BLM list of Demands, we are literally negotiating with terrorists

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
SallyMae
Viscountess
Viscountess
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Thanks for replying, it's nice to speak with you.
Momto2boys973 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:15 pm
And all those countries don’t have anywhere near 350 million people. You seriously can’t understand how much harder it is to provide free services to 350 million people than it is to provide these to 7 million people?

Image

Countries large and small all over the planet can do it. Only we and handful of developing nations don't.

Are you saying you just don't want to try because it's too hard?



And if you care to dig a little deeper, you’ll realize that these countries are already experiencing negative consequences for these choices. Germany is already considering their “free education” policy as colleges and universities fill up and they don’t have the resources to provide a good education. Not enough teachers for the cheap salaries they now have to offer, no money for maintenance, overloaded classes, inadequate equipment.


I'd like to know more about this, but most countries are not planning to abandon their public education systems.



And many of these countries offering free healthcare for all faced a crisis during this Covid situation. Some even said that they would have to deny treatment to the high risk groups as their resources were limited and people who stood a chance should come first.

Yet, we are far worse off than they.


And also, these socialist countries are now experiencing another problem. Their birth rate is decreasing and now they starting to see a las k of young people to fulfill the role of providers for the increasing elderly population, It seems all this “free stuff” actually does cost money and they’re not being as solvent as they were before.

If they need young people there are plenty in the world. They can invite immigration.




So if these ideas are already beginning to show their cons in smaller societies and societies more willing to put the greater good above their civil liberties, how on everybody can you think they’ll work in America?



They work now, most places that try it, and those things are working better there than here.



Thanks again!



SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:01 pm
Lots of countries in Europe have no death penalty, education and healthcare that are free at delivery, legalized prostitution, non-militarized police and prioritized military budgets.

They also have better quality of life, longer and healthier, and are recovering much more quickly as a society from COVID.

Are they as insane as BLM, or do they just like it that way?
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 12809
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

It’s a bit hard to respond with your quoting format, but I’ll give it a shot.
Your map? Not very accurate. I live in Mexico and it doesn’t have free and universal healthcare for all. I have to wonder if that’s the only inaccuracy.

And not tying because it’s “too hard”? No, it’s not trying unless you know it’s viable and that you won’t end doing more harm than good. You can’t just go around throwing free stuff without a serious analysis into whether or not you can do it and have positive results. Can America afford it? Does it have the resources and the means to provide good healthcare for free? How about research? What will the lack of money cause in the medical research medical field? How much will it cost America to lose the many patents in new medicines and technology it gets today if R&D has to be slashed down due to lack of funds and resources?
So have you thought about all those variables at all?

As for education, most countries don’t have a free higher education system. Sure, up to high school is free (as it is in the U.S, BTW), but a higher education requires payment. Many countries (actually Mexico included) do have free university options. But it’s in Germany where they went free for all and they’re experiencing serious drawbacks now.
And what do you expect to happen to prestigious institutions like Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Should they provide free education? What’s the point then to work hard and try to achieve if it makes no more difference.

As for the comment about lacking young people. These countries have actually opened themselves to immigration. And now their history and national identity is being lost. And ultimately, that’s not the point. That’s not a solution. If you can’t support your own people through the system you decided then maybe the system isn’t ideal. Bringing more people in isn’t a solution, as the age gap will continue to increase.

And finally, no, you’re not far worse than they are. That’s the grass is greener effect talking. There are things that work better there, there are problems they have that America doesn’t. Nothing is perfect. And just because a system works in a certain society according to it’s size, history, and culture, that doesn’t mean it’ll work everywhere and for every country.
Every country is founded on different principles and ideas. America is a country that was founded on the principles of independence, hard work, putting personal liberties above all and being an achiever. And that’s what has made America a leader in the world. These European countries have a very different cultural background. They value the greater good over personal liberties, commodity over achievement. And that’s why they can easily implement these measures and be happy with not being big achievers.
You can’t take a model that has had reasonably positive results in one country and think you can take them to another and think it’ll work as well. Do you think that if a country like Sweden or Denmark wanted to encourage more competitiveness and achievements decided to copy the American model, do you think it’ll work? Probably not.

I can understand the appeal, believe me. It sounds lovely. But that doesn’t mean it can work and that doesn’t mean those lovely things wouldn’t come at a very high price. Is that price worth it? That’s a matter of opinion. We sometimes need to look at facts, not at beautiful dreams to determine what’s ultimately best.
SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:42 pm
Thanks for replying, it's nice to speak with you.
Momto2boys973 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:15 pm
And all those countries don’t have anywhere near 350 million people. You seriously can’t understand how much harder it is to provide free services to 350 million people than it is to provide these to 7 million people?

Image

Countries large and small all over the planet can do it. Only we and handful of developing nations don't.

Are you saying you just don't want to try because it's too hard?



And if you care to dig a little deeper, you’ll realize that these countries are already experiencing negative consequences for these choices. Germany is already considering their “free education” policy as colleges and universities fill up and they don’t have the resources to provide a good education. Not enough teachers for the cheap salaries they now have to offer, no money for maintenance, overloaded classes, inadequate equipment.


I'd like to know more about this, but most countries are not planning to abandon their public education systems.



And many of these countries offering free healthcare for all faced a crisis during this Covid situation. Some even said that they would have to deny treatment to the high risk groups as their resources were limited and people who stood a chance should come first.

Yet, we are far worse off than they.


And also, these socialist countries are now experiencing another problem. Their birth rate is decreasing and now they starting to see a las k of young people to fulfill the role of providers for the increasing elderly population, It seems all this “free stuff” actually does cost money and they’re not being as solvent as they were before.

If they need young people there are plenty in the world. They can invite immigration.




So if these ideas are already beginning to show their cons in smaller societies and societies more willing to put the greater good above their civil liberties, how on everybody can you think they’ll work in America?



They work now, most places that try it, and those things are working better there than here.



Thanks again!



SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:01 pm
Lots of countries in Europe have no death penalty, education and healthcare that are free at delivery, legalized prostitution, non-militarized police and prioritized military budgets.

They also have better quality of life, longer and healthier, and are recovering much more quickly as a society from COVID.

Are they as insane as BLM, or do they just like it that way?
User avatar
Mr.Smile
Countess
Countess
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:16 pm

Unread post

SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:01 pm
Lots of countries in Europe have no death penalty, education and healthcare that are free at delivery, legalized prostitution, non-militarized police and prioritized military budgets.

They also have better quality of life, longer and healthier, and are recovering much more quickly as a society from COVID.

Are they as insane as BLM, or do they just like it that way?
1st, Even if you're arguing in support of those policies, you don't pass policies via terrorism. you vote, you hold politicians accountable, ie: not repeatedly voting for people who have failed you for 30-40 years in office and you can have peaceful protests.

2nd, the left always says this, ok how about we stop giving aid to the entire world and stop giving military support in order to pay for those things. but the left cries when thats suggested too. On top of that, you want to invite the entire 3rd world in and have these enormous social programs. please lay out how this is feasible w/o some other disastrous consequences?
SallyMae
Viscountess
Viscountess
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Hi there, thanks for giving it a shot.

Public health insurance is not "throwing around free stuff." It is pooled risk, like any insurance, with a very large pool. Can we afford it, you ask? What could possibly be more important to spend our society's resources on than our health, the quality of our daily lives and our family's?

We are losing our R&D to bullshit budget cuts, not healthcare spending, and reversing that should be #11 on the list.

"National identity" is fluid, and immigrants add to it, not detract.

What personal liberties have Europeans sacrificed which Americans have?

re: Europeans are "happy with not being big achievers"


They are achieving a higher quality of life than Americans. They have better, cheaper food. They live longer lives with fewer chronic illnesses, while spending far less on healthcare overall. They have less inequality, less poverty, vastly more leisure time. They are far more enfranchised than Americans. They are typically happier.

Those seem like excellent achievements.




Momto2boys973 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:10 pm
It’s a bit hard to respond with your quoting format, but I’ll give it a shot.
Your map? Not very accurate. I live in Mexico and it doesn’t have free and universal healthcare for all. I have to wonder if that’s the only inaccuracy.

And not tying because it’s “too hard”? No, it’s not trying unless you know it’s viable and that you won’t end doing more harm than good. You can’t just go around throwing free stuff without a serious analysis into whether or not you can do it and have positive results. Can America afford it? Does it have the resources and the means to provide good healthcare for free? How about research? What will the lack of money cause in the medical research medical field? How much will it cost America to lose the many patents in new medicines and technology it gets today if R&D has to be slashed down due to lack of funds and resources?
So have you thought about all those variables at all?

As for education, most countries don’t have a free higher education system. Sure, up to high school is free (as it is in the U.S, BTW), but a higher education requires payment. Many countries (actually Mexico included) do have free university options. But it’s in Germany where they went free for all and they’re experiencing serious drawbacks now.
And what do you expect to happen to prestigious institutions like Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Should they provide free education? What’s the point then to work hard and try to achieve if it makes no more difference.

As for the comment about lacking young people. These countries have actually opened themselves to immigration. And now their history and national identity is being lost. And ultimately, that’s not the point. That’s not a solution. If you can’t support your own people through the system you decided then maybe the system isn’t ideal. Bringing more people in isn’t a solution, as the age gap will continue to increase.

And finally, no, you’re not far worse than they are. That’s the grass is greener effect talking. There are things that work better there, there are problems they have that America doesn’t. Nothing is perfect. And just because a system works in a certain society according to it’s size, history, and culture, that doesn’t mean it’ll work everywhere and for every country.
Every country is founded on different principles and ideas. America is a country that was founded on the principles of independence, hard work, putting personal liberties above all and being an achiever. And that’s what has made America a leader in the world. These European countries have a very different cultural background. They value the greater good over personal liberties, commodity over achievement. And that’s why they can easily implement these measures and be happy with not being big achievers.
You can’t take a model that has had reasonably positive results in one country and think you can take them to another and think it’ll work as well. Do you think that if a country like Sweden or Denmark wanted to encourage more competitiveness and achievements decided to copy the American model, do you think it’ll work? Probably not.

I can understand the appeal, believe me. It sounds lovely. But that doesn’t mean it can work and that doesn’t mean those lovely things wouldn’t come at a very high price. Is that price worth it? That’s a matter of opinion. We sometimes need to look at facts, not at beautiful dreams to determine what’s ultimately best.
SallyMae
Viscountess
Viscountess
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Mr.Smile wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:57 pm
SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:01 pm
Lots of countries in Europe have no death penalty, education and healthcare that are free at delivery, legalized prostitution, non-militarized police and prioritized military budgets.

They also have better quality of life, longer and healthier, and are recovering much more quickly as a society from COVID.

Are they as insane as BLM, or do they just like it that way?
1st, Even if you're arguing in support of those policies, you don't pass policies via terrorism. you vote, you hold politicians accountable, ie: not repeatedly voting for people who have failed you for 30-40 years in office and you can have peaceful protests.

2nd, the left always says this, ok how about we stop giving aid to the entire world and stop giving military support in order to pay for those things. but the left cries when thats suggested too. On top of that, you want to invite the entire 3rd world in and have these enormous social programs. please lay out how this is feasible w/o some other disastrous consequences?

Public education and public health are inputs to the system, not outputs.
Emandab
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1126
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 12:31 am

Unread post

SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Mr.Smile wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:57 pm
SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:01 pm
Lots of countries in Europe have no death penalty, education and healthcare that are free at delivery, legalized prostitution, non-militarized police and prioritized military budgets.

They also have better quality of life, longer and healthier, and are recovering much more quickly as a society from COVID.

Are they as insane as BLM, or do they just like it that way?
1st, Even if you're arguing in support of those policies, you don't pass policies via terrorism. you vote, you hold politicians accountable, ie: not repeatedly voting for people who have failed you for 30-40 years in office and you can have peaceful protests.

2nd, the left always says this, ok how about we stop giving aid to the entire world and stop giving military support in order to pay for those things. but the left cries when thats suggested too. On top of that, you want to invite the entire 3rd world in and have these enormous social programs. please lay out how this is feasible w/o some other disastrous consequences?

Public education and public health are inputs to the system, not outputs.
The problem here [from the student's perspective] isn’t with the cost of the education, but with the huge amount of tracking, testing, and winnowing that is used to help keep the system free. In America, virtually anyone can get a college education so long as they have the money to pay for it. In France, you can get an excellent, free or nearly-free education but often only if you follow a prescribed set of rules and pass a series of grueling tests that often start early in high school.

French teenagers go through their first major career sorting at around age 15, when they decide on an academic or vocational course of study. This choice determines what kind of high-school graduation exam, or baccalauréat, the student will sit for, and to some extent what kind of higher education is open to them. The choice of track is also not entirely up to the students; the head of their lycée, or high school, has the final say. There’s some ability to change tracks, but it’s not particularly easy.
Naturally, if testing can be used to keep potential students out of college, this helps to control costs.

This model of restricted access, however, grows out of both administrative reality and European attitudes toward higher education. Europeans are decades behind the Americans in terms of adopting the idea of "mass education" in which more or less anyone ought to be allowed to enroll at some sort of higher education institution.3

Yes, Europeans have adopted the idea of providing an education to all applicants who are "qualified," but as sociologist Martin Trow puts it, "Universal access to postsecondary education ... is not the same as open access to university for those who earn an Abitur or baccalaureate."

This system of controlled access has endured longer in Europe which has long looked askanse at American populism in higher education. Consequently, higher education in Europe "constitutes a significant entitlement for the mostly middle and upper middle class families whose children go to university, and it is fiercely defended by them and their children."

In recent decades, political pressure from working-class voters have forced many European gatekeepers of this higher-education system to move more in the direction of true "universal access." But, it has proven difficult for European states to fund the expansion in higher education resources necessary to accommodate a model like this. In America, where there is more flexibility to raise tuition — and thus to expand buildings, services, and infrastructure in higher education — growth has been substantial, even if tuition rates have also increased considerably. In European no-tuition regimes, on the other hand, the political opposition to raising tuition rates — opposition provided largely by those middle and upper-middle class families who view it as an entitlement — means the problem of "underfunding" has grown "most dramatically in Europe."4

This means higher education in countries with few-to-no tuition fees are hemmed in financially, and must either continue to limit access to institutions, or they must find ways to reduce costs while admitting more students.

This leads us to a second means of limiting enrollment: lowering quality by limiting access to faculty and staff, and providing lower quality facilities. This in itself often indirectly encourages students to leave after they've already been accepted.

In the United States, tuition-dependent schools have an incentive to retain students through better student-teacher ratios, and through what Trow calls "armies of para-educators, professional counselors, deans of student life, remedial specialists, and the like."

European colleges do not employ such staff in nearly the same numbers, in part because they are less economically dependent on student retention.

In France, for example, making life difficult for students has been a time-honored method of controlling enrollments. Observers speak of "overfilled auditoria, high dropout rates, and fierce competition among students." Class sizes of 1,500 people are not uncommon.

As one group of researchers noted: "The accessibility of French universities — both from an admissions and financial perspective — paradoxically has had negative consequences on students. In 1968, French Minister of Education Alain Peyrefitte compared undergraduate life in France to 'organizing a shipwreck to see who can swim.'"

It appears that little has changed since then.

Nor is this experience specific to France. Many European universities — especially in jurisdictions where education is "free," appear uninterested in catering to the students:
Emandab
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1126
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 12:31 am

Unread post

Emandab wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:46 am
SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Mr.Smile wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:57 pm


1st, Even if you're arguing in support of those policies, you don't pass policies via terrorism. you vote, you hold politicians accountable, ie: not repeatedly voting for people who have failed you for 30-40 years in office and you can have peaceful protests.

2nd, the left always says this, ok how about we stop giving aid to the entire world and stop giving military support in order to pay for those things. but the left cries when thats suggested too. On top of that, you want to invite the entire 3rd world in and have these enormous social programs. please lay out how this is feasible w/o some other disastrous consequences?

Public education and public health are inputs to the system, not outputs.
The problem here [from the student's perspective] isn’t with the cost of the education, but with the huge amount of tracking, testing, and winnowing that is used to help keep the system free. In America, virtually anyone can get a college education so long as they have the money to pay for it. In France, you can get an excellent, free or nearly-free education but often only if you follow a prescribed set of rules and pass a series of grueling tests that often start early in high school.

French teenagers go through their first major career sorting at around age 15, when they decide on an academic or vocational course of study. This choice determines what kind of high-school graduation exam, or baccalauréat, the student will sit for, and to some extent what kind of higher education is open to them. The choice of track is also not entirely up to the students; the head of their lycée, or high school, has the final say. There’s some ability to change tracks, but it’s not particularly easy.
Naturally, if testing can be used to keep potential students out of college, this helps to control costs.

This model of restricted access, however, grows out of both administrative reality and European attitudes toward higher education. Europeans are decades behind the Americans in terms of adopting the idea of "mass education" in which more or less anyone ought to be allowed to enroll at some sort of higher education institution.3

Yes, Europeans have adopted the idea of providing an education to all applicants who are "qualified," but as sociologist Martin Trow puts it, "Universal access to postsecondary education ... is not the same as open access to university for those who earn an Abitur or baccalaureate."

This system of controlled access has endured longer in Europe which has long looked askanse at American populism in higher education. Consequently, higher education in Europe "constitutes a significant entitlement for the mostly middle and upper middle class families whose children go to university, and it is fiercely defended by them and their children."

In recent decades, political pressure from working-class voters have forced many European gatekeepers of this higher-education system to move more in the direction of true "universal access." But, it has proven difficult for European states to fund the expansion in higher education resources necessary to accommodate a model like this. In America, where there is more flexibility to raise tuition — and thus to expand buildings, services, and infrastructure in higher education — growth has been substantial, even if tuition rates have also increased considerably. In European no-tuition regimes, on the other hand, the political opposition to raising tuition rates — opposition provided largely by those middle and upper-middle class families who view it as an entitlement — means the problem of "underfunding" has grown "most dramatically in Europe."4

This means higher education in countries with few-to-no tuition fees are hemmed in financially, and must either continue to limit access to institutions, or they must find ways to reduce costs while admitting more students.

This leads us to a second means of limiting enrollment: lowering quality by limiting access to faculty and staff, and providing lower quality facilities. This in itself often indirectly encourages students to leave after they've already been accepted.

In the United States, tuition-dependent schools have an incentive to retain students through better student-teacher ratios, and through what Trow calls "armies of para-educators, professional counselors, deans of student life, remedial specialists, and the like."

European colleges do not employ such staff in nearly the same numbers, in part because they are less economically dependent on student retention.

In France, for example, making life difficult for students has been a time-honored method of controlling enrollments. Observers speak of "overfilled auditoria, high dropout rates, and fierce competition among students." Class sizes of 1,500 people are not uncommon.

As one group of researchers noted: "The accessibility of French universities — both from an admissions and financial perspective — paradoxically has had negative consequences on students. In 1968, French Minister of Education Alain Peyrefitte compared undergraduate life in France to 'organizing a shipwreck to see who can swim.'"

It appears that little has changed since then.

Nor is this experience specific to France. Many European universities — especially in jurisdictions where education is "free," appear uninterested in catering to the students:
Kids have to take tests at a young age to determine if they are suited for acedemics or vocational programs in you're most touted "free college" countries. Imagine being 15 and told you are going to be a plumber for all of your working life based on a test, when you'd rather build buildings. Or a lawyer when you'd rather build robots. Sad.
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

Emandab wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:46 am
SallyMae wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Mr.Smile wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:57 pm


1st, Even if you're arguing in support of those policies, you don't pass policies via terrorism. you vote, you hold politicians accountable, ie: not repeatedly voting for people who have failed you for 30-40 years in office and you can have peaceful protests.

2nd, the left always says this, ok how about we stop giving aid to the entire world and stop giving military support in order to pay for those things. but the left cries when thats suggested too. On top of that, you want to invite the entire 3rd world in and have these enormous social programs. please lay out how this is feasible w/o some other disastrous consequences?

Public education and public health are inputs to the system, not outputs.
The problem here [from the student's perspective] isn’t with the cost of the education, but with the huge amount of tracking, testing, and winnowing that is used to help keep the system free. In America, virtually anyone can get a college education so long as they have the money to pay for it. In France, you can get an excellent, free or nearly-free education but often only if you follow a prescribed set of rules and pass a series of grueling tests that often start early in high school.

French teenagers go through their first major career sorting at around age 15, when they decide on an academic or vocational course of study. This choice determines what kind of high-school graduation exam, or baccalauréat, the student will sit for, and to some extent what kind of higher education is open to them. The choice of track is also not entirely up to the students; the head of their lycée, or high school, has the final say. There’s some ability to change tracks, but it’s not particularly easy.
Naturally, if testing can be used to keep potential students out of college, this helps to control costs.

This model of restricted access, however, grows out of both administrative reality and European attitudes toward higher education. Europeans are decades behind the Americans in terms of adopting the idea of "mass education" in which more or less anyone ought to be allowed to enroll at some sort of higher education institution.3

Yes, Europeans have adopted the idea of providing an education to all applicants who are "qualified," but as sociologist Martin Trow puts it, "Universal access to postsecondary education ... is not the same as open access to university for those who earn an Abitur or baccalaureate."

This system of controlled access has endured longer in Europe which has long looked askanse at American populism in higher education. Consequently, higher education in Europe "constitutes a significant entitlement for the mostly middle and upper middle class families whose children go to university, and it is fiercely defended by them and their children."

In recent decades, political pressure from working-class voters have forced many European gatekeepers of this higher-education system to move more in the direction of true "universal access." But, it has proven difficult for European states to fund the expansion in higher education resources necessary to accommodate a model like this. In America, where there is more flexibility to raise tuition — and thus to expand buildings, services, and infrastructure in higher education — growth has been substantial, even if tuition rates have also increased considerably. In European no-tuition regimes, on the other hand, the political opposition to raising tuition rates — opposition provided largely by those middle and upper-middle class families who view it as an entitlement — means the problem of "underfunding" has grown "most dramatically in Europe."4

This means higher education in countries with few-to-no tuition fees are hemmed in financially, and must either continue to limit access to institutions, or they must find ways to reduce costs while admitting more students.

This leads us to a second means of limiting enrollment: lowering quality by limiting access to faculty and staff, and providing lower quality facilities. This in itself often indirectly encourages students to leave after they've already been accepted.

In the United States, tuition-dependent schools have an incentive to retain students through better student-teacher ratios, and through what Trow calls "armies of para-educators, professional counselors, deans of student life, remedial specialists, and the like."

European colleges do not employ such staff in nearly the same numbers, in part because they are less economically dependent on student retention.

In France, for example, making life difficult for students has been a time-honored method of controlling enrollments. Observers speak of "overfilled auditoria, high dropout rates, and fierce competition among students." Class sizes of 1,500 people are not uncommon.

As one group of researchers noted: "The accessibility of French universities — both from an admissions and financial perspective — paradoxically has had negative consequences on students. In 1968, French Minister of Education Alain Peyrefitte compared undergraduate life in France to 'organizing a shipwreck to see who can swim.'"

It appears that little has changed since then.

Nor is this experience specific to France. Many European universities — especially in jurisdictions where education is "free," appear uninterested in catering to the students:
Interesting. Could you cite your source?
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3104
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm

Unread post

Mr.Smile wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm
Momto2boys973 wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:12 am
I wouldn’t jump to call them “terrorists’, but yeah. That’s an unreasonable list of demands.
Hawk Newsome, the president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter, threatened to "burn down this system" if "the country doesn't give us what we want" in an interview Wednesday with FOX News host Martha MacCallum.

When you make demands and threaten to commit more acts of violence if they're not met, that is terrorism.

should everyone burn down cities, seize federal property, vandalize and loot until they get whatever policies they want enacted? that's not how this works. they can go vote, they can peacefully protest, giving them what they want with no consideration for other citizens just to make them stop is a terrible precedent to set. Never negotiate with terrorists.
I watched the video with the interview. He was basically saying that is the only way we’ve gotten the government to take a serious look at police reform and doing things the “right way” has gotten us ignored.

I don’t agree with calls to riot, we have to set reasonable expectations and be willing to compromise. I don’t think this list is realistic. But that goes both ways and we shouldn’t wait until things escalate to this extreme to work together. That’s not gonna work either.
Mrs.ChuckBass
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:29 pm

Unread post

ALL prostitutes or just those who are POC?

of course I support releasing those jailed for consensual S*x work.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic