Bigdogg;687431 wrote:I did not think many of you would be i********* enough to get it. The message is if you fail to speak out against injustice, you will suffer the consequences.
Yes, I'm familiar, but apparently, you are not, as your parallel is fallacious in at least two ways.
#1 - You are comparing a portion of the population being subject to the same employment options as the rest of the population to a quote made regarding mass genocide. That'd be an Appeal To Outrage Fallacy (or, in many circles, the Rush Limbaugh Fallacy, since he's known for doing it a lot). Nevermind the difference between the protected classes against which the genocide taking place and the career CHOICE made by educated people.
#2 - The "consequences" of which you speak are drastically different, because it is the tax-payers that are the ones "coming for" this, since they are the ones that are bearing burden so that some can live sheltered from what everyone else has to face.
There are likely better parallels, but this one was an embarrassment.
Bigdogg;687431 wrote:Even though you seem intent of waving anything that is right for the common good, there still some of us out here that will speak against what is wrong.
Explain to me, if you will, how a collective of teachers who make an average of $100K in total compensation a year not being able to teach two-thirds of the kids at a grade level to read on their level is "for the common good." Moreover, since when were the rights of the individual supposed to be trampled for "the common good?" I must have missed that part of the Constitution.
Finally, there is nothing "wrong" (your word) with a teacher having to compete for a salary. What IS wrong is that teacher salaries go up while average household doesn't. What is wrong is that what was once collective bargaining has become collective bullying. Instead of negotiating, one party is able to essentially make the other one bend to its will, which is what causes the mismatch of teacher salary and household income.
Your general, fallacious drivel thus far in this discussion holds not even an ounce of credibility, and thus, so far, you deserve to not even be taken seriously. A bumper sticker or out-of-context soundbite would be more informative.
Bigdogg;687431 wrote:The free market was already tried and failed in our recent history.
When was this? Not in the last several presidencies.
Bigdogg;687433 wrote:Fox news is where you get your information? That explains a lot.
No. My response was to Belly. If I must listen to a news station, I go to BBC.
However, my reply was against things I've witnessed of people in my life. Why should someone who wishes to freely exercise his or her right to not be in a union still be forced to pay that union?