• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paddling in school?

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Being a Jewish American I am for nipping the Pork out of the budget!

:funny

hahahahaha, that definately gave me my first smile of the day. :rofl
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
This is all assuming that, if allowed different methods of punishment, that a teacher would not have control over their classroom, and I do not think that in necesarly the case. And I certainly do not believe in getting rid of the "trouble kid" so that the others can move forward. It goes back to principal dinamics and Nash's theory. It is best for any group of people to move forward by evaluating both what is best for that person AND what is best for everyone in that group. If you are dropping kids left and right because they present a large discipline problem that is not due to malicious intent, but rather surrounding circumstance, you are, in one sense aiding the group forward, but what happens when only a small percentage of students begin to be the ones without discipline problems? Do you cause them to jump ship as well? I guess I'm so adament about this because I was an ADHD child who had incredibly good intentions but was incredibly socially inept. I couldn't sit still or pay attention, but I certainly had no malicious or subordanant intentions. But my life would be incredibly different if my third grade teacher had not given me enough special attention to diagnose me as ADHD and work to find a councilor and medictation that would work. Granted, I was incredibly fortunate to also have parents who very much cared about my actions at school and were also working with my teachers to come up with the best solution for me. But there are children that don't have that. And just because they are a discipline problem does not mean that should be given up on. It just means that maybe different discipline and other considerations may be necessary, whether the parent is supportive of this or not.

I think we're talking about different problems here. I'm not looking at ADHD as the problem, but rather violent, disruptive, and unruly children. First off, it has been shown again and again that the best way to make a school better is to remove the bad apples. The drug dealers, the kids who fight other kids, who skip all their classes, etc. Those percentages are almost invariably small. Every kid talks in class or is disruptive sometimes, but there is a great difference between those who are problem children, and those who just act out a little.

You managed to make it through school because you had a teacher who took the time to diagnose and help you. But what if she hadn't had that time because she had had to spend all day breaking up fights or trying to deal with kids who refused to do anything in class? Or what if, because of the horrible teaching conditions, she decided to give up in spirit, and didn't want to take the time to help you?

Believe me, I spent, quite literally, 4 afternoons a week in the principals office from 4th to 5th grade. I was an unruly child. The kids I hung out with were terrible kids, and I always got into trouble with them. Once we got into 6th grade, the rules changed, and the stuff that got those kids and I sent to the principals office before would get us in school suspension, detention, kicked off sports teams, out of clubs, and saturday school. That made me shut my mouth and stop hanging out with those kids. And of those 4 kids I used to hang out with, all 4 of them made it through to 12th grade via grade promotion, then never graduated. If they had been kicked out 5 years earlier and sent to the reform school, life would have been better.


Not necesarly. The general idea of capitalism is that price sets value. Well if that is the case, then arguably a homerunner hitter is more valuable than a teacher. I do not necesarly think that government reduce their pay. Just tax the hell out of them. Granted, a lot of this falls on our own heads as well. But it is not above the government to spend X amount on promotion of such an idea to the American public.

They ALREADY tax the hell out of them. They pay more than 50% of their salary to the government. You know what happens if you tax baseball more now? Tickets become even more expensive, and what used to be a pastime for all social classes, a great equalizer, becomes another bastion of the elite. And so you know, a homerun hitter IS more valuable than a teacher.

It would still be a much more adaquate amount if the money we give to athletes and movies we gave to taxes as pay for teachers. Very few professors make millions a year. Trust me, it's my field, and I am learning to accept the fact that no matter how good I get, my pay is more than likely not going to be anywhere close to a million a year. Are you basing this number off of pay from the University alone? Because their seperate book sales and other revenue would not count in that variable you know?

The top 10 professors here all make over 1.5 million from the university. I don't know how many others break a million. Teachers are paid well, in truth. Think about this. There are 6.2 MILLION teachers in the US. In that 6.2 million, there are millions who are, by practice and definition, subpar. Not all 6.2 million deserve massive salaries. Sure, they provide an important good, but is it any more important than what anyone else provides?

What "good" is it their doing? Providing entertainment? A thousand dollars a child does seem like a good amount if you make the category mistake. But each actor on FRIENDS was paid a million dollars and episode right? In comparison, the numbers aren't matching.

What good are they doing? Aside from entertaining millions, making life better for everyone, and giving kids something to strive for, how about this? Last year, Arod made 25.7 million dollars (salary alone, excluding endorsements, etc). About 13 million of that was taken by the government in taxes. At 50,000 a teacher, Arod, solely because of his athletic ability, allowed the government to pay for 260 teachers. You don't think that's an important contribution.

Know what else doesn't actually help people? Art.

The NEA gets 121 million a year. That can pay for 2420 teachers. Let's get rid of it.

My point is that while you may not value certain things, others do. And considering baseball is not supported by the government, but rather self perpetuating, as well as being our national pastime, there is legally and morally nothing you can do to stop it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
I, by rule, pay forty dollars every two weeks towards entertainment. I spend countless numbers of dollars feeding and clothing my fiance who is a teacher's daughter, thus saving her the financial burden. I at least attempt as ademently as possible to follow what I preach.

That's all well and good. But the choices that you make might not be the right ones for someone else. I personally see sports as one of the most amazing and captivating things our society has ever seen. Some of the best memories of my life were of my sports teams, and both playing and watching sports has improved the quality of life of the vast majority of this country.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

RightatNYU said:
I think we're talking about different problems here. I'm not looking at ADHD as the problem, but rather violent, disruptive, and unruly children. First off, it has been shown again and again that the best way to make a school better is to remove the bad apples. The drug dealers, the kids who fight other kids, who skip all their classes, etc. Those percentages are almost invariably small. Every kid talks in class or is disruptive sometimes, but there is a great difference between those who are problem children, and those who just act out a little.
But how do you suggest that violent, disruptive, and unruly children became violent, disruptive and unruly? This is not something that happens overnight. It is a snowball that if not stopped, will continue to grow out of control. The point being, if you can somehow make punishment more effective and take the fear of lawsuit away from teacher's who geniunly are trying to teach discipline through a variety of sorts since various children respond to seperate styles of punishment. The drug dealers and drug dealers cause one day they woke up from their perfect and happy life and just decided to change that. While some middle school punishments might work on you, they might not work on others. The point is we need to have a wide variety (as extensive as possible) of means of discipline to be able to reach children on levels that work for them specifically, and this needs to be done across the grade board (k to 12).
They ALREADY tax the hell out of them. They pay more than 50% of their salary to the government. You know what happens if you tax baseball more now? Tickets become even more expensive, and what used to be a pastime for all social classes, a great equalizer, becomes another bastion of the elite. And so you know, a homerun hitter IS more valuable than a teacher.
They do, and yet they are still bringing in an income higher than most any teacher alive. You argue that ticket prices will raise and that sports will be only for the elite? I dissagree. I don't think that a tax increase will raise ticket prices, I don't see the corilation. BUT, even if that were initially the case, and they did immediatly have to raise ticket price, that would quickly change, because sports depend on a large crowd to fund them at all. So what will eventually happen is that they will have to lower the ticket prices again so that the general public can afford them again, and lower the saleries of baseball players, which was my original goal to begin with. So really, my goal would be met if this were all to occur. And despite what you, and our current state of capitalism may suggest, a homerunner hitter, while initially inspiring, cannot shape a child's intellect and future in the way that a teacher can.
The top 10 professors here all make over 1.5 million from the university. I don't know how many others break a million. Teachers are paid well, in truth. Think about this. There are 6.2 MILLION teachers in the US. In that 6.2 million, there are millions who are, by practice and definition, subpar. Not all 6.2 million deserve massive salaries. Sure, they provide an important good, but is it any more important than what anyone else provides?
But that is ten professors out of how many in the nation? I guess it all depends on your version of being paid "well" is. But, I still argue that regardless of your opinion, they are still payed less than professional athletes and actors. And yes, I certainly argue that it is more important that a large majority of other markets within the US. Especially more so than entertainment. Sports can inspire, but they cannot teach knowledge that leads our students to a path of changing the world. It does not teach students to be politically aware. It does not bring us closer to undrestanding right and wrong or better or worse.
What good are they doing? Aside from entertaining millions, making life better for everyone, and giving kids something to strive for, how about this? Last year, Arod made 25.7 million dollars (salary alone, excluding endorsements, etc). About 13 million of that was taken by the government in taxes. At 50,000 a teacher, Arod, solely because of his athletic ability, allowed the government to pay for 260 teachers. You don't think that's an important contribution.
I do not dissagree that sports are a wonderful past time. But, in retrospect, they do not make life better than teachers make life better. And teachers also can give students to strive for AND can show them how to achieve it on a personal level. And yes, his contribution was great. But it would have been much better if even MORE of that money was given to teachers. That still gives him thirteen million dollars for one year of playing a game. Where as even the top ten professors at your Univeristy made just over 1/13th of that.
I agree with you whole heartedly about the NEA.
My point is that while you may not value certain things, others do. And considering baseball is not supported by the government, but rather self perpetuating, as well as being our national pastime, there is legally and morally nothing you can do to stop it.
Higher taxes on entertainers (under the same principal of "sin tax"). Set pricing caps on salaries for entertainers the same way we set price caps on gasoline. There are legal measures that can take place that would change this.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

RightatNYU said:
Some of the best memories of my life were of my sports teams, and both playing and watching sports has improved the quality of life of the vast majority of this country.
I certainly think that that statement leaves you with the burden of proof. Show me that professional sports (not school sports, because they are a seperate entity) has changed the quality of life for the vast majority of our country. Show me a statistic that at least might point in that direction.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
The point is we need to have a wide variety (as extensive as possible) of means of discipline to be able to reach children on levels that work for them specifically, and this needs to be done across the grade board (k to 12).
I find it hard to believe that the same person who is so PRO-LIFE is also so PRO-HITTING?
sebastiansdreams said:
They do, and yet they are still bringing in an income higher than most any teacher alive.
This is an absurd concept! Do we, or do we not live in a capitalist society? What you're proposing is so totally unconstitutional, not to mention inane, that it doesn't deserve to be discussed, it's that lame.

While I agree that teachers deserve more money, putting an extra tax on athletes and celebrities is so dumb. Here's a real solution, get rid of the tax cuts, cut the Pentagon budget by 15% and then you can pay teachers competitively.

How about it? Ready to trade some B-1s for some Bs?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
But how do you suggest that violent, disruptive, and unruly children became violent, disruptive and unruly? This is not something that happens overnight. It is a snowball that if not stopped, will continue to grow out of control. The point being, if you can somehow make punishment more effective and take the fear of lawsuit away from teacher's who geniunly are trying to teach discipline through a variety of sorts since various children respond to seperate styles of punishment. The drug dealers and drug dealers cause one day they woke up from their perfect and happy life and just decided to change that. While some middle school punishments might work on you, they might not work on others. The point is we need to have a wide variety (as extensive as possible) of means of discipline to be able to reach children on levels that work for them specifically, and this needs to be done across the grade board (k to 12).

Despite your argument, I see no evidence that the reason kids are becoming more troublesome is because violence against the students has fallen from favor. Educators still have enough weapons in their arsenals to do what they need to maintain order. And nowadays, with so many more students attending or planning on attending college, kids are more concerned with how they do in school. The vast majority of students who are seriously disruptive in school have problems at home, which is indicative of a growing problem outside of the schools. Paddling won't do anything to resolve this problem.


They do, and yet they are still bringing in an income higher than most any teacher alive. You argue that ticket prices will raise and that sports will be only for the elite? I dissagree. I don't think that a tax increase will raise ticket prices, I don't see the corilation. BUT, even if that were initially the case, and they did immediatly have to raise ticket price, that would quickly change, because sports depend on a large crowd to fund them at all. So what will eventually happen is that they will have to lower the ticket prices again so that the general public can afford them again, and lower the saleries of baseball players, which was my original goal to begin with. So really, my goal would be met if this were all to occur. And despite what you, and our current state of capitalism may suggest, a homerunner hitter, while initially inspiring, cannot shape a child's intellect and future in the way that a teacher can.

My point is that it is a free market, and whether or not you like sports, millions do. You frankly don't have the right to regulate the pay of athletes. And I completely disagree with you about the impact of athletes on the lives of children. Do you seriously think that a 60 year old 2nd grade teacher will have as much impact on the hopes and dreams of a 7 year old as Arod or Curt Shilling? What about the millions of kids in impoverished countries who no matter how hard they work in school, will never escape poverty? The only avenue of escape for those kids is sports.

But that is ten professors out of how many in the nation? I guess it all depends on your version of being paid "well" is. But, I still argue that regardless of your opinion, they are still payed less than professional athletes and actors. And yes, I certainly argue that it is more important that a large majority of other markets within the US. Especially more so than entertainment. Sports can inspire, but they cannot teach knowledge that leads our students to a path of changing the world. It does not teach students to be politically aware. It does not bring us closer to undrestanding right and wrong or better or worse.

I think 50,000 for 9 months of work is being paid well. And you're right, teachers are paid less than athletes and actors. A large part of that is the replaceability and profitability of teachers. Jim Carrey can demand 20 million per picture because he will most likely bring in 80 million in ticket sales. The same cannot be said for teachers. And again, contrary to what you claim, I believe sports can teach as much as school itself does. And from the beginning of history to the present, the most prescient educators have agreed with me.

I do not dissagree that sports are a wonderful past time. But, in retrospect, they do not make life better than teachers make life better. And teachers also can give students to strive for AND can show them how to achieve it on a personal level. And yes, his contribution was great. But it would have been much better if even MORE of that money was given to teachers. That still gives him thirteen million dollars for one year of playing a game. Where as even the top ten professors at your Univeristy made just over 1/13th of that.

I think they do make life better than the average teacher. I tried harder in school because a) My sports coaches were my teachers, and b) because we always had to get good grades in order to play. And again, Arod got 13 million because he earned much more than that for the franchise. My professors certainly didn't earn millions for the university.

I agree with you whole heartedly about the NEA.

Good. Except I was being facetious. Mostly, anyways. While I think the NEA is a waste of money, I also think that just because I don't appreciate something, and don't see the monetary value of something, doesn't mean that there aren't far reaching, unquantifiable societal benefits.

Higher taxes on entertainers (under the same principal of "sin tax"). Set pricing caps on salaries for entertainers the same way we set price caps on gasoline. There are legal measures that can take place that would change this.

My point isnt that it's not legal, it's that it will never be made law. I really can't think of a better way to spur fears of an oppressive central government. Let the market rule.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
I certainly think that that statement leaves you with the burden of proof. Show me that professional sports (not school sports, because they are a seperate entity) has changed the quality of life for the vast majority of our country. Show me a statistic that at least might point in that direction.

Besides that it's an almost completely unquantifiable statistic, I offer you this website.

http://www.leagueoffans.org/

I really can't believe that I'm being asked to prove that professional sports have a positive impact on society. The amount of social capital that is built through franchise loyalty, leisure time, and camaraderie is incredible.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

26 X World Champs said:
I find it hard to believe that the same person who is so PRO-LIFE is also so PRO-HITTING?
Frankly my argument hasn't yet been that paddling (not hitting) ought to be one such method of punishment. I am saying if we are going to make that punishment illegal, then what more effective methods (arguably psychologically proven) do we have to replace it with?
But I think that the difference between paddling a kid that is disruptive and killing a child who isn't even born yet are slightly different issues.

This is an absurd concept! Do we, or do we not live in a capitalist society? What you're proposing is so totally unconstitutional, not to mention inane, that it doesn't deserve to be discussed, it's that lame.
I'm so glad you are not making me discuss this with you, because I have grown very tired of spoon feeding to you conclusions and ideas that the rest of us are completely capable of coming to ourselves.

While I agree that teachers deserve more money, putting an extra tax on athletes and celebrities is so dumb. Here's a real solution, get rid of the tax cuts, cut the Pentagon budget by 15% and then you can pay teachers competitively.
Both are "real" solutions. They are just taking dollars from one place rather than another. But doesn't it make sense to take money from those that are paid millions upon millions more than the other group?
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
Both are "real" solutions. They are just taking dollars from one place rather than another. But doesn't it make sense to take money from those that are paid millions upon millions more than the other group?
No, your "solution" is illegal and it is, in reality, Communism/Socialism, namely redistributing the wealth by law rather than by capitalism.
Communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people
Your rational is flawed, your solution is illegal...My solution is legislative, and extremely legal, and beyond that realistic. Your solution is pie in the sky.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

RightatNYU said:
Despite your argument, I see no evidence that the reason kids are becoming more troublesome is because violence against the students has fallen from favor. Educators still have enough weapons in their arsenals to do what they need to maintain order. And nowadays, with so many more students attending or planning on attending college, kids are more concerned with how they do in school. The vast majority of students who are seriously disruptive in school have problems at home, which is indicative of a growing problem outside of the schools. Paddling won't do anything to resolve this problem.
No it won't. And frankly, I'm not nearly as concerned with paddling, but rather the precedence of teacher's being reprimanded for their disciplinary actions. I do believe that anyone, any teacher, is capable of crossing the line. And for that they should be reprimanded. BUT, there is a growing trend to take away all disciplinary leverage from teachers and administrators. This is, in turn, creating a back lash of over bearing "no tolerance" policies that do not solve the problem of dicspline in the school, but rather simply remove the children from the school altogether, which does not cure the fact that the child in question needs to be taught discipline by someone, instead of being tossed out by those who can, if the system is correct, could teach these things to the student.
My point is that it is a free market, and whether or not you like sports, millions do. You frankly don't have the right to regulate the pay of athletes.
No fears, I personally am not going to regulate the right of pay to any athletes. But you fool yourself if you believe that it is an absolute free market. Again I state to you that gas prices are regulated by government. Equal rights laws regulate the pay of genders and races. It is not a completely free market, and there is just as much reason for the government to put such stipulations on athletes and actors as there is for them to put them on any other busineses in regards to sexual or racial equality.

And I completely disagree with you about the impact of athletes on the lives of children. Do you seriously think that a 60 year old 2nd grade teacher will have as much impact on the hopes and dreams of a 7 year old as Arod or Curt Shilling? What about the millions of kids in impoverished countries who no matter how hard they work in school, will never escape poverty? The only avenue of escape for those kids is sports.
This is an opinion matter. But I will give you mine, let you rebuttle, and we'll end it at that. Fair? Yes, I do believe that a 60 year old teacher is teaching a child to read and write. She is giving the student knowledge and teaching them means of direction. Arod and Curt Shilling while can be inspiring for a child to persue their dreams, does not teach such fundamental principles. Furthermore, it is, in some form, a false message that you too can be as great as these men at that sport, because the vast majority of students will not be. The professional sports route can in some circumstances be one of few escapes from poverty (although arguably, a good education from a compitent teacher with good pay as incentive would also be an equally realistic ticket for upward mobility). But the number of professional athletes who make it are, as you say, very limited. And it is certainly not necessary that these athletes make millions of dollars for someone to break out of poverty, correct?

I think 50,000 for 9 months of work is being paid well. And you're right, teachers are paid less than athletes and actors. A large part of that is the replaceability and profitability of teachers. Jim Carrey can demand 20 million per picture because he will most likely bring in 80 million in ticket sales. The same cannot be said for teachers. And again, contrary to what you claim, I believe sports can teach as much as school itself does. And from the beginning of history to the present, the most prescient educators have agreed with me.
Okay, but 50,000 a year is not average salary for a teacher according to NSTA. It is more around 37-38,000 it appears. And of course this is before the government (that is funding them to begin with) takes "their share" away from them. The problem is that we fail to look at the fact that just because a teacher can be replaced as far as there being a warm body in front of the classroom does not mean that the quality of education that a better teacher would provide. Teachers, in the general sense, are not hard to find, just like actors, in a general sense, are not hard to find. But quality teachers, such as Dr Griffith (one of the most inspiring of my teachers) is the equvialent to Jim Carey. And while Jim Carey may bring in 80 million in ticket sales in a span of two years, an incredibly qualified teacher will bring billions to the government by educating students to be better economists and more effecient politicians over the span of their life times.
I dissagree that sports can teach as many effective methods and principles as a classroom. I do however agree that there are some wonderful principles in sports. But again, many of the sports that are practiced in growing age are through school, by the very same coaches and teachers that are earning governmental salary within the branch of funds offered to education as a whole.
I think they do make life better than the average teacher. I tried harder in school because a) My sports coaches were my teachers, and b) because we always had to get good grades in order to play. And again, Arod got 13 million because he earned much more than that for the franchise. My professors certainly didn't earn millions for the university.
You were motivated to obtain knowledge because you yourself enjoyed sports. Not because Arod causing you to, but because it was a reward system created within education itself. But, in the end, you are not going to obtain a carreer because of the skills you learned from baseball as much as the skills you learned from the classroom. Again, a professor is not bringing in funds in the same manner as Arod is, but he is certainly, in the long run, leading minds to be better able to bring back money to the government later in their lives. The better education a professor provides, the better prepared and effective their students will be win they enter the world of politics or business. And it is those dollars that come flooding into the government.
And again, contrary to what you claim, I believe sports can teach as much as school itself does. And from the beginning of history to the present, the most prescient educators have agreed with me.
That's another statement I think that you are going to have to show me at least some sort of evidence of. Note that I am not suggesting that sports are not at all a teaching mechanism, just that it is not an equal teaching mechanism. And I simply do not see anyone from the beginning of recorded history arguing that it is. But I will certainly allow you to show me that that is not the case.
Good. Except I was being facetious. Mostly, anyways. While I think the NEA is a waste of money, I also think that just because I don't appreciate something, and don't see the monetary value of something, doesn't mean that there aren't far reaching, unquantifiable societal benefits.
I'm sure there are benefits therein. But one thing you must realize is that it is our job to weigh the value of such benefits. Is it, in the end MORE beneficial for those funds to go the NEA or to teacher's saleries?

My point isnt that it's not legal, it's that it will never be made law. I really can't think of a better way to spur fears of an oppressive central government. Let the market rule.
I'm really amazed at so many people's views that something will NEVER happen. Because history is filled with events that happened regardless of everyone believing they never would. Who knows what events may occur in the next ten to twenty years that may change everything? It only takes one person with a very convincing argument and a bunch of poeple who will follow that person, and perhaps some outlying circumstances undetermined, to change ANY laws or policies. I just think that NEVER is an incredibly bold statement. And regulation, to most, is a very different thing than oppression.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

26 X World Champs said:
No, your "solution" is illegal and it is, in reality, Communism/Socialism, namely redistributing the wealth by law rather than by capitalism.

Your rational is flawed, your solution is illegal...My solution is legislative, and extremely legal, and beyond that realistic. Your solution is pie in the sky.
Well sweetheart, legality lies in the hands of the law makers doesn't it? And if it is passed as law, then it is legal. Are you suggesting that we do not already redistribute wealth by law? What do you think taxes are? You do not feel like the rich should get tax cuts, but then you say that to use that money to pay for governmental jobs is Communism. It's a system already in place. It would only be to a greater extent.

Realistic is not synonomous with "more likely". We can cut the money of those in the Pentagon, and that is well and good. But the numers there will not be nearly as aiding as they would be if we took them from entertainers as opposed to men paid to lead our country.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

By the way, here is the website for the NSTA's stats.
http://www.qualityteachers.org/media/86-99natavgsal.pdf#search='average%20salary%20for%20teacher'
 
S

sebastiansdreams

RightatNYU said:
Besides that it's an almost completely unquantifiable statistic, I offer you this website.

http://www.leagueoffans.org/

I really can't believe that I'm being asked to prove that professional sports have a positive impact on society. The amount of social capital that is built through franchise loyalty, leisure time, and camaraderie is incredible.
I agree, it is a hard statement to prove. But you offered the statement, and I just wanted to show you that it was more of an opinion that it was an argument. I do agree that it does, in my opinion as well, create a social capital. But, the idea that the social capital of sports and entertainment are equal to or more than the social capital of classroom and extra-effort education provided by teachers is not accurate.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
Well sweetheart, legality lies in the hands of the law makers doesn't it? And if it is passed as law, then it is legal.
Yes, and no. What you suggested is unconstitutional, which is what makes it illegal even if lawmakers passed a law...
sebastiansdreams said:
Are you suggesting that we do not already redistribute wealth by law? What do you think taxes are? You do not feel like the rich should get tax cuts, but then you say that to use that money to pay for governmental jobs is Communism. It's a system already in place. It would only be to a greater extent.
Do you always think this way? A tax cut and a special people pointed tax increase are not the same. If you believe they are then you might want to consider taking some more economics courses...
sebastiansdreams said:
Realistic is not synonomous with "more likely". We can cut the money of those in the Pentagon, and that is well and good. But the numers there will not be nearly as aiding as they would be if we took them from entertainers as opposed to men paid to lead our country.
Dumb and dumber, sorry. Cutting the Pentagon's bloated budget doesn't take squat away from the men & WOMEN (you left them out) paid to lead our country (actually, what does that mean, anyway?) How many B-1s do we need? Where are we going to use them? Whose going to engage us in that type of battle?

BTW - I'm happy that I'm your sweetheart, I was praying for your love.

All kidding aside, your concept to charge an extra tax to entertainers is just so absurd, it's really a laugher.

BTW - How much do you think you'd raise with the Sebastian Star Tax? Remember, these people already are in the highest tax bracket. So you think that you'd raise enough extra money to equal a $60 Billion increase to education spending that a 15% Pentagon budget cut would generate (and this doesn't include the extra money being spent on Iraq!).

Do you think A-Rod's extra tax burden along with his athlete buddies and Hollywood types would total $60 Billion? Would it even total $1 Billion.

:3oops:
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
No it won't. And frankly, I'm not nearly as concerned with paddling, but rather the precedence of teacher's being reprimanded for their disciplinary actions. I do believe that anyone, any teacher, is capable of crossing the line. And for that they should be reprimanded. BUT, there is a growing trend to take away all disciplinary leverage from teachers and administrators. This is, in turn, creating a back lash of over bearing "no tolerance" policies that do not solve the problem of dicspline in the school, but rather simply remove the children from the school altogether, which does not cure the fact that the child in question needs to be taught discipline by someone, instead of being tossed out by those who can, if the system is correct, could teach these things to the student.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this on several points. But I think teachers have all the tools they need, they're just afraid to use them. And I have no problem with removing persistent troublemakers from schools.

No fears, I personally am not going to regulate the right of pay to any athletes. But you fool yourself if you believe that it is an absolute free market. Again I state to you that gas prices are regulated by government. Equal rights laws regulate the pay of genders and races. It is not a completely free market, and there is just as much reason for the government to put such stipulations on athletes and actors as there is for them to put them on any other busineses in regards to sexual or racial equality.

The difference is that the gas tax is intended to pay for negative effects on the country brought about by the purchase of said gas (highway deterioration, pollution, etc), while there are no negative effects of baseball.


This is an opinion matter. But I will give you mine, let you rebuttle, and we'll end it at that. Fair? Yes, I do believe that a 60 year old teacher is teaching a child to read and write. She is giving the student knowledge and teaching them means of direction. Arod and Curt Shilling while can be inspiring for a child to persue their dreams, does not teach such fundamental principles. Furthermore, it is, in some form, a false message that you too can be as great as these men at that sport, because the vast majority of students will not be. The professional sports route can in some circumstances be one of few escapes from poverty (although arguably, a good education from a compitent teacher with good pay as incentive would also be an equally realistic ticket for upward mobility). But the number of professional athletes who make it are, as you say, very limited. And it is certainly not necessary that these athletes make millions of dollars for someone to break out of poverty, correct?

How many students learn to strive for their goals from athletes? How many students have athletes as role models as compared to teachers? I'm not trying to belittle teachers, but my point is that while a 2nd grade teacher might be able to teach a kid to read and write, so can millions of others. Not everyone can bat .344 against RHP's.


Okay, but 50,000 a year is not average salary for a teacher according to NSTA. It is more around 37-38,000 it appears. And of course this is before the government (that is funding them to begin with) takes "their share" away from them. The problem is that we fail to look at the fact that just because a teacher can be replaced as far as there being a warm body in front of the classroom does not mean that the quality of education that a better teacher would provide. Teachers, in the general sense, are not hard to find, just like actors, in a general sense, are not hard to find. But quality teachers, such as Dr Griffith (one of the most inspiring of my teachers) is the equvialent to Jim Carey. And while Jim Carey may bring in 80 million in ticket sales in a span of two years, an incredibly qualified teacher will bring billions to the government by educating students to be better economists and more effecient politicians over the span of their life times.

Actually, your own statistics disagree with you. They say that in 99-2000, the average teachers salary was 41,575. And with the 18% rate of growth over 5 years that that chart shows, a fair estimate for 2004-2005 would be 48,600. And this neglects several key facts.

1) The benefits are incredible.
2) The job security is fantastic.
3) The job is a 9 mo. a year job.

So if 48,600 doesn't sound to bad to me, forgive me. When I start teaching in NYC schools next year, I'll be making 41,000, and damn happy to make that fresh out of college.



You were motivated to obtain knowledge because you yourself enjoyed sports. Not because Arod causing you to, but because it was a reward system created within education itself. But, in the end, you are not going to obtain a carreer because of the skills you learned from baseball as much as the skills you learned from the classroom. Again, a professor is not bringing in funds in the same manner as Arod is, but he is certainly, in the long run, leading minds to be better able to bring back money to the government later in their lives. The better education a professor provides, the better prepared and effective their students will be win they enter the world of politics or business. And it is those dollars that come flooding into the government.

No, I was motivated to work hard because of the work ethic instilled in me through sports. When you train hard and succeed, you get an incredible understanding of your own capabilities. Thanks to track and soccer, I realized that I had no limits. Besides the obvious fact that people who participate in sports are happier, healthier, live longer, and succeed more, sports provide entertainment for millions.

That's another statement I think that you are going to have to show me at least some sort of evidence of. Note that I am not suggesting that sports are not at all a teaching mechanism, just that it is not an equal teaching mechanism. And I simply do not see anyone from the beginning of recorded history arguing that it is. But I will certainly allow you to show me that that is not the case.

In the ancient Greek system of education, they recognized that athleticism is instrumental to intellectual development. Their society hero-worshipped athletes even more than ours, and was educationally one of the most sound. John Dewey, the father of modern education, also understood the importance of community and sport in the development of children. He recognized that by engaging children in athletic activities, they would be better able to learn.

I'm sure there are benefits therein. But one thing you must realize is that it is our job to weigh the value of such benefits. Is it, in the end MORE beneficial for those funds to go the NEA or to teacher's saleries?

Actually, it's not your or my job. You and I may agree that the NEA is useless, but thats up to the people to decide. Just because YOU think something is a waste of money, or some people are overpaid doesn't mean that it's true or should be changed.

I'm really amazed at so many people's views that something will NEVER happen. Because history is filled with events that happened regardless of everyone believing they never would. Who knows what events may occur in the next ten to twenty years that may change everything? It only takes one person with a very convincing argument and a bunch of poeple who will follow that person, and perhaps some outlying circumstances undetermined, to change ANY laws or policies. I just think that NEVER is an incredibly bold statement. And regulation, to most, is a very different thing than oppression.

You can be amazed all you want, but it will NEVER happen. Period. The idea of creating a special system to tax people based on their profession is completely ludicris.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
RightatNYU said:
You can be amazed all you want, but it will NEVER happen. Period. The idea of creating a special system to tax people based on their profession is completely ludicris.


Never is a long time and stranger things have happened but I agree with you that the possibility is highly unlikely..

By the way I always look forward to reading your posts. They are generally well thought out and insightful and I usually have similar views.
And you usually have great spelling too.

People that don't take the time to spell check are ludicrous.
:bravo:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
akyron said:
Never is a long time and stranger things have happened but I agree with you that the possibility is highly unlikely..

By the way I always look forward to reading your posts. They are generally well thought out and insightful and I usually have similar views.
And you usually have great spelling too.

People that don't take the time to spell check are ludicrous.
:bravo:

Thanks for the comment. :smile:

Yea, I don't know where I was going with ludicris....I was listening to Ludacris rap as I was typing, so that might have had something to do with it....eh.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Contrarian said:
Teachers shouldn't have the burden of dealing with our kids... on the other side, if a teacher hit my kid, she / he would either end up in jail or suffer a beating at my hand.... When the hell did it become the responsiblity of the schools to teach respect and discipline? Where are the parents? The simple fact should be that the teachers should notify the parents that the kid is a little piece of crap and that if they don't get him / her under control the kid can't return to school. If they don't complete school, they grow up to be low lives in trailer parks with no future.

Darwin was right. Survival of the fittest. The rule of 80 /20 is absolute. 80% of the population is as stupid as a rock, and those who don't want to learn only bear that out... let them mop floors and mow lawns for a living.

And those are the kind of people socialists fight to be just as rich as The Donald. I support the people who got an education and didn't drop out. A flat tax is the only way to have a fair tax.
Some parents don't love their kids around where I live. They don't disapline them or give them any chores. What about those kids. Where are they going to learn disapline.
 

mmatejka

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Economic Refugee in Mexico
ABSOLUTELY!

I went to a private school for a few years where paddling was allowed. However, the teachers did not do the paddling, the principal did. I never committed any acts worthy of the paddle, but those who did straightened right up. Kids today have NO respect for authority figures. This problem, however, should not have to be dealt with by educators as parents should instill discipline in their kids LONG before they start school. I have a 2 year old and a 3 year old and they are already learning to respect those in authority over them. If you train them when they are young, spanking is not necessary very often.

Spanking (within bounds) is a very effective method of discipline...

Spare the rod and spoil the child.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
satinloveslibs said:
And those are the kind of people socialists fight to be just as rich as The Donald. I support the people who got an education and didn't drop out. A flat tax is the only way to have a fair tax.
Some parents don't love their kids around where I live. They don't disapline them or give them any chores. What about those kids. Where are they going to learn disapline.

How about their job? If they don't have the discipline to work hard, they get fired.

This has nothing to do with the flat tax.

And I repeat, it is NOT the job of the schools to instill discipline.

I find it funny how many of the same people who say that the schools have to teach kids discipline are the same ones, who when schools present sex ed, complain about how that is the responsibility of the parents, not the school.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
mmatejka said:
ABSOLUTELY!

I went to a private school for a few years where paddling was allowed. However, the teachers did not do the paddling, the principal did. I never committed any acts worthy of the paddle, but those who did straightened right up. Kids today have NO respect for authority figures. This problem, however, should not have to be dealt with by educators as parents should instill discipline in their kids LONG before they start school. I have a 2 year old and a 3 year old and they are already learning to respect those in authority over them. If you train them when they are young, spanking is not necessary very often.

Spanking (within bounds) is a very effective method of discipline...

Spare the rod and spoil the child.


Well said and so true!
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
vauge said:
A subject I do not believe has been touched.

What are your thoughts on teachers paddling kids for misbehavior in public schools?

I do not spank my kids at home. If a teacher paddled my child I would be terribly upset.

It is like this, If you have a disagreement with someone say, at work or a social setting would you hit them?....of course not. You would probably be charged with battery if you did as it is a crime. So why should teachers be allowed to inflict violence on children?

What kind of message does that send? My son's teacher sends a note him if he misbehaves at school and he gets grounded. Which by the way is very painful to him when his playstation or computer rights are forbidden. There are more appropriate ways to handle things.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Mixed View said:
Well said and so true!

I think you can take other measures that are just as effective as spanking. However, on a different note every child is different and what works with one may not work with other. You are correct, you must instill good behavior at a very young age or you will have BIG problems especially when they are teenagers.

My sister is a perfect example of that, her kids are now in their teens now and run all over her. It is awful, but she thought it was CUTE when they were tots and saying "shut up mom". MISTAKE.
 

McWilliamson

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fear should never be used as an incentive to behave.
 
Top Bottom