scarcity society where individuals
contribute to their maximum capacity and receive goods based on genuine >needs, rather than for profit or in exchange for labor." Wiki
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"
<fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara
<tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life
prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil?
It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a
willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their
children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the
better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course
there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets
what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
uhuh
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestlywitnessing
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have
a millions bucks, neither can I.
On 2/26/2026 10:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have
a millions bucks, neither can I.
Envy is what your objection is all about.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara
<tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their
children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely closeIn the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestlywitnessing
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
Maybe we should ask starving babies in S Somalia how equal they feel.
and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Granted by government.
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestlywitnessing
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:51:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have
a millions bucks, neither can I.
Envy is what your objection is all about.
Sorry, it is about greed. Same as if it were lust or gluttony. The difference is that greed often leads to exploitation of others. Which
is another good reason to object. So unlike lust and gluttony, greed
is not simply a matter of your choices and your consequences.
The conversation was about providing people's needs. Nobody "needs" a million bucks. Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people.
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private >>>>>>>>>>>>>> school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the >>>>>>>>>>> best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains >>>>> equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>
Maybe we should ask starving babies in S Somalia how equal they feel.
and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
Inalienable rights are fundamental, inherent liberties that cannot be
taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
It's just obviously self-evident. Natural law is undeniable because
everyone is human and at the same time different.
Derived from natural law rather than government, these rights are
considered God-given and are meant to be protected by, not granted by,
the government.
We studied this in elementary school.
Can you cite a single thinker, except for Karl Marx, who would agree
with your position, which is that human rights are derived from the
state? Thanks for your attention to this matter.
--Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestlywitnessing
On 2/26/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:51:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It's none of your business who is lustful or glutinous. You are not >responsible for the actions of others. It's your business if you are
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have
a millions bucks, neither can I.
Envy is what your objection is all about.
Sorry, it is about greed. Same as if it were lust or gluttony. The
difference is that greed often leads to exploitation of others. Which
is another good reason to object. So unlike lust and gluttony, greed
is not simply a matter of your choices and your consequences.
greedy or not. You are free by human nature - your government cannot
take away your inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
The conversation was about providing people's needs. Nobody "needs" a
million bucks. Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people.
It's very difficult to help others when you are poor.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara
<tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean counter.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy
schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their
children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in >>>>>>>>> the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains
equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely closeIn the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestlywitnessing
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out.-a Call a
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools do and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.-a That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>> -a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains >>>>>> equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>
Maybe we should ask starving babies in S Somalia how equal they feel.
and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
Inalienable rights are fundamental, inherent liberties that cannot be
taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
It's just obviously self-evident. Natural law is undeniable because
everyone is human and at the same time different.
Derived from natural law rather than government, these rights are
considered God-given and are meant to be protected by, not granted by,
the government.
We studied this in elementary school.
Can you cite a single thinker, except for Karl Marx, who would agree
with your position, which is that human rights are derived from the
state? Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>>>> witnessing
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a DoThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent.
You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local
Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone
gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone
remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they
also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most
of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if
saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income.
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>> witnessing
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up
the only planet i have to live on
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:19:52 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:51:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It's none of your business who is lustful or glutinous. You are not
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>>>Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy.
Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have >>>>> a millions bucks, neither can I.
Envy is what your objection is all about.
Sorry, it is about greed. Same as if it were lust or gluttony. The
difference is that greed often leads to exploitation of others. Which
is another good reason to object. So unlike lust and gluttony, greed
is not simply a matter of your choices and your consequences.
responsible for the actions of others. It's your business if you are
greedy or not. You are free by human nature - your government cannot
take away your inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If you are vile and greedy, free speech says I get to say so.
The conversation was about providing people's needs. Nobody "needs" aIt's very difficult to help others when you are poor.
million bucks. Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people.
So, give everybody a sufficient amount. Poof, no others needing help.
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out.a Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let everybody
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so very hard to observe what private schools do and
do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026tuition does not necessarily equal spending per student.
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents.a That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone gets >>>>>>>>> what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>> a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone remains >>>>>>> equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>>
Maybe we should ask starving babies in S Somalia how equal they feel.
and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
Birth circumstances means no matter what ethnicity or race you are born >into, no matter what country you are born in, you are born with certain >inalienable human rights.
What are your human right you are born with?
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of >nationality, sex, race, or religion.
--Inalienable rights are fundamental, inherent liberties that cannot be
taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit >>> of happiness.
It's just obviously self-evident. Natural law is undeniable because
everyone is human and at the same time different.
Derived from natural law rather than government, these rights are
considered God-given and are meant to be protected by, not granted by,
the government.
We studied this in elementary school.
Can you cite a single thinker, except for Karl Marx, who would agree
with your position, which is that human rights are derived from the
state? Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>>>>> witnessing
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools?
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a
superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just
vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;)
I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone.
People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone
gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need.
Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor.
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone
remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>
no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they
also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most
of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if
saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income.
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>>> witnessing
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up
the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
You could be a nice guy from Alberta or--
Quebec for all I know. Apparently, there are good people on both sides. >YMMV.
Just don't call me Shirley, you creep!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
On 2/26/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:19:52 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:51:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It's none of your business who is lustful or glutinous. You are not
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:50:59 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Sorry, objecting to greed is not a matter of envy. If you can't have >>>>>> a millions bucks, neither can I.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:09:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
Nobody needs millions in the bank.
What someone else has is none of your business. Rein in your envy. >>>>>>
Envy is what your objection is all about.
Sorry, it is about greed. Same as if it were lust or gluttony. The
difference is that greed often leads to exploitation of others. Which >>>> is another good reason to object. So unlike lust and gluttony, greed
is not simply a matter of your choices and your consequences.
responsible for the actions of others. It's your business if you are
greedy or not. You are free by human nature - your government cannot
take away your inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If you are vile and greedy, free speech says I get to say so.
The conversation was about providing people's needs. Nobody "needs" a >>>> million bucks. Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people.It's very difficult to help others when you are poor.
So, give everybody a sufficient amount. Poof, no others needing help.
So, on you program, everyone gets breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Wait, you've already had breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Too bad! You get breakfast, lunch and diner!
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >evidence.
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
On 2/26/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:19:52 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The conversation was about providing people's needs.-a Nobody "needs" a >>>> million bucks.-a Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people.It's very difficult to help others when you are poor.
So, give everybody a sufficient amount.-a Poof, no others needing help.
So, on you program, everyone gets breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Wait, you've already had breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Too bad! You get breakfast, lunch and diner!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
On 2/27/2026 12:16 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:19:52 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, on you program, everyone gets breakfast, lunch and dinner.
On 2/26/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The conversation was about providing people's needs.-a Nobody "needs" a >>>>> million bucks.-a Although, I'm sure it feels that way to some people. >>>>>It's very difficult to help others when you are poor.
So, give everybody a sufficient amount.-a Poof, no others needing help.
Wait, you've already had breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Too bad! You get breakfast, lunch and diner!
Many such cases.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools?Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.-a Would it be
so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?-a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public.
tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that
in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>> -a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone
remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>
no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they
also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most >>> of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if
saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income. >>>
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>>>> witnessing
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up
the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
You could be a nice guy from Alberta or
Quebec for all I know. Apparently, there are good people on both sides.
YMMV.
Just don't call me Shirley, you creep!
On 2/27/2026 12:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Repeating your opinion that human rights are not universal and are
instead bestowed by government is not "evidence".
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
All things of this world are temporary. The human spirit however is not >bound by those same limitations.
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
No doubt the starving babies have little ability to reflect on the
nature of government and innate attributes of being, as their next meal
is more top of mind.
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
On 2/27/2026 9:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior,
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.a Would it be
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to beThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior toWhich is simply gingerpeachy for those who can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?a Too
bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous
tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, yeah, they kinda are
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and
the education role is removed from parents. Having said
that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>> a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone
remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>>
no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they
also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most >>>> of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if
saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income. >>>>
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it >>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close
Let's not get personal. Everyone is different.cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly >>>>>> witnessing
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up >>>> the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
human rights. So, you might as well get used to living in an open
society, where you have the right to be secure - it's your body.
Apparently, Canadians heavily supports the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are born with equal
and inalienable rights.
--You could be a nice guy from Alberta or
Quebec for all I know. Apparently, there are good people on both sides.
YMMV.
Just don't call me Shirley, you creep!
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how--
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>>>> are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>
rights are
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth
rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>>>>> are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth >>>>>>>>> rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>
inherent
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God /
Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>.
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>>>>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:14:33 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they >>>>> also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most >>>>> of the funding
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Well, yeah, they kinda are
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can
afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck
about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for
wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that.-a Would it be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?-a Too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.-a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous
tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public
schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to
improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private
schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal year 2026tuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-
religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics.
Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools
another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based
education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my
kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately
funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places
are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and >>>>>>>>>>>> the education role is removed from parents. Having said >>>>>>>>>>>> that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same.
Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>> -a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone
remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law. >>>>>
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life. >>>>>>>
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if >>>>> saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income. >>>>>
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it >>>>>
-a>
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely closeIn the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
-a> > cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly
witnessingLet's not get personal. Everyone is different.
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up >>>>> the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
human rights. So, you might as well get used to living in an open
society, where you have the right to be secure - it's your body.
Apparently, Canadians heavily supports the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are born with equal
and inalienable rights.
Sounds nice, but it ain't nesussarily so.
You could be a nice guy from Alberta or
Quebec for all I know. Apparently, there are good people on both sides. >>>> YMMV.
Just don't call me Shirley, you creep!
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>>>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>>>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>>>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>>>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>>>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >contradiction)--
On 2/27/2026 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>.
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:Granted by government.
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>>>>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia / >>>>>>> Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>>>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>>>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>>>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>>>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
So, I'm going out on a limb here, but this kind of looks like a trolling >reply.
I'm not seeing any sources to back up your point . Why not?
On 2/27/2026 11:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:14:33 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Yes it is. I looked it up using Grok. Canada supports the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights.
On 2/27/2026 9:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they >>>>>> also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most >>>>>> of the funding
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>>> a>
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote::(. no fair
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Well, yeah, they kinda are
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools
often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can
afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck
about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most
such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that.a Would it be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?a Too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
off people feel
about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.a It
feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public
schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to
improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Meanwhile there are private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending fortuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service,
transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-
religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics.
Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools
another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based
education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my
kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately
funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they might attract a higher
grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It always will be until someone can work out how to
make all places equally attractive and lucrative to
live and work while also ensuring that all parents
regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places >>>>>>>>>>>>> are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the education role is removed from parents. Having said >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same. >>>>>>>>>>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone >>>>>>>>> remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law. >>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>>>
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say
something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if >>>>>> saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income.
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it >>>>>>
a>
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely closeIn the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>> a> > cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly
witnessingLet's not get personal. Everyone is different.
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up >>>>>> the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
human rights. So, you might as well get used to living in an open
society, where you have the right to be secure - it's your body.
Apparently, Canadians heavily supports the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are born with equal
and inalienable rights.
Sounds nice, but it ain't nesussarily so.
--
You could be a nice guy from Alberta or
Quebec for all I know. Apparently, there are good people on both sides. >>>>> YMMV.
Just don't call me Shirley, you creep!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they >>>>>>>> cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any >>>>>> semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help >>>>>> build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for >>>>>> some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how >>>>>> a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is--
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>> assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >inevitable
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >tech we may unlock in the future
--
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as >reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
Where's Tara?--
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as >reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition--
toward goodness.
Where's Tara?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Humans are born with an innate, moral corerCosuch as empathy and
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law. The tendency is there
because humans have tended to more successfully reproduce and reach reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and >>>>>>>> inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth >>>>>>>>>> rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God /
Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean >>>>>> they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible.
any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will
help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics
for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of
how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
-a > teapot meet kettle
-a >
-a > #god
On 2/27/2026 5:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, DudeLet me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and >>>>>>>>> inherent
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your >>>>>>>>>>> birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some
time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / >>>>>>> Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean >>>>>>> they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob >>>>>>> or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or >>>>>>> do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if
possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will >>>>> help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the
semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral
property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property
of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not
understand opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what
others are saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
-a-a > teapot meet kettle
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
I don't deliberately pretend to not understand.
On 2/28/2026 11:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law. The tendency is there
because humans have tended to more successfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Why was having compassion more successful towards survival?
On 2/27/2026 5:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and >>>>>>>>> inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth >>>>>>>>>>> rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / >>>>>>> Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean >>>>>>> they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. >>>>> any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will >>>>> help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics >>>>> for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of >>>>> how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
a > teapot meet kettle
a >
a > #god
I don't deliberately pretend to not understand.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral corerCosuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technicalethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law.
The tendency is there> because humans have tended to moresuccessfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as
reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
Where's Tara?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral corerCosuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technicalethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
They believe themselves innocent and demand justice. There also exist psychopaths who have no empathy.
He stole my truck. I had it first. He hit me. He hit me first. Kindergarten teachers know how to deal with that. Do you?
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as
reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
You have a reference for that?
Where's Tara?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technicalethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
rights of individuals.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is >>>>> a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >>>>>> thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is >>>>>> a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >>>>>>> thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does notit is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is >>>>>>> a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >>>>>>>> thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>> contradiction)
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does notit is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is >>>>>>>> a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>>>>
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of
society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors
and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way
were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of
the societies we build.
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very
long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over
anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us
to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything
but what we have gotten.
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>> morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of
society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors
and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome
devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way
were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the
consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of
the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of
societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very
long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over
anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us
to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything
but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what
the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point,
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences.
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be >"irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long
term consequences?
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or >>>>>>>>>> incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>> morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of
society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors
and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome
devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way
were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the
consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of
the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of
societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very
long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over
anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us
to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything
but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what
the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral
principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point,
rights are not moral priniciples.
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences.
Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly
a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this
get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be
"irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long
term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with
what we want to get.
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what
we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do
they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to
get?
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen.
Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might
turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland,
sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or >>>>>>>>>>> incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>>>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>> morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>>
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of
society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors >>>> and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome >>>> devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way
were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the
consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of
the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of >>>> societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very
long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over
anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us >>>> to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything >>>> but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what
the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral
principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point,
rights are not moral priniciples.
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences.
Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly
a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of >society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this
get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be
"irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long
term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with
what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what
we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do
they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to
get?
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on
demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis, >discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead...
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen.
Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might
turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland,
sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of
evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their
consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which
isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within >society
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or >>>>>>>>>>>> incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:rights are not moral priniciples.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>> morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>>
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>>>
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>>>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors >>>>> and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome >>>>> devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way
were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the
consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of >>>>> societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very
long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us >>>>> to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything >>>>> but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what >>>> the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral
principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point, >>>
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences.
Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly
a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of
society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this
get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be
"irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long
term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with
what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what
we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do
they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to
get?
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on
demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis,
discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead...
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen.
Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might
turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland,
sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of
evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their
consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which
isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within
society
On 3/1/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200Ethical Nihilism: It is often aligned with atheistic and materialistic >worldviews, as it implies there is no higher authority providing moral laws.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:rights are not moral priniciples.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>>>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>>>
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>>>>
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>>>>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors >>>>>> and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They
illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome >>>>>> devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way >>>>>> were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the >>>>>> consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate
tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of >>>>>> societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very >>>>>> long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us >>>>>> to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything >>>>>> but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what >>>>> the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >>>>> principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point, >>>>
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences.
Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly
a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of
society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this >>>> get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be
"irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long >>>>> term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with >>>> what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what
we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do
they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to >>>> get?
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on
demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis,
discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead...
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen.
Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might
turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland,
sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of
evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their
consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which
isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within
society
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:28:14 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200Ethical Nihilism: It is often aligned with atheistic and materialistic
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:rights are not moral priniciples.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enoughExcept that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>>>>
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles >>>>>>>>>>>
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors >>>>>>> and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They >>>>>>> illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome >>>>>>> devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way >>>>>>> were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the >>>>>>> consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate >>>>>>> tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of >>>>>>> societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very >>>>>>> long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us >>>>>>> to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything >>>>>>> but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what >>>>>> the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >>>>>> principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point, >>>>>
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences. >>>>>Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly >>>>> a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of >>>> society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this >>>>> get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be >>>>>> "irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long >>>>>> term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with >>>>> what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably?
Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what >>>>> we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do
they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to >>>>> get?
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on
demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis,
discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead...
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen.
Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might >>>>> turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland,
sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of >>>>> evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their >>>>> consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which
isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within >>>> society
worldviews, as it implies there is no higher authority providing moral laws.
I think Buddha was right. We should not bother talking about such unknowables. We have more important things to be concerned with.
On 3/1/26 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:28:14 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200Ethical Nihilism: It is often aligned with atheistic and materialistic
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:rights are not moral priniciples.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200nah
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced anyOn 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enoughExcept that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis >>>>>>>>>>>>
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles >>>>>>>>>>>>
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors >>>>>>>> and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the
consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They >>>>>>>> illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome >>>>>>>> devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way >>>>>>>> were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the >>>>>>>> consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate >>>>>>>> tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of >>>>>>>> societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very >>>>>>>> long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us >>>>>>>> to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything >>>>>>>> but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what >>>>>>> the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >>>>>>> principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point, >>>>>>
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences. >>>>>>Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly >>>>>> a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of >>>>> society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning
based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this >>>>>> get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be >>>>>>> "irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long >>>>>>> term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with >>>>>> what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct >>>>>
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably? >>>>>>Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what >>>>>> we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly more
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that.
First we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do >>>>>> they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to >>>>>> get?
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on
demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis, >>>>> discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead...
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen. >>>>>> Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might >>>>>> turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some
individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland, >>>>>> sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal
their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders
become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of >>>>>> evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their >>>>>> consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which
isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within >>>>> society
worldviews, as it implies there is no higher authority providing moral laws.
I think Buddha was right. We should not bother talking about such
unknowables. We have more important things to be concerned with.
and how did buddha know they are unknowables???
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent >>>> rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are >>>>>> not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights >>>>>> are inalienable.
Granted by government.On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in >>>>> the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:00:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:14:33 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Yes it is. I looked it up using Grok. Canada supports the Universal
On 2/27/2026 9:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they >>>>>>> also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Well, yeah, they kinda are
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>So private systems are not superior, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for
What specific measures would you recommend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can
afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.-a Because we really don't give a fuck
about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.-a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most
such situations.-a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.-a Simply allow it
to be
possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that.-a Would it be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?-a Too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue.-a And we know how
well
off people feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that.-a "I'd-a rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.-a It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax duty.-a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.-a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your
nose.-a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.-a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public
schools the funds
they need to operate like private schools.-a No?-a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to
improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no
numbers.
Meanwhile there are private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve
better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending fortuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service,
transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
rome.-a How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-
religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics.
Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools
another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.-a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based
education.-a Of
course they do.-a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.-a Would it be something about the "don't touch my
kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately
funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they might attract a higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItrCOs true. There were some who did that at my daughterrCOs
private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make all places equally attractive and lucrative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> live and work while also ensuring that all parents >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the education role is removed from parents. Having said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same. >>>>>>>>>>>
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>>>> -a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to >>>>>>>>>> the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone >>>>>>>>>> remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law. >>>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>>>>
of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say >>>>>>> something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if >>>>>>> saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income.
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely
unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it >>>>>>>
-a>
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely closeIn the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>> -a> > cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly
witnessingLet's not get personal. Everyone is different.
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up >>>>>>> the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable >>>> human rights. So, you might as well get used to living in an open
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
society, where you have the right to be secure - it's your body.
Apparently, Canadians heavily supports the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are born with equal >>>> and inalienable rights.
Sounds nice, but it ain't nesussarily so.
Declaration of Human Rights.
Which support does not mean that such rights exist. Or they exist as
long as govt allows.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:57:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/28/2026 11:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Humans are born with an innate, moral corerCosuch as empathy and
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >>>> natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law. The tendency is there
because humans have tended to more successfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Why was having compassion more successful towards survival?
Because humans are social animals which also favors survival of big
apes.
On 2/28/26 9:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 5:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / >>>>>>>> Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not
mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob >>>>>>>> or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say >>>>>>>> or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if
possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it
will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the
semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral
property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property >>>>>> of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not
understand opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what
others are saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
-a-a > teapot meet kettle
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
I don't deliberately pretend to not understand.
but don't underestimate anyone's capability for raw stupidity
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:59:24 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 5:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and >>>>>>>>>> inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth >>>>>>>>>>>> rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / >>>>>>>> Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean >>>>>>>> they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. >>>>>> any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will >>>>>> help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics >>>>>> for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of >>>>>> how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
-a > teapot meet kettle
-a >
-a > #god
I don't deliberately pretend to not understand.
Which is what allows you to come back with the same old arguments time
and again.
Like cooperative ideas must always disastrously fail
Like nothing good can come from government regulation, only
interference with your right to do whatever you please.
etc.
As if they were not rejected last time. As if you can't think of
something new. As if you pretend you don't understand.
On 2/28/2026 8:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Where's Tara?
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>> for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
They believe themselves innocent and demand justice. There also exist
psychopaths who have no empathy.
He stole my truck. I had it first. He hit me. He hit me first.
Kindergarten teachers know how to deal with that. Do you?
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as
reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
You have a reference for that?
Where's Tara?
On 2/28/2026 1:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:57:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/28/2026 11:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >>>>> natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law. The tendency is there
because humans have tended to more successfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Why was having compassion more successful towards survival?
Because humans are social animals which also favors survival of big
apes.
Yes humans are social animals, but that's not an actual answer to the >question. *Why* is compassion more successful than total selfishness?
On 2/28/2026 8:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>> for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a
natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law.
Genes and traits are not the same thing.
Genes are segments of DNA that contain instructions, while traits are
the specific characteristics, like empathy and compassion - inborn traits.
Think of genes as the instruction manual and traits as the finished
product.
--The tendency is there> because humans have tended to moresuccessfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as
reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
Where's Tara?
On 2/28/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:59:24 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 5:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and >>>>>>>>>>> inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, DudeIn the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights are
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.a For that to be true, you need to be >>>>>>>>>>>> born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times.a It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time. >>>>>>>> Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / >>>>>>>>> Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean >>>>>>>>> they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an >>>>>>>>> evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in eachHave you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>> their rights are?
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do. >>>>>>>>
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. >>>>>>> any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will >>>>>>> help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics >>>>>>> for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of >>>>>>> personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>> assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of >>>>>>> how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.a I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
a > teapot meet kettle
a >
a > #god
I don't deliberately pretend to not understand.
Which is what allows you to come back with the same old arguments time
and again.
Like cooperative ideas must always disastrously fail
Like nothing good can come from government regulation, only
interference with your right to do whatever you please.
etc.
As if they were not rejected last time. As if you can't think of
something new. As if you pretend you don't understand.
I don't believe cooperative ideas always fail. I repeatedly support the
idea of voluntary cooperation.
I've never said nothing good can come from government regulation. I just >don't like too much of it because authoritarians.
I don't think that I have the right to do whatever I please. Other
people need to be respected.
Your straw men are all fallen down.
On 2/27/2026 6:54 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:00:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Almost everyone in the free world believes humans have certain inborn >inalienable human rights.
On 2/27/2026 11:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:14:33 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Yes it is. I looked it up using Grok. Canada supports the Universal
On 2/27/2026 9:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:12:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 2/26/2026 8:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 11:39 AM, Dude wrote:Try not to take it personally, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:no we aren't. rich people have vastly more rights under the law. they >>>>>>>> also have vastly more control over politics given that they control most
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:You just can't make this stuff up!
On 2/24/2026 6:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:54:29 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That's nuts.
On 2/24/2026 1:57 PM, Wilson wrote:Better that people should not be deciding what other people need. >>>>>>>>>>>> Better that everybody should get a sufficient same whatever that is.
On 2/24/2026 4:24 PM, Julian wrote:Many people confuse equality with equity.
On 24/02/2026 20:57, Tara wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 3:53:20?PM EST, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 20:15, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:44, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2026 19:04, Tara wrote:People also do it to move into the catchment area of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better state
On Feb 24, 2026 at 2:00:02?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:I know people who cut virtually all their discretionary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Tara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 2026 at 1:52:04?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:20:59 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Well, yeah, they kinda are
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:So private systems are not superior, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/23/2026 6:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:01:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:They should do whatever it takes to do what private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education does.
On 2/23/2026 4:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:26:42 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is not up to you and me to figure that out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Call a
On 2/23/2026 4:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:39:06 -0500, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't need to ask some bozo on usenet for
What specific measures would you recommend toThe question is, are private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to reports I've read, private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, tailored educational experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through smaller class sizes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing for more individualized instruction.
Which is simply gingerpeachy for those who can
afford such schools. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide those for the wealthy, and let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else go to the trashy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools.a Because we really don't give a fuck
about you, or your life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospects or anything else.a Diediedie ifucan.
Doing nothing being the path of choice in most
such situations.a Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not improve public schools.a Simply allow it
to be
possible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy to avoid such schools. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
improve the schools? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that.a Would it be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so very hard to observe what private schools >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do and
do the same?a Too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad that becomes a tax issue.a And we know how
well
off people feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that.a "I'da rather pay tuition for my kids
than taxes.a It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feels more like another privilege of being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well off,
than more onerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax duty.a In that battle, privilege wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time.
You posted no specific measures. "Be more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private schools" is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vagueposting. Complain and bitch all day, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
any answers.
You don't need answers from me.a They are right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
in front of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nose.a They would be if your nose wasn't busy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
them.a How
about a property tax increase enough to give public
schools the funds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they need to operate like private schools.a No?a Of
course not.
How much should be spent per pupil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bean counter.
You have no answers, no specific measures, no ideas to
improve anything,
just a vague "they should be spending more". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowing what tuitions are like, I have a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicion
that public
schools would need more, but you are right, I have no
numbers.
Meanwhile there are private >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools that spend much less per student than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government and achieve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better results.
So you assert.
For example, New York City public school spending fortuition does not necessarily equal spending per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student.
fiscal year 2026
was $34,717 per student. (This excludes debt service,
transportation,
and food costs).
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funding- our-
schools
Catholic School tuition averages $11,000 per year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in NYC.
And they
consistently outperform NYC public schools with ELA
proficiency at ~70%
in Catholic schools compared to ~56% in NYC public,
and
math proficiency
at ~67% vs. vs. ~57% in public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it seems they must be getting significant support
from
rome.a How
about private schools without support from some church?
They serve many low-income/minority students and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize rigor,
discipline, and values-based education, leading to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher
graduation and
college-going rates.
There are organizations like Children's Scholarship
Fund
that can reduce
it further for families in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-york/catholic-
religious-affiliation
https://catholicschoolsny.org/about-us/results/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't have to be Catholic to go to one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
schools.
You do need to agree to be exposed to religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrination.
So it's not about how much is spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't told us how much is spent per student by
catholic schools.
I commend them for taking low income and non-catholics.
Again, that
suggests they spend more than 11,000 per student. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as a baseline suggestion, let's give public schools
another 11,000
per student and see how that helps as a starter.a I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a
lot more.
Catholics emphasize rigor, discipline, and values-based
education.a Of
course they do.a Guess why public schools have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
time with
that.a Would it be something about the "don't touch my
kid", and "my
kid says he didn't do that, therefore he did not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
are rotten
teacher for accusing him" attitude of many parents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
along with
the "don't teach my kid things I don't agree with". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a biggie.
You've provided more examples of how voluntary privately
funded systems
can be superior to government state run systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they might attract a higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grade of parents.
More money mostly, but also for some others, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willingness to
sacrifice to
give their kids more.
If it is simply a check off on your tax return, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
lot of
sacrifice.
I think we are missunderstanding each other ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and/or
mortgaged themselves to the hilt to improves their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's lot.
ItAs true. There were some who did that at my daughterAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private
school.
And they ( the parents) were admired by everyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schools.
Is it the same in Britain as it is in Canada - same quality of
education no
matter where you live. ?
Absolutely not. There are many variables. Location/Local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Economy/Politics/ etc.
And quite reasonably most of the best teachers want to teach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
best
places
to live. Most who teach in bad schools in bad areas are there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
housing is cheap... and no good schools want them. Of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
exceptions, just as some people want to work in a leper colony.
:(. no fair
It always will be until someone can work out how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make all places equally attractive and lucrative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live and work while also ensuring that all parents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regard their kids education as their priority.
I don't think it is going to happen unless all places >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equally bad to live in with equally bad school and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the education role is removed from parents. Having said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are movements in this country to do just that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the name of equality.
Equity is not equality and is downright evil.
The former means everyone gets the same; equity means everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>> gets what
they need. People are equal, but not everyone is the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Otherwise the door is open to fabulously rich and fabulously poor. >>>>>>>>>>> a>
That needy people should all starve equally. What's needed is aid to
the needy based on their needs, not on a quota where everyone >>>>>>>>>>> remains equally poor.
uhuh
We are all born equal and in the US everyone is equal under the law. >>>>>>>>
Everyone is equal from birth but everyone has different needs in life.
u can repeat that garbage all u want, but it will never be true dude >>>>>>>>>>
of the funding
money is a form of "free speech". when u pay an advertiser to say >>>>>>>> something that's not "free speech" is literally "paid speech" and if >>>>>>>> saying anything but what you pay for, he gets punished by lack of income.
the supreme court has gone rogue with idiocy and it's entirely >>>>>>>> unsustainable do the idiocracy that gets voted into govt because of it >>>>>>>>
a>
there is no equality in birth atm, not even remotely close >>>>>>>>>>In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights. >>>>>>>>> a> > cause twats like u shove ur dick in ur eyeballs instead of honestly
witnessingLet's not get personal. Everyone is different.
i'm pretty personally offended by chronic stupidity like urs fucking up
the only planet i have to live on
It's just words on a screen.
Who cares about words on a screen?
It is astounding, however, that some people can actually believe those words,You already do live in a country that actually believes in inalienable >>>>> human rights. So, you might as well get used to living in an open
and do I want to live in a world where that can happen?>
society, where you have the right to be secure - it's your body.
Apparently, Canadians heavily supports the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are born with equal >>>>> and inalienable rights.
Sounds nice, but it ain't nesussarily so.
Declaration of Human Rights.
Which support does not mean that such rights exist. Or they exist as
long as govt allows.
However, you may be an exception, since you are living under a Monarchy, >which itself is a contradiction to individual human rights.
So, you may be biased.
As a hereditary monarchy itself is sometimes argued to be antithetical
to, or at least in tension with, egalitarian, universal, and innate
human rights.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any >>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.--
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >>>> thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand >>>>>>> opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights are
On 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel >>>>>>>>>> their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them, >>>>But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are >>>>> is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have >>>>> a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
--
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right.
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, "law is >>>> a subjective attempt at objectivity. So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand why you'd >>>>> thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a
contradiction)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:50:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 8:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Genes and traits are not the same thing.
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral corerCosuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to >>>>>>>>>>> assert not that.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them >>>>>>>>>>>> whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are >>>>>>>>>> saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our >>>>>>>> actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the >>>>>>>> inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see >>>>>> how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive >>>>>> tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>> for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >>>> natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law.
Genes are segments of DNA that contain instructions, while traits are
the specific characteristics, like empathy and compassion - inborn traits. >>
Think of genes as the instruction manual and traits as the finished
product.
No, that is a bad analogy. genes are the instruction manual for
building the finished product including compassion or maybe not in
other cases.
The tendency is there> because humans have tended to moresuccessfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as >>>> reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition
toward goodness.
Where's Tara?
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, DudeNot only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced any
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times.-a It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, DudeLet me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal, and inherent
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
In the US everyone is born equal with certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.-a For that to be true, you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because >>>>>>>>>>>>> it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people >>>>>>>>>>>>> have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>> property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or >>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the >>>>>>>>>>>> right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.-a I feel >>>>>>>>>>>> alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not >>>>>>>>>>> understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what >>>>>>>>>>> others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent.-a This makes >>>>>>>>>> honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular >>>>>>>>> absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice
whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) >>>>>>>>> with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically
violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society
violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable.-a You >>>>>>>> need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to >>>>>> life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause >>>>>>> for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably >>>>>>>>> require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics >>>>>>>>> do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very >>>>>>>>> basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that >>>>>>>> ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights >>>>>>>>> exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not >>>>>>>>> even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective >>>>>>>>> ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible.-a Ethics can be >>>>>>>> adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly.-a Actions have consequences.-a We knew that.-a But by that >>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims.-a If >>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim >>>>>>> to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i
mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but
they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too >>>>>>> far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology,
will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can
and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long.-a Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of
destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no
effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout.-a Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, >>>>>> and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected.-a Otherwise, >>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless.-a Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those Efn+Efn+Efn+
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, >>>>>>>> "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity.-a So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand >>>>>>>>> why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>> contradiction)
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 22:36:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:28:14 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200Ethical Nihilism: It is often aligned with atheistic and materialistic >>>> worldviews, as it implies there is no higher authority providing moral laws.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enoughExcept that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
For the victim it is.
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless >>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>>>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors
and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the >>>>>>>>> consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They >>>>>>>>> illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome
devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way >>>>>>>>> were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the >>>>>>>>> consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>>>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate >>>>>>>>> tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of
societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very >>>>>>>>> long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>>>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us
to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything
but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what >>>>>>>> the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >>>>>>>> principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point,
rights are not moral priniciples.
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences. >>>>>>>Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly >>>>>>> a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their
ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of >>>>>> society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning >>>>>>> based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this >>>>>>> get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be >>>>>>>> "irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long >>>>>>>> term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with >>>>>>> what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct >>>>>>
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably? >>>>>>>Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what >>>>>>> we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly moreFirst we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do >>>>>>> they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to >>>>>>> get?
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that. >>>>>>>
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on >>>>>> demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis, >>>>>> discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead... >>>>>>
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen. >>>>>>> Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might >>>>>>> turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some >>>>>>> individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland, >>>>>>> sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal >>>>>>> their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders >>>>>>> become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of >>>>>>> evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their >>>>>>> consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which >>>>>> isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within >>>>>> society
I think Buddha was right. We should not bother talking about such
unknowables. We have more important things to be concerned with.
and how did buddha know they are unknowables???
He had the benefit of inside info. We have the benefit of being able
to realize that after all this time such topics are still only fuel
for sophomoric debate. Tending to the business of our individual
spiritual development is still the best we can do.
On 2/28/2026 12:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:50:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:A trait is a distinguishing quality, feature, or tendency, which can be
On 2/28/2026 8:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:32:12 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Genes and traits are not the same thing.
On 2/28/2026 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200Humans are born with an innate, moral coreusuch as empathy and
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You already said that 37 times. It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherent
On 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated. >>>>>>>>>>>
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest >>>>>>>>>> discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute >>>>>>>>> outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to >>>>>>>>> respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to >>>>>>>> find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life >>>>>> feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for >>>>>>> their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require >>>>>>>>> whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in >>>>>>>>> fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic >>>>>>>>> meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics >>>>>>>> do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly areethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted >>>>>>>> or abandoned as a society chooses.
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics. >>>>>>>>
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that >>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If >>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we >>>>>>> can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are >>>>>>> not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far, >>>>>>> for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get >>>>>>> us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will >>>>>>> end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>> Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect >>>>>> for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>> any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and >>>>>> only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise, >>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.'
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>
compassion - and a basic sense of fairness. All humans these traits, a >>>>> natural law. This has already been pointed out by Tara.
A genetic tendency is not a natural law.
Genes are segments of DNA that contain instructions, while traits are
the specific characteristics, like empathy and compassion - inborn traits. >>>
Think of genes as the instruction manual and traits as the finished
product.
No, that is a bad analogy. genes are the instruction manual for
building the finished product including compassion or maybe not in
other cases.
an inherited biological characteristic (like eye color) or a personality >aspect (like honesty or being humorous).
Examples include inheriting blue eyes (biological) or being known for a >"generous spirit"
--
The tendency is there> because humans have tended to moresuccessfully reproduce and reach
reproductive age with that tendency. There is no other reason.
Researchers have found that babies show early signs of empathy, such as >>>>> reacting to the pain of others, and possess an innate predisposition >>>>> toward goodness.
Where's Tara?
On 3/2/26 4:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 22:36:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:28:14 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:35:52 -0800, dart200Ethical Nihilism: It is often aligned with atheistic and materialistic >>>>> worldviews, as it implies there is no higher authority providing moral laws.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:17:05 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 3/1/26 8:59 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 22:12:45 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the US everyone is born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Granted by government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself. For that to be true, you need to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority
You already said that 37 times. It is still not true.
Not only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even introduced any
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each
person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case)
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of
personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything. I feel alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't understand and deliberately misrepresent. This makes honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable. You need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they
cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
Certainly. Actions have consequences. We knew that. But by that
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enoughExcept that his statements in the past have demonstrated that ethics
violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably require
whole papers to detail out more specifically) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical
capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible. Ethics can be adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims. If
a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is
long term across society, not on a per-violation basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not
like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many
confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes
inevitable
too far, too long. Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge.
for u: clearly
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not
worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for
... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout. Which possibility of fallout was always deniable beforeagain: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened.
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected. Otherwise,
it is meaningless to say I have any such right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless. Who cares?
people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Meaningless rights do nothing for others. The long term survival of >>>>>>>>>> society. The mechanics of how rome fell tell us about human behaviors
and where those things tend to lead. My opinion is that the >>>>>>>>>> consequences of those behaviors do not illustrate a right. They >>>>>>>>>> illustrate a mechanics. It cannot be otherwise since the fall of rome
devolved over many centuries. Rights of individuals along the way >>>>>>>>>> were meaningless except to say that people have no right beyond the >>>>>>>>>> consequences of their actions and the consequences of the actions of >>>>>>>>>> the societies we build.
ur just quibbling over semantics tbh
To my mind, the devolution of rome does not demonstrate an innate >>>>>>>>>> tendency towards good in human affairs. Neither do the experiences of
societies since then. So far results are clearly mixed over a very >>>>>>>>>> long period of time. We should not be congratulating ourselves over >>>>>>>>>> anything right now.
If anything, pronouncing ourselves owners of inherent rights allows us
to disregard our millennia long history of failing to deserve anything
but what we have gotten.
it's hard to build something better if ur so unwilling to declare what
the the goal is ?
i really don't understand why ur arguing here. debating whether moral >>>>>>>>> principles like rights "actually exist" or not is kind of a moot point,
rights are not moral priniciples.
moral/inalienable rights are matters of moral principles
if ur already claiming actions have certain long term consequences. >>>>>>>>Consequences are not based on moral principles. Morality is strictly >>>>>>>> a matter of social conventions, as convinced as we are of their >>>>>>>> ultimate authority.
which affects our behavior within society, so therefore the outcomes of >>>>>>> society, and therefore have consequences
Actions and their consequences are simply mechanistic functioning >>>>>>>> based on what we want to do and what we want to have. Does doing this >>>>>>>> get us closer to getting what we want to have or not?
what would it even mean for ethical principles to "not exist" or be >>>>>>>>> "irrelevant"? that we could do whatever we want without certain long >>>>>>>>> term consequences?
There are always consequences. So we attempt to align what we do with >>>>>>>> what we want to get.
acting with ethical consideration is to our general benefit, correct >>>>>>>
is that how u think a functional society can operate sustainably? >>>>>>>>Not sure. So far none have survived indefinitely, humans being what >>>>>>>> we are, it is likely that none ever will.
debating what those moral principles are is vastly moreFirst we need to know if moral principles are actually useful. Do >>>>>>>> they work better than aligning what we want to do with what we want to >>>>>>>> get?
interesting/useful, but u don't seem to actually be doing that. >>>>>>>>
since we don't have a bunch of alternative universes to spin up on >>>>>>> demand to test morals in isolation, philosophy (reasoning, analysis, >>>>>>> discussion, conviction) will have to be conducted in it's stead... >>>>>>>
The fundamental principle of evolution is that change will happen. >>>>>>>> Humans seem to come equipped with a variety of tendencies that might >>>>>>>> turn out to be adaptable to cultural changes as they occur.
We live in a barbaric germanic war like tribe. Sure we have some >>>>>>>> individuals who will thrive in that situation.
We live in a tribe of peaceful sheep herders in Northern Scotland, >>>>>>>> sure we have some who will thrive in that situation.
Whatever. And the barbaric tribes attack the sheepherders, steal >>>>>>>> their women and their young men.
Humanity evolves. The germans become more peaceful, the herders >>>>>>>> become more violent on their way to something else entirely.
That worked fine until humanity caught the rabbit in the dog race of >>>>>>>> evolution. Now we have become responsible for our actions and their >>>>>>>> consequences. We have almost become aware of that.
But it still all depends on what we want to get.
maybe it's ur lack of faith that leads u to ethical nihilism, which >>>>>>> isn't very productive as it would not be a sustainable principle within >>>>>>> society
I think Buddha was right. We should not bother talking about such
unknowables. We have more important things to be concerned with.
and how did buddha know they are unknowables???
He had the benefit of inside info. We have the benefit of being able
to realize that after all this time such topics are still only fuel
for sophomoric debate. Tending to the business of our individual
spiritual development is still the best we can do.
idk the buddhists haven't solved much about our societal ills after >thousands of years so i'm gunna have to disagree with him there
On 2/28/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that life lacks inherent
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:03:21 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 5:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:15:29 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/28/26 8:10 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:07:03 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 6:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:02:28 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 12:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:05:17 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 2:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:46:58 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:43:17 -0500, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:06:36 -0800, DudeNot only has no one proven it untrue, you've not even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced any
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 17:51:18 -0800, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You already said that 37 times.a It is still not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me be clear: Human rights are inalienable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal, and inherentOn 2/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:39:08 -0800, Dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US, everyone is born with equal rights at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> birth. Your rights areOn 2/25/2026 3:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/26 1:09 PM, Dude wrote:
In the US everyone is born equal with certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inalienable rights.
Granted by government.
not dependent on birth circumstances or government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your birth rights
are inalienable.
You unsaid it yourself.a For that to be true, you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be born in
the us, so such rights are dependant on circumstances >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and govt.
rights you are born with, not granted by any authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
evidence.
I have been tirelessly arguing this point with examples >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some time.
Do you even read them?
Posit: All human beings are equal in natural rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before God / Gaia /
Nature.
When it's said those rights are "inalienable", that does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean they
cannot be temporarily limited or denied by the actions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mob or an
evil despot.
What makes you think "temporarily"?
It *does* mean that this state of being persists in each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's nature, no mater what any well intentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busybody,
high-minded commissar, leader, or other similar type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might say or do.
Have you asked starving babies in S Sudan how persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they feel
their rights are?
ur just quibbling over semantics, which we should avoid if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. any
semantic agreement we can find, we should agree on, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will help
build further agreement. unless ofc u take qualms with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics for
some reason, (but i don't think u really do in this case) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wilson is saying the rights cannot be removed, ei people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have them
whether the right is respected or not. the right is a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property of
personhood that exists whether systems uphold that right or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
You certainly have the right to assert that, as I have the >>>>>>>>>>>>> right to
assert not that.
but they can ofc violated and interfered with. this is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property of how
a system treats a particular person, not a moral property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personalhood itself
So inalienability is no guarantee of anything.a I feel >>>>>>>>>>>>> alienated.
So much of the discourse from the left is pretending to not >>>>>>>>>>>> understand
opposing viewpoints and deliberately misrepresenting what >>>>>>>>>>>> others are
saying. This makes honest discussion impossible.
So wilson asserts that he is right, and those who disagree simply >>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and deliberately misrepresent.a This makes >>>>>>>>>>> honest
discussion impossible.
he's not claiming that inalienability guarantees particular >>>>>>>>>> absolute
outcomes on way or the other, because we do makes choice
whether to
respect the right or not... no one doubts that
In other words, inalienable means nothing in particular in this >>>>>>>>> context and makes no guarantees.
what he's say is that the moral principles we uphold (or not) >>>>>>>>>> with our
actions/systems do have effects. and that systematically
violating the
inalienable rights will limit the success of the society
violating them,
But the point then cannot be that they are inalienable.a You >>>>>>>>> need to
find a better word.
inalienable does *not* mean they cannot be violated. it means they >>>>>>>> cannot be violated /in an ethical manner/
Oh good, that makes all those dead people who lost their right to >>>>>>> life
feel better.
one who is violating those rights loses all justified moral cause >>>>>>>> for
their actions
Yeh, that's a big worry for people who have decided to abandon
morality.
potentially even dooming them to extinction given a long enough >>>>>>>>>> violation (due to hard to trace causal effects that probably >>>>>>>>>> require
whole papers to detail out more specifically)
this i think we can all agree on ... he's asserting that ethics >>>>>>>>>> do in
fact matter, and hopefully we can move that debating that very >>>>>>>>>> basic
meta-ethical axiom we might as well call "karma"
Except that his statements in the past have demonstrated that >>>>>>>>> ethics
do not actually matter to him.
now upon accepting that axiom, what those inalienable rights >>>>>>>>>> exactly are
is a much harder (and more interesting) question, that may not >>>>>>>>>> even have
a overall absolute answer, as it may depend on our technical >>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a society
(that's something i might try to call objectively subjective >>>>>>>>>> ethics.
ethics is good, but it is not incontrovertible.a Ethics can be >>>>>>>>> adopted
or abandoned as a society chooses.
not without various consequence, given enough time.
Certainly.a Actions have consequences.a We knew that.a But by that >>>>>>> time, those consequences are irrelevant for the original victims.a If >>>>>>> a right cannot be enforced before violation, it is meaningless.
again: the level at which violated rights have karmic consequences is >>>>>> long term across society, not on a per-violation basis
So social dynamics and individual rights are two different things.
nah
for u: clearly
and i'm sorry i
can't really demonstrate that in a scientific manner, cause it's not >>>>>>>> like i can spool up a bunch of planet scale experiments on a whim >>>>>>>> to see
how various tweaks on how ethical principles effect society. i >>>>>>>> mean, we
can look at the past and modern experiments for guidance, but >>>>>>>> they are
not going to produce moral law because there are *way* too many >>>>>>>> confounding factors to claim such a thing
regardless, the consequence still stand: straying from ethics too >>>>>>>> far,
for too long, especially with the power of modern technology, >>>>>>>> will get
us killed. nuclear annihilation + long term climate change can >>>>>>>> and will
end us if we stray from ethical long enough that such a path becomes >>>>>>>> inevitable
too far, too long.a Nuclear annihilation, long term climate charge. >>>>>>
Like the bank robber who plans to get away with it so he does not >>>>>>> worry about prison, we think we will escape such consequences.
which is a /good/ thing, because god only knows what kind of
destructive
tech we may unlock in the future
In the end it is pointless to talk about rights if they have no >>>>>>> effect
it is not pointless to discuss society-level principles
It is pointless when you start asserting that such principles become >>>>> rights of individuals.
they are tho ...
for the victim now, or about ethics if we must wait for decades for >>>>>>... discussion not only can trigger, but is required for such
realizations and subsequent rectifications ...
that's why ethical discussions are important
any fallout.a Which possibility of fallout was always deniable before >>>>>>> it happened, and can be blamed on something else after it happened. >>>>>>>
It is awfully smoky/mirrory around her.
I have a right to free speech only if the us constitution says so, >>>>>>> and
only if that provision of the constitution is respected.a Otherwise, >>>>>>> it is meaningless to say I have any such right.
again: the consequences of ignoring the right is not meaningless
For the victim it is.
yes, rights can be violated
this doesn't make them not exist
It makes them pointless.a Who cares?
meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, originating from the Latin word
nihil ("nothing").
It asserts that objective morality, truth, and significance do not
exist, often viewing human existence as a chaotic, accidental, and >insignificant, particularly in the context of a vast, indifferent universe.
--people who care about others...
people who care about the long survival of society...
apparently ur not one of those ???
Even if an angel dancing on a head of a pin says I have such a right. >>>>>>>
objectively subjective ethics, like an old law prof once said, >>>>>>>>> "law is
a subjective attempt at objectivity.a So not inalienable or
incontrovertible either.
which prolly seems like an oxymoron to you, and i understand >>>>>>>>>> why you'd
thing, but i think with a more nuance view it's not actually a >>>>>>>>>> contradiction)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:03:22 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,197 |