MSNBC-Melissa Harris-Perry says "kids belong to whole communities"

[zinfamous]

I already explained her clarification.

you are dense.

No you didn't.

You explained your interpretation of her clarification. her clarification is exactly how most people would understand her original response.

You and others have essentially put words in her mouth from the beginning. You see things like "community" and you think: "OMGMARXISMEBILLIBRUL!" and your brain immediately shuts off. You see things like "Your children are not simply your children" and you think: "OMGTHEYAREMINEYOULIBRULCUNT!" and your brain shuts off.

You refuse to think from the beginning, so you will never allow explanation to open your mind. It's sad that many of you are this way.

I see a lot of you playing funny word games with yourselves, and you don't even know you are doing it.

 

[zinfamous]

Pretty much everything he writes is a thinly veiled attack on conservatism. He supports a flat tax - just not THAT flat tax. He supports Republicans - just not THESE Republicans that are on the ticket. He supports war against Islamic terrorists - just not the way we're fighting it. He supports religion - just not in any public place. He opposes abortion as morally wrong - but supports it being legal. Frankly I don't think he has any honest opinions except for his support of gay marriage.

..how are any of those interpretations dishonest? Why can't someone be morally opposed to one thing yet support its legality?

 

[michal1980]

No you didn't.

You explained your interpretation of her clarification. her clarification is exactly how most people would understand her original response.

You and others have essentially put words in her mouth from the beginning. You see things like "community" and you think: "OMGMARXISMEBILLIBRUL!" and your brain immediately shuts off. You see things like "Your children are not simply your children" and you think: "OMGTHEYAREMINEYOULIBRULCUNT!" and your brain shuts off.

You refuse to think from the beginning, so you will never allow explanation to open your mind. It's sad that many of you are this way.

I see a lot of you playing funny word games with yourselves, and you don't even know you are doing it.

my mind is open, which why I can see what she is saying.

the closed minded have to continually explain what it is she really said.

 

[werepossum]

..how are any of those interpretations dishonest? Why can't someone be morally opposed to one thing yet support its legality?

Absolutely. It's when someone purports to believe one thing but continuously professes its opposite in just this one instance that one can discern dishonesty.

Put it this way - if one claims to be a Yankees fan yet finds a reason to root for the Cubs every time they play, would you believe that he is a Yankees fan?

 

[ivwshane]

Absolutely. It's when someone purports to believe one thing but continuously professes its opposite in just this one instance that one can discern dishonesty.

Put it this way - if one claims to be a Yankees fan yet finds a reason to root for the Cubs every time they play, would you believe that he is a Yankees fan?

Now apply your example to the person in question and tell us how it's equivalent.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This was a good response to this whole uproar over on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

How many people (internet libertarians don't count) make getting rid of school lunches and not funding schools any kind of priority? Her opening statement implies that she's talking about funding, but the second part of ownership doesn't really segue into that at all. The overwhelming majority of children attend public schools in the United States, and although it's possible that there is an increased trend towards private schools or homeschooling, the parents of those children still pay taxes to fund other children.

If she's not talking about funding and had a problem with parents keeping their children out of public schools, then the outrage generated is perfectly justified. Since she keeps hinting at matters of investment and private vs collective ownership I suppose it's likely that she just chose a very awkward way to say "The children need more money!", but then where in the hell does Sullivan get an idea about "Christian(ist)" values and avoiding society? His interpretation really only made her look worse. Her follow-up explanation was pretty clear and showed that her true intention was to make a fluffy and overly-wishful call for everyone to just get along and think about the disadvantaged children.

 

[xBiffx]

You say that the graph says nothing....

 

[ivwshane]

How many people (internet libertarians don't count) make getting rid of school lunches and not funding schools any kind of priority? Her opening statement implies that she's talking about funding, but the second part of ownership doesn't really segue into that at all. The overwhelming majority of children attend public schools in the United States, and although it's possible that there is an increased trend towards private schools or homeschooling, the parents of those children still pay taxes to fund other children.

If she's not talking about funding and had a problem with parents keeping their children out of public schools, then the outrage generated is perfectly justified. Since she keeps hinting at matters of investment and private vs collective ownership I suppose it's likely that she just chose a very awkward way to say "The children need more money!", but then where in the hell does Sullivan get an idea about "Christian(ist)" values and avoiding society? His interpretation really only made her look worse. Her follow-up explanation was pretty clear and showed that her true intention was to make a fluffy and overly-wishful call for everyone to just get along and think about the disadvantaged children.

Just to clarify, her point wasn't only the think about "disadvantaged children", it was about all children. Her comment had nothing to do with the struggle of a patent or a child or funding or any other policy other than "fluffy and overly-wishful call for everyone to think of the children.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just to clarify, her point wasn't only the think about "disadvantaged children", it was about all children. Her comment had nothing to do with the struggle of a patent or a child or funding or any other policy other than "fluffy and overly-wishful call for everyone to think of the children.

Her response from yesterday clearly had a focus around supporting children that receive sub-par education or otherwise insufficient resources towards developing into an educated and productive adult. Bolded was the main point I got out of her recent article...

I believe wholeheartedly, and without apology, that we have a collective responsibility to the children of our communities even if we did not conceive and bear them. Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values. But they should be able to do so in a community that provides safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support them. No individual household can do that alone. We have to build that world together.
So those of you who were alarmed by the ad can relax. I have no designs on taking your children. Please keep your kids! But I understand the fear.
We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers and sold them for their own profit. We do live in a nation where the government snatched American Indian children from their families and “re-educated” them by forbidding them to speak their language and practice their traditions.
But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.
I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe.
And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

In other words, exactly the same old "moar money". Very little to do with the evil collectivist conspiracy that the silly right fear, and nothing to do with fighting the right-wing theocracy-loving private or homeschooling systems like Andrew-whatever thought. I say "very little" in the conservative/libertarian side's favor because her "No individual household alone" could be interpreted to mean "No individual household could raise a child alone" which is far from valid, but I'm pretty sure she was talking about issues of funding for the families that can't or won't do better for their own children, so I won't hold it against her.

 

[nextJin]

Just to clarify, her point wasn't only the think about "disadvantaged children", it was about all children. Her comment had nothing to do with the struggle of a patent or a child or funding or any other policy other than "fluffy and overly-wishful call for everyone to think of the children.

But how should they think of the children? Is there an abundance of people out there who could careless if a child lives or dies? Are there parents who cheered after Sandy Hook? Are there people who laugh and throw trash at homeless kids?

We all think of the children, very very few people meet that criteria. Now, what does she want me (us) to think about?

Remember that roundabout door I mentioned earlier?

She is getting at money. More effort, thought, care, etc should be given to children. Ie money.

Regardless of race, religion, sex, wealth, etc. What she wants is more money, more programs, more etc. She thinks somehow communities can be better built.

Every Lean Forward ad has an agenda, just like all commercials they are trying to sell something. Does not matter if it's pet adoption, pop tarts, political campaign ad, save the rain forest, coke, visit California, or whatever.

This particular ad just has an extensive vagueness about it.

The op title was the title of the article, not my own. I know what she is saying and I know what she wants out of it. I don't have to spend time with reading it over and over.

She basically said

-communities are important (no shit)
-we need to better invest in these communities (money)

 

[ivwshane]

But how should they think of the children? Is there an abundance of people out there who could careless if a child lives or dies? Are there parents who cheered after Sandy Hook? Are there people who laugh and throw trash at homeless kids?

We all think of the children, very very few people meet that criteria. Now, what does she want me (us) to think about?

Remember that roundabout door I mentioned earlier?

She is getting at money. More effort, thought, care, etc should be given to children. Ie money.

Regardless of race, religion, sex, wealth, etc. What she wants is more money, more programs, more etc. She thinks somehow communities can be better built.

Every Lean Forward ad has an agenda, just like all commercials they are trying to sell something. Does not matter if it's pet adoption, pop tarts, political campaign ad, save the rain forest, coke, visit California, or whatever.

This particular ad just has an extensive vagueness about it.

The op title was the title of the article, not my own. I know what she is saying and I know what she wants out of it. I don't have to spend time with reading it over and over.

She basically said

-communities are important (no shit)
-we need to better invest in these communities (money)

You didn't read her response did you? Not only did she give examples of how she learned but she also gave examples of what she meant.

Allow me to post that part for you;

Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values. But they should be able to do so in a community that provides safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support them. No individual household can do that alone. We have to build that world together.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How does that quote invalidate nextJin's post? That's basically what he said, which is that she said in effect "Public schools require more funding so that children have better quality education, and funding requires community support". In other words, what virtually every local politician says, D or R.

 

[ivwshane]

How does that quote invalidate nextJin's post? That's basically what he said, which is that she said in effect "Public schools require more funding so that children have better quality education, and funding requires community support". In other words, what virtually every local politician says, D or R.

Not all of those things require money, a safe community doesn't, it just needs people to be aware of their surroundings (neighborhood watches for example), terrific schools and opportunities of employment don't require more money and can be done with a change of attitude.

Just because you think problems can only be solved by money doesn't mean that's how everyone else thinks. Or is that not how you think but "liberals" aren't allowed to think like that?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Not all of those things require money, a safe community doesn't, it just needs people to be aware of their surroundings (neighborhood watches for example), terrific schools and opportunities of employment don't require more money and can be done with a change of attitude.

Just because you think problems can only be solved by money doesn't mean that's how everyone else thinks. Or is that not how you think but "liberals" aren't allowed to think like that?

A safe community absolutely requires money for those that aren't already safe by virtue of their class. You can't reach seedy inner-city or backwater hick types through simple motivational speeches; you have to clean up their neighborhoods with increased police presence, force parents to watch over their children better or take the kids away from them, etc. Not that all poor families lack civility, of course, but a lot of at-risk children turn out fucked more due to terrible influences outside of school than "mere" lack of education.

True, a good education doesn't necessarily require a ton of money. There are certainly schools elsewhere in the world that pay less than us and see better results. But how do you think Harris-Perry was suggesting to solve those problems? How many times can you ignore her repeated use of the words "investment", "private", "build", etc?

 

[ivwshane]

A safe community absolutely requires money for those that aren't already safe by virtue of their class. You can't reach seedy inner-city or backwater hick types through simple motivational speeches; you have to clean up their neighborhoods with increased police presence, force parents to watch over their children better or take the kids away from them, etc. Not that all poor families lack civility, of course, but a lot of at-risk children turn out fucked more due to terrible influences outside of school than "mere" lack of education.

True, a good education doesn't necessarily require a ton of money. There are certainly schools elsewhere in the world that pay less than us and see better results. But how do you think Harris-Perry was suggesting to solve those problems? How many times can you ignore her repeated use of the words "investment", "private", "build", etc?

Do me a favor and find me where in her original spot and in her response where anything regarding the less fortunate or less well off were mentioned.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do me a favor and find me where in her original spot and in her response where anything regarding the less fortunate or less well off were mentioned.

Reread the parts I bolded previously, unless you believe...

1) She was talking about "[providing] safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support [the students]" for ones that already had all of that

or

2) America is a run-down ghetto malnourished hellhole and even our middle-class lacks those things

 

[ivwshane]

Reread the parts I bolded previously, unless you believe...

1) She was talking about "[providing] safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support [the students]" for ones that already had all of that

or

2) America is a run-down ghetto malnourished hellhole and even our middle-class lacks those things

Ah no, you answer my question, where did she specify or make any statements regarding economic status. You can't because she didn't say anything and your conclusions only come from your own personal bias.

Like I said, she have examples of what she meant and even gave her own personal examples that affected her when she was growing up. Did she state she grew up in a ghetto or poor? No she didn't.

Would you like to double down again?

 

[thraashman]

my mind is open, which why I can see what she is saying.

the closed minded have to continually explain what it is she really said.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HA HA HA!
OMG, don't make me laugh like that, there's too much pollen in the air here to laugh that hard without it hurting. I haven't heard anything that funny and ridiculous since ... well maybe ever. michal1980 just claimed his mind is open!!! That's like John Boehner saying he's never cried or Marco Rubio saying he's not thirsty!

HEHEHEHE. Oh oh ... oh. Ok, I'm done laughing now, my lungs hurt. Don't say something that silly again please.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

"[providing] safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support [the students]"

How can you interpret that as being about anything other than providing for those children that can't obtain those things, namely, the poor?

EDIT: re: ivwshane

 

[ivwshane]

"[providing] safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support [the students]"

How can you interpret that as being about anything other than providing for those children that can't obtain those things, namely, the poor?

EDIT: re: ivwshane

Seriously? How can you think or why would you think what she said only applies to those less fortunate?

Are you saying rich peoples kids don't need a safe place to play or quality food or great schools or economic opportunities?

These things are all pretty universal regardless of economic status.

Seriously what she said isn't some profound and new idea, it's a feel good message that reminds people we are all in this together.

You must have some serious biases if you are truely seeing what you are saying you think she said.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The rich already have all of that.

 

[ivwshane]

The rich already have all of that.

Do they?
Does the middle class?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Basically. And the ones that don't, don't. I never gave any specific number on the income level or location of what makes a family disadvantaged and likely to receive a poor education vs the opposite. I'm saying that Harris-Perry's stated goal is to help the children with poor education and opportunities through "community support", which likely translates into public funding unless you think she's even more idealistic and fantastical than previously believed.

 

[ivwshane]

Basically. And the ones that don't, don't. I never gave any specific number on the income level or location of what makes a family disadvantaged and likely to receive a poor education vs the opposite. I'm saying that Harris-Perry's stated goal is to help the children with poor education and opportunities through "community support", which likely translates into public funding unless you think she's even more idealistic and fantastical than previously believed.

I know what you stated, your statement just has zero to do with what she said and you have yet to show any proof to the contrary.

It's obvious you don't get it and never will. You can continue your logical fallacies with someone else.

Good day

 

[michal1980]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HA HA HA!
OMG, don't make me laugh like that, there's too much pollen in the air here to laugh that hard without it hurting. I haven't heard anything that funny and ridiculous since ... well maybe ever. michal1980 just claimed his mind is open!!! That's like John Boehner saying he's never cried or Marco Rubio saying he's not thirsty!

HEHEHEHE. Oh oh ... oh. Ok, I'm done laughing now, my lungs hurt. Don't say something that silly again please.

you on the left should try this openmindness. maybe then you wont fall for so much shit