How would special needs kids from poor backgrounds get educated?

I understand not everyone can have the same education system but if you believe in equal opportunity for everyone, it has to be funded in a way that a child can get an education independent of family background.

Public education should not be limited to a single stream.

“Independent Schools” are an afront to equal opportunity.

If conservatives truely believed in equal opportunity, they would fund public schools better. You can also donate directly to school boards.

Mind you also, that if the parents value education, the children don’t necessarily.

So you have children who value education be with parents who don’t not getting what they deserve and vice versa.

“Independent Schools” shows conservative values do not include equal opportunity. They oppose it.

Finland bans public schools and they do quite well.

If conservatives actually valued education, they would fund public school systems but they don’t even when they are literally in control of the system.

I think they were talking about repatriation.

The Charter and Repatriation happened in 1982.

It is indeed very hard. Luckily we have in person banks. If we only have crypto instead it’d be far worse.

At first I thought it was the Beaverton. Had to check the URL.

I think the main question is consent, who is consenting and the legality of it along with liability.

The question is a legal question and what is consent along with what is the responsiblity or liability of the doctor.

Typical medicines are not natural, but are legal because the consenting party is the adult on behalf of the child and recommended by the doctor.

For medicine, diagnosis and treatment are done determined by external actors.

Feel unwell -> cause determined from outside perspective -> solution prescribed from external perspective -> feed back from patient.

I think for HRT, it’s more murky legally. For transition it’s more self reported.

Feel unwell -> self diagnosis -> self prescription -> reporting to oneself

Gender dysphoria is being removed as a diagnosis so external diagnosis by a doc and prescription based on said diagnosis cannot be done.

And the child in question consents, not the parent.

The way medicine has legally operated is not reflected in transition.

If transition was possible without medical aid, it would be different. But it is not possible for humans to physically transition, unlike other species who can.

The main issue here is that to be an adult, you have to go through puberty.

The problem is that HRT is meant to replace one’s expected puberty with the opposite puberty.

So for “best results” you have to start HRT induced/regulated puberty before the expected puberty starts.

Starting HRT after puberty does not reverse the effects of the puberty one has undergone, hence the focus on puberty blockers and starting before puberty.

Starting before puberty starts means starting when they are literally biological kids.

This is where the conflict is. Should literal kids undergo HRT puberty or should they go through their expected puberty, become an adult, and then gain the mental capacity and autonomy to make the decision to undergo HRT but without meeting desired results.

Some say use puberty blockers until 18 and then allow people to make a decision. I disagree, the number of times the Earth goes around the Sun does not turn a child into a consenting adult, puberty does.

The ask is to have consent with the weight of post-puberty but express it while in pre-puberty for a decision on puberty.

I disagree that this is possible. It looks like these MPs disagree as well.

Beijing’s threat to invade Taiwan.

If the Nationalists had won the civil war, Beijing would have “invaded” Taiwan.

Except for the alternate anti-communist China it would “unification”, like with our timeline’s China.

Stop with this non-sense.

No, Christmas is a archeological festival from before religions existed /s

I’d say the public groceries idea is a good one.

First the cubs and now this, we really are in the future. This is amazing!

Then let BYD get prosecuted.

They should do business and then face trial if they go against the law.

I agree. I’m just stating their reasoning for why they don’t consider it robbery.

It’s “market logic”, highest bidder sets the price.

The President of course being a convicted felon and rapist, Donald J Trump.

I don’t trust the population, remember COVID?

You’re wrong

We do expect the military to turn a profit. Just not a profit for you.

First: The presentation of data and framework and the changing of one’s options are two different events that are not causally linked.

Now to rebut:

I do not pretend to defend all union action. I only protect them insofar as that union action redistributes money, a relative resource.

You have not shown unions improve the economy by lowering interest or inflation.

Only BoC can change interest rates, and corporation changes the price of goods. So by your own definition, if improving the economy can only improved by lowering interest rates or inflation, unions cannot do it.

However, increased labour costs can be eating by corporations profit margin (if available) instead of passed to the consumer.

Unions increase affordability, a word you have not stated once in your reply. Unions increase labour costs, but they increase purchasing power faster than increasing costs, as such affordability (relative resource) increases.

You have not shown inequality is the cause of low wages.

It is by definition. Inequality is the distribution of income between owners and workers. When a sale occurs, part of the value goes to owners, part to labour; the larger the owner’s share, the lower the relative wage. Money being a relative resource, high inequality and low wages are simply two sides of the same coin.

I encourage you to put this chain through Chat GPT and ask it to give you real resources and go back and forth on it.

I will not be continuing this conversation.

Since it your close to it any way, a bid you a dieu.

Just your first paragraph shows why you cannot think. You made assertions without evidence nor data, nor causal reasoning.

You cannot have wasted disposal income if you do not have income.

Again, money is a relative resource not an absolute resource.

Even showing that waste of disposable income as a percentage of one’s income going up does not refute my point.

You have to show that wasted disposable income by the bottom is growng as a percentage of the economy, not their own income.

If wasteful spending is the same percentage of GDP but income of the bottom goes down, they cannot save. There, right there, is the answer to your first paragraph.

What about the generation that got hooked on cigarettes (lower now than before), drugs (counter culture) and travelled domestically and internationally?

You haven’t shown wasted spending was less as a percentage for Baby boomers. You have not provided that data, you are still anecdotal.

You also did not show union dues rise as a percentage of GDP or wages over the years.

If you want these laws repealed, then you have to provide an alternative means of wealth/incom equality.

You also have to show that wasted income of the bottom deciles increases as a percentage of GDP. Again statistics, not anecdotes.

I am not blindly defending unions, you on the other hand are blindly defending reducing in my wages directly, by not tacking inequality, and indirectly, by discouraging union density.

If you want to feel superior and yell at clouds you can do that, it is a tale as old as time.