Foxfyre wrote:I would have mentioned if I could remember. Might not even be here on A2K; has been awhile.
Alright, I'll stop looking then.
Foxfyre wrote:I think the liberal notion that equality is commendable can be taken to extremes when equality means everybody is equally miserable. I will never agree to a system that requires all to be limited to the lowest common denominator.
Conservatives usually favor striving for excellence and reward for achievement.
I understand what you are saying here, but we are not talking about rewarding people for achievement, we are talking about rewarding people for their parents achievement and, I fear, punish others for their parents underachievement.
Foxfyre wrote:If I don't drop out of school, don't get pregnant before marriage, finish my education, learn a trade, and equip myself to provide a good living for my family and opportunities for my children, I highly resent it if the system prevents such opportunities in the name of some misguided sense of equality.
See, you are talking about rewarding children for their parents achievements, and by skewing the distribution of education funding, punish other children for their parents underachivement.
Foxfyre wrote:Equality for me means equal rights to compete, not necessarily equality of outcome.
Sure, now explain to me how a person who happens to have poor or selfish parents (note, the person is not responsible for his parents being selfish, or failing to achieve.) would have equal rights to compete in the event that education had been privatised, and state funding cut. (which would happen)
Foxfyre wrote:Did you read the essay that started this thread?
Yes, and I just reread it. (that is to say I skimmed it) For a moment it sounded like you were endorsing Kerry. Anyway, I must have missed the part that was relevant to the current discussion.
