From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:05:44 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov13.010330.15257@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: You assert that that there is no such correlation and that no pass / no
>: play was imposed arbitrarily because there was no relationship to not
>: letting them play sports and having them do better in school.  If you
>: have any supporting statistics, please present them.

>I think it's appropriate to assume that things are not correlated until a 
>correlation can be shown.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.  It rather depends on which
way a small exercise in logic leads you.  In this case, that small
exercise in logic seems to lead AWAY from your position.

>: You see, that bit cuts both ways.  You have asserted (apparently) that
>: the proportion of high school graduates among the jail populations is
>: the same as that among the general populace.  

>No I didn't.  I asked you to support the assertion that YOU made.  I think
>you really do need to take a logic course.

Been there.  Done that.  Perhaps you need to do the same?  Let's take
a look at what is REALLY being said here and see.  I have asserted
that the proportion of high school graduates is lower (actually that
the proportion of non-high school graduates is higher) in the criminal
population than in the general population.  You disagree with that,
which is effectively asserting that the proportion of non-high school
graduates is the same in the criminal population as it is in the
general population.  You insist that I must have 'proof' for my
assertion with regard to the relative proportions of non-high school
graduates in the criminal and overall population.  You insist that you
need provide no such proof for your assertion with regard to the
relative proportions of non-high school graduates in the criminal and
overall population.

Who seems to need that logic course, now?  I'd say it's you; but you
apparently did well in the rhetoric course.

>: Do I REALLY need to dig
>: up a source for that?  Hell, check practically ANY report on crime.

>In other words, you don't have one.  That's what I thought.

Well, if you're going to make up what I say, why should I bother?  I
told you were to look.  Look or not, I really don't much give a damn
if you elect to remain ignorant or not.

>: How things seem to you are not my responsibility, since I do not use
>: the terms that way.

>So tell me how you use them so that I can answer your question.

I use them the OBVIOUS fucking way, John.  Libertarian (capital 'L')
is the party.  Libertarian (small 'l') is all the self-proclaimed
libertarians who are mostly practicing 'Jack' politics (as in, "I've
got mine, Jack.  Screw you.").  The former is GENERALLY a subset of
the latter, and the latter tends to include a lot of people who aren't
REALLY libertarians (this has become another abused label, like
"conservative", "liberal", "socialist", etc. -- which is only fair,
given that from what I've seen of them, libertarians tend to be the
worst abusers of the language, in their effort to achieve emotional
impact, since the ultra-right religion folks).

>: There is also a Socialist Party; is that what you
>: are referring to when you use the world 'socialist'?

>I call you a socialist for two major reasons.  You advocate the redistribution
>of wealth, and you advocate governmental control of business.  

First, you need to look up what 'socialist' means.  Then you need to
correct your absolutist misperceptions about anyone who disagrees with
your positions.  Note that I have advocated NEITHER of the things that
John claims I have, in any absolute sense.

>You also 
>espouse the rights of "society" as being more important than the rights of the 
>individual.

Once again, you need to correct your absolutist misperceptions about
anyone who disagrees with your positions.  I have never done this,
either, except in limited and specific cases.

>: Gee, John, you ALWAYS have an M.E. and an inquest in any case of death
>: inflicted by the actions of another human being.

>But why?  Talk about government waste.  How much do we pay this guy to say
>"Yep, you shot him"?

Well, let's not look at all, then.  I'll shoot you, and then we won't
need anyone to check it out.  Yeah, some system and some world your
Libertopia starts to look like.

>:               Is it your position that we should simply tip the body
>: into the closest dumpster?

>Why not?  He obviously doesn't need it anymore.

Gee, don't you think we'd like to know that John didn't just shoot
somebody who pissed him off and then drag to body onto his property?
People DO do this sort of thing sometimes, you know.

>: Gee, little details like reading and numbers are useful.  Basic
>: accounting, so he can balance his checkbook (all those big numbers,
>: you know).  English so he doesn't sound like a Neanderthal doing all
>: those endorsements.  Study skills so that he can learn the playbook,
>: which is somewhat more complicated than that of the typical high
>: school team.  How many do you want?

>None of these thing are NECESSARY to be an excellent football player.  Some
>of them might make his life a little easier, but shouldn't that be HIS call
>to make?

The point behind educating children is so they LEARN to make these
kinds of calls.  If you don't do the education first, why bother at
all?  When they're five, turn their asses out onto the streets and let
them make it as best they can.

[So no, at this point it should NOT be his call to make.  He's still
in the learning process.]

>:                                             What do you propose these
>: guys do when they're done with their half dozen or dozen years in the
>: pros? 

>What I propose is that it's up to them to decide what they do.  They're the
>ones who have to live with their choices.

Until they choose to take it away from you, of course.  Why do you
have such an aversion to examining possible logical consequences of
the things you espouse, John?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics