Forum Replies Created
Actually, with all due respect, the point was that bearing arms and remaining alive are both *individual* rights. Portraying the ready availability of guns as a victory of individualism over collectivism makes no sense unless you devalue the lives of the victims.
As I wrote some time ago, policies typically boil down to how we want to make a tradeoff between two things that we value. In this case, while I believe in gun rights, their valuation relative to the right to life in this country strikes me as profoundly warped.
Individual rights are winning, Core. Whether it’s to marry the person you love regardless of sex, consume a plant or to have the means at hand to participate in your own defense regardless of physical condition.
“Individual rights” seems like something of a wash here. Dylann Roof used his second-amendment right to carry firearms to deprive nine other individuals of their Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Portraying the gun-rights issue as an issue of individual rights only for gun owners downplays the personhood of the (disproportionately female and minority) individuals on the business end of the gun.
From the Washington Post: There have been 204 mass shootings — and 204 days — in 2015 so far.
These shootings have become so common that they typically don’t even make national news. Do you remember the four people shot in Cincinnati earlier this month? How about the seven in Cleveland, or the nine in Fort Wayne? Unless you live in these areas, you probably didn’t even hear about them.
I’m not a fan of the teeth, but everything else works for me.
I kind of like the look. Given the number of times Batman has kicked his teeth in over the years, it hardly seems credible that he’d still have perfect pearly whites.
That answer your question, Merc?
B) There are only so many times you can hash out arguments on Light Rail or parking issues or other things that were a lot of discussion back in the day. To me its not worth discussing a dead horse anymore, its better to be on the ground actually advancing these issues. I’d imagine there are many people like myself who don’t want or need an ideological battle.
I thought of that too. But if you take a quick look at the Best of CU threads, you’ll see that most of them don’t have much to do with major topics of conversation at the time. A lot of them were just odd little thoughts that someone had that sparked page after page of discussion.
Sure. Columbus reddit is a little odd. Someone got banned there for mentioning light rail in one of the threads. Vote rigging is also a thing; bots aplenty.
True, but not what I meant. Given the reactions of others on the thread, I suspect you’d find that a surprising number of your posts would be downvoted below the visibility threshold.
To be clear, I don’t think that would happen because you’re a dissenting voice. Far from it. There was plenty of dissent before you got here. Rather, I suspect you’d be downvoted for all of the reasons that Core mentions: misconstruing others’ posts to mean something that the poster didn’t intend, responding to small “gotcha” snippets rather than to the larger idea that the poster was trying to express, and in general making the conversation not worth the effort.
Part of Mercurius’ original complaint was that he feels a lack of the sort of community that used to exist here. That community rarely if ever agreed on anything. But the members genuinely listened to one another.
Also, I should add that Walker is an exceptionally good and conscientious moderator. Lots of conversations that could have veered off the rails didn’t due to his role as benevolent forum dictator, and before long the norm was for conversations to be polite and constructive. That’s a major accomplishment.
And yes, Columbus Reddit blows.
Funny, Mercurius’ point resonates with me. I don’t doubt that CU gets a lot of page views, but after the forum got moved off of the front page I found that I tended to check it a lot less frequently. In my case, I think the format change sent a signal that the news part of the site had become the primary focus. It’s not that I don’t follow local news, but I already get it from a fair number of sources. What I didn’t get anywhere else was thoughtful commentary from a variety of very diverse perspectives, along with rumor, innuendo, drama, and a lot of humor. I realize that the forum remained in place, but I guess I unconsciously anticipated that the volume of discussion would taper off, so I found myself coming less and less often. Not really a conscious decision — just sort of drifted away.January 3, 2015 1:03 am at 1:03 am in reply to: Data Porn – Charts, Information, Graphics and More #1057574December 19, 2014 8:52 am at 8:52 am in reply to: Kasich Requires Schools to have a Religious Partner for New State Funding #1055524
So I’ll keep pressing with what I think is working. As a private school who champions religious principles I see many of our students nationwide changing their lives. I understand the pushback in having a religious component associated with public schools. Traditionally we have not done that as a nation. I am one for giving it a try if it gets through the courts.
First of all, I respect the time and effort that you put in on behalf of kids. I really do. And respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of having a religious component associated with public schools.
I’ve had teachers who were religious and teachers who weren’t. I’ve been taught by liberals and conservatives. In most cases, though, I never knew it, one way or the other. Most of my own teachers recognized the position of influence that they hold over their students and refrained from even hinting at their own personal beliefs. They allowed us to make our own decisions and to grow in our own direction as human beings and citizens. I consider teaching to be one of our most honorable professions, and I think that bringing one’s personal beliefs into the classroom fundamentally dishonors it.December 19, 2014 8:38 am at 8:38 am in reply to: Kasich Requires Schools to have a Religious Partner for New State Funding #1055523
Answer: A mentorship program is likely to have a beneficial impact, regardless of a religious affiliation.
Therefore, the religious affiliation is unnecessary, specifically when it comes to public funding for public schools.
Thread winner.December 18, 2014 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm in reply to: Kasich Requires Schools to have a Religious Partner for New State Funding #1055448
I am not disregarding anything. I’m asking for a straight answer. Knowing what you know about the success rate of students in Columbus City Schools, if this were to be approved, implemented, and found to work by making kids smarter and better behaved, would you support it, yes or no? I’m not even asking for a why! Laws are amended all the time. We just amended the Columbus City Charter because the public felt it was dated. If bringing faith based mentors to students is found to increase their academic proficiency and behavior, then yes I would support it. More kids going to college or having the ability to become gainfully employed immediately following High School is something that I would hope we could all get behind.
But not if you have to paddle them in order to achieve that outcome, as you yourself answered earlier.
The fundamental disconnect here is that you see precisely no inherent cost to using public schools as a vehicle for religious influence. I do, and I think many others here do as well.