GetTheFacts

>A lot of doctors are willing to cut their rates if you're willing to pay cash for the full amount

Are pennies okay? Sorry, they're not rolled. Just let me know if it's not enough.

>Actions have consequences.

Be specific. What actions? And what are appropriate consequences for such undefined "actions"?

Don't be vague, friend. If you have an argument to make, then make it. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

>Theoretical social causes and activism are great for university discussions and political sloganeering, but it's a whole different pair of sleeves than what's good for your family.

To which "theoretical social causes," "activism" and "political sloganeering" are you referring?

I'm genuinely confused by that, as I mentioned none of those things in my comment. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?

>Okay, but do you actually have a solution? Or do we simply accept that schools all become zoos?

So, by you are those the only two outcomes? Dump/warehouse disruptive kids and deny them any opportunity to become productive members of society before they even hit puberty, or let them run hog wild and burn down the schools?

I'd expect there's some middle ground here that doesn't include either giving up on children just because they're having socialization issues or putting those children in charge of the school.

Do I have all the answers? No. But if you're going to advocate for throwing away children because they misbehave, why stop there? That's not a rhetorical question.

Yep. And those bad, disruptive and underperforming kids should be sent out into the cotton fields by age six or seven, and their (obviously) inferior parents should be sterilized so they can't continue to pollute the gene pool.

Because we already know which children will be a drag on society by the time they're six or seven, right? And if we'd started doing this twenty-five years ago, we'd be much better off.

I propose intelligence/physical prowess tests for all children starting at age two or three, so we can start to weed out the dead weight much earlier.

And sterilizing the parents (as well as the kids -- but that goes without saying) will, in the medium term, address much of the tightness in the housing and job markets. It's a win-win!

And if a few decades is too long to wait for this, we could always go with summary executions, right? Or at least work camps for the inferior where they won't be a burden on society.

Sadly, all those "woke" pinko commies want to destroy our way of life by polluting our gene pool with the inferior stock, because they hate us and our free and equal society!

Students of history will also note that people routinely used lead as a cosmetic, brutalized and treated women as chattel (and some still do so today), tortured, murdered and enslaved whole populations and all manner of other atrocious stuff.

By your argument, those things are perfectly fine, yes? If not, why is forced denaturalization/deportation perfectly reasonable because it has been done in the past, but those other things are not?

Please do elucidate. I'm sure we'd all like to hear your arguments.

>I had assumed that your hyperbole was directed at my paragraph you quoted, and ment to insinuate that said paragraph was only a few exaggerations apart from eugenicist nonsense.

No, you made it clear that you understand that warehousing children who have socialization issues was pretty stupid and a drain on the economy. And I agree.

There were several comments I could have used to platform my satire, yours was almost at random and not a reflection on your take. Apologies if I made it seem like I was associating you with my vile blather.

As I originally said, the sad part was all the folks "nodding along" with my "solution", of which there were, I'm sure, far too many.

It makes you wonder WTF is wrong with some people. :( :( :(

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

I said:

>The above is satire and quite disgusting

about my statement. And I followed it up with:

>The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!"

Do you fit into that category? If not, then my bile wasn't directed at you. Or did you miss that part?

>You just end up with society either paying for them being in prison, subsidizing them (because uneducated and unmotivated labor is close to worthless) or paying to literally clean up their shit because you basically routed them into a "careeer" as homeless person.

That's letting things go way too far. If an incorrigible can be identified, whether that be via their bad behavior, phrenology and/or an excess of melanin, we can weed them out by age nine or ten, sterilize them to make sure they don't pollute our society even more, separate them from the decent, hardworking folks and, if they won't work for the benefit of the society that's footing the bill for their palatial accommodations, summary execution would certainly be warranted.

The above is satire and quite disgusting. The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!" are far too many and far too pleased with your hatred and disdain for your fellow humans. Have you no vestige of humanity within you? Shame on you!

>"and then what" is the common retort to when people suggest removing the problem students, it's practically a cliche now. Then what is the students are held accountable now and won't be able to harm the education of their classmates and continue to harass their teachers. Then what is we don't have to pad grades as much and lie so that we can meet a fake metric. Then what is we stop doubling down on an approach that doesn't work.

And when do we actually make the determination that a particular student is a "problem" and remove them from the company of schools and other students? First grade? Fourth? Seventh?

And once we do identify these incorrigibles at age six or ten or thirteen, what do we do with them?

Some form of incarceration? Put them in a "labor pool" so they can pay for their accommodations and not burden the rest of us? Summary execution?

Please do elucidate.