MasterOBee Master/King @ MasterObee @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

514

Joined

2 yr. ago

The court's decision today holds – as my office has consistently advocated – that the General Assembly had the authority to eliminate cash bail and replace it with a system in which people are detained pending trial only if they pose a threat to the public or are a flight risk.

I'm not too knowledgeable about how the system works, but isn't this kind of what we did, just now without any requirement for bail?

This seems to remove the only encouragement to return to court without an appropriate replacement.

To my knowledge, I thought bail was basically a 'loan' that you get back when you return to court.

It's almost like the supreme court leaves legislation to the legislative branch.

If people want something changes in our laws, regulations and constitution, it's the legislative branch they need to go through. Which has separate powers than the supreme court.

1) We spend more money per student than our peer countries, by A LOT. What we've gotten with the spending is much worse test scores.

2. People going to private schools and homeschooling shows better results in both test scores and future success rates.

When we see school districts closing AP and other honor programs because of equity, do you not see how, as a parent, you'd want more of a choice of sending your kids to better schools?

Basically, the argument from the left is that they want to control what the kids are learning, and can't control private/homeschooling education, and it might teach the kids something they don't want them to learn. Whether that's because they think the private schools are all religious cult institutions, or because they think every parent wants to homeschool their kids to be racist.

But regardless, the studies show that private schools and homeschooling is better for success of the individuals. Having ways that parents can have more of an option of a specialized school would be good for most families.

It sucks, because I love when representatives deviate from their party and vote on the other side.

That's what bipartisanship is - to look at issues and what the bills are instead of just uniformly voting on legislation.

It sucks because people hate the two party system, but if there's anyone on their side that votes on the other, they're just jackasses screwing their party over. That shouldn't be our perspective.

"Republicans on the subcommittee said in a messaging document, because some COVID relief funding provided to schools ”remains unspent and further investments will not be provided until these funds are used responsibly.”

Not saying I agree with them, or think they have the best plans for our school system, but I can see asking for some fiscal responsibility when given these funds.

I get we have problems, but holy shit. Stop saying this.

We are not a third world country, and someone even comparing us to one just shows they've never been to a 3rd world country, outside of maybe an enclosed resort.

I'm pro-investing into programs to help homeless use.

If you're against that, I don't know what to tell you. I pray one day you will find empathy and also support increased funding to house them.

children don’t deserve to have anyone in power looking out for their interests when they conflict with their parents’.

As I've said plenty of times, I'm for an increase in investment in programs to help youth that have these problems.

I'm against having teachers unilaterally determining that they should keep secrets with their students over providing transparency with the parents. With the taxpayers. With the people they are meant to serve.

Do you think our government should give us transparency, or not?

Okay, well until we as a country determine that the constitution needs amending and we want to repeal the 2nd amendment, it's the constitution that is the most important part of the law that every state must abide by.

I like that you didn't respond to the rest of my comment that showed how stupid yours was. What do you think of the criticism I had for your comment, do you just want to ignore my points of

1. You're strawmanning the argument
2. This isn't the scenario's the democrats are targeting when they want to ban AR's.
3. If a different weapon was used, do you think it's a good argument to ban said weapon?

Woah, I'm shocked, I wasn't sure if you could make a comment without calling someone a nazi or bot!

First, teachers make decisions on behalf of kids all the time. It’s literally their job.

No, their job is to teach the basics that we as a local society would like. They are funded by local tax payers to serve tax payers.

Noting that they’re government employees just sounds like an anti-government dog whistle.

Noting that they're government employees puts into perspective that these are people that should be serving the people, not establishing a government culture in our youth. In principle, there's little difference between the government using elementary schools to shape the youth as the indian boarding schools. They've moved from teaching objective studies like math, english and science, with teaching about subjective topics like sexuality and gender.

Meanwhile our kids test scores are getting worse compared to our peer countries, despite spending a shit ton more money. Then they tell us the reason is because we aren't giving them enough money.

Saying they’re making a decision “on behalf of kids” is wrong because the law only matters when teachers see a conflict of interest between the parents and kids. They’re being forced to act AGAINST the kids on behalf of unsupportive parents.

You assume giving parents information about their kids school behavior is working against the kids, and also assuming the parents are unsupportive. What you're asking is for governmeny employees to determine on behalf of the kids what's better for them than their parents, and judging the morality of their parents based on incomplete information.

You're asking the teachers to raise the kids. That's not their jobs.

We know for a fact that some alarmingly large percentage of parents will disown our otherwise abuse their kids after finding out they’re LBGT+.

And we should invest in programs to help the homeless youth.

This law is specifically designed to endanger those kids

We can't protect everyone from everything their parents do. And shouldn't leave it up to government employees to make the determination of withholding information about a kids behavior at a place that the government forces parents to send their kids to at the threat of taking the kids away.

Have teachers teach and invest in programs that help the youth whose parents aren't caring for them. Just like we say that cops have too many issues that they aren't experts on that we call them for, teachers are being given too much responsibility for issues they aren't experts in.

You saying this in this scenario is the reason why we're so divided. You try to pervert fair arguments and make them seem absurd.

These are not the issues the democrats are targeting in wanting to solve when they want to ban semi-autos, and you know it.

If the 3 yo instead stabbed the 1 year old, would that make a difference? Should we start banning household knives?

Anything is a deadly weapon in the right situation.

Trigger locks are not hard to get and are inexpensive.

I'm iffy on more gun control, but if there is something I'd want to do, it'd be requiring businesses to provide a trigger lock with each sale.

Rather than say something like “oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn’t enact laws that will potentially render children homeless”

I responded that we should improve programs to help the youth.

I understand the problem you're presenting, because I have empathy. You not understanding that it's severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don't have empathy. I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.

You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.

You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that's how conversations go.

but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.

Because y'alls argument is always 'these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!' and making that some sort of gotcha, like I'm pro-homeless youth.

As I’ve said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don’t even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.

And, as I've said, that's outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.

but this conversation right here, right now isn’t about that. You’re just pulling an “All Lives Matter” on this conversation as if that’s some epic comeback.

As I've said and you apparently can't grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They're on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?

bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.

It doesn't matter if they're the same. They're government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.

Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.

If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?

Teachers have a job, and they're pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren't there to keep secrets from parents.

Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won’t tell because they can’t trust them.

"I want a therapist" - see, don't need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That's worse for educators, and parents.

So you’d rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?

You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can't file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.

Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.

That's what you're doing. You just think anytime there's a kid who doesn't tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren't responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don't respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they're supposed to serve.

You said the kids will be homeless.

I responded saying that there should be programs for that.

I used your scenario, and responded to it. That's how conversations work.

made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless

You're trolling or literally haven't read a word I typed. If you didn't understand that I literally wrote that there should be social programs to help homeless youth, you seriously need some reading help.

Oh so your intuition is the source.

You’re seriously arguing that children losing access to their homes and families homeless is fine because “there are programs to help them out”!

I responded to this statement.

You're telling me that this statement doesn't mention children losing access to their homes?

Come on, man.

I read your source, and found this:

Neither of the Science papers provide the smoking gun — that is, an animal infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus at a market.

Republicans are lying g to you for pitiful points. Sorry.

Ahhhh yes, the government house oversight committee is just republicans. Read the sources, read the facts, listen to the organizations and scientists and they say it's reasonably likely it was a lab leak of some sorts. Is it more likely that it was natural? Yes. But does that mean it 100% was and we shouldn't question it, no. Absolutely not. You're an idiot if you think it's beyond question, and anti-science if you think it's beyond question.