Pudding First
Over at Vox, where leftist brains pulsate, Ms Kelsey Piper has an idea:
The United States should consider eradicating the voting age entirely… There are a host of good reasons to give children the vote… I think voting would be an exciting and meaningful exercise even for children too young to fill out their ballot validly, and it’s a great chance to develop the habit early — just like we have young children brush their teeth even though they’ll lose those teeth in a few years anyway.
I didn’t say it was a good one.
It occurs to me that if you start demanding that small children be allowed to vote in general elections – largely because you assume that their choices, their politics, will tend to mirror your own – then perhaps it’s time to ponder why your own politics correspond with the imagined preferences of children, who are, by definition, unworldly and irresponsible. Such that you grudgingly concede that, “Enfranchising everyone [i.e., including small children] will make the electorate less informed on average.” The rest of us, meanwhile, may wish to ponder whether a leftist’s desire to exploit the ignorance of small children in order to further her own socialist vanities is not only farcical, but degenerate.
We’ve been here before, of course, when Professor David Runciman claimed that not allowing primary school children to vote alongside adults amounts to “an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.” As if small children are renowned for their selflessness and conscientious forethought. As noted at the time,
The irony being that children and teenagers tend to be quite selfish and self-absorbed, to a degree unbecoming in adults, and are accustomed to free stuff, all paid for out of sight by someone else, much to the youngsters’ indifference. It would therefore hardly be surprising if voting children tended to favour policies that pile up unsustainable debt, all left for whatever generations follow them… What comes to mind is an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, in which the boys steal Hal’s credit card and run away to start a new and grander life in a hotel room, making enthusiastic use of room service.
How this sits with Ms Piper’s claim that “Kids have… a greater stake in political issues than adults do,” I leave to the reader.
Posted by: Ten | September 11, 2019 at 21:00
That was rather a long winded way of saying, “I got nothin'”.
Thought you all might like this Brexit article:
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/09/brexit-and-the-decline-of-the-english-novel/
What do *you* mean by the word “conservative”?
And, therefore, what is your, and also anyone else’s definition of conservative?
The caveats for answering that question are, as usual, cite references and reasoning so that all may assess, may cite in parallel, may refute by also stating specific details.
In giving such a definition, do follow some sort of general pattern of I state that conservatism means X, as defined by Y, where example(s) include Z, Etc . . . . . . . Do tell us why X, Y, or Z is conservative, is an example of being conservative, with examples, so that the examples can be assessed . . . .
Let us see if any of these definitions even resemble each other, or are just a bunch of non conservatives merely frantically reciting some preference of the moment that has nothing at all to do with actually being conservative . . .
somebody fetch the sheriff !
“The sheriff is a n…!”(bell tolls)
“What’d he say?”
“He said the sheriff is near.”
“No, darn-blame-it, dad-gummit, I said the sheriff is a n…!” (bell tolls)
Old enough to vote implies old enough to pay taxes, be conscripted and of course, old enough to have sex.
They are so eager and willing to hide behind children. Shows how much confidence they have in their beliefs.
That was rather a long winded way of saying, “I got nothin'”.
Obviously it was a succinct way to avoid having to spell it out for obtunded but self-impressed types, sport: When we’re daft enough to require our own certification, our betters are all too happy to give it to us. Such collectivist authority is still popular among statist rightists, some of whom see it as their moral yardstick. Others, skin in the game, as they like to call it.
Just as obviously the whole free world got that to one degree or another awhile back, although granted, government paycheck types can be easy dupes.
Posted by: Ten | September 11, 2019 at 22:50
An even longer winded way to say it, but I am glad to have taught you a new word you can use in your high school debate club.
An even longer winded way to say it
So, Ten still has nothing but snark. If someone asks me a civil and coherent question I will answer, but not if all that is thrown at me are insults, innuendo and accusations.
“The sheriff is a n…!”(bell tolls)
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives…
An even longer winded way to say it
Actually it was a way to state the obvious, which you’d asked for: is military discipline constitutionally suitable for private morality among youth, and is citizenship likewise a matter of conscription or any other paid federal servitude?
No answer? Poses like yours eventually turn into tacit confessions.
but I am glad to have taught you a new word you can use in your high school debate club.
In my mom’s basement, no doubt. Frankly, your material is better when you’ve not first decapitated your point, whatever it was.
Farnsworth, you wouldn’t be related by any chance to Strong Muldoon would you? 🙂
So, Ten still has nothing but snark.
Obviously untrue. You know where this goes and because of that you’re pretending to not know, which is also a lie. And if you don’t know you shouldn’t have blundered into it.
If someone asks me a civil and coherent question I will answer,
Untrue as well…
but not if all that is thrown at me are insults, innuendo and accusations.
and yet another lie.
…which you’d asked for…
Except that is nowhere in this thread anything I asked for, so I trust you didn’t strain yourself too badly with that reach into the past wherein you reveal you still cannot grasp, apparently rivaling depleted uranium for density, the concept of using non-judicial punishment rather than a ponderous court system as an an example of a technique that could be modified to fit civil society vs. thinking anyone was suggesting actually using the UCMJ on civilians.
Similarly, no one has suggested linking citizenship with conscription or federal service. What was linked was voting with federal service. You may find this interesting, but one can volunteer for federal service, military or otherwise, and in the US&A has been that way since July of 1973 when the draft went away, so where you pulled “conscription” from, other than your fourth point of contact, is a mystery, probably not only know even to yourself.
What would be truly unique in all your posts in all these pages if for you to offer what you think a solution for a change. In this instance, who get to vote, and why. I am sure we are all eager to see what true, rock-ribbed conservative gems flow from your keyboard.
Frankly, your material is better…
Granted, it is not quite as snappy as your “dickheads”, you Oscar Wilde, you.
…you wouldn’t be related by any chance to Strong Muldoon…
This is my Muldoon. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Sorry – got distracted there for a moment. If it is a real person, could be, if it a nom-du-blog, probably not.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives…
Ditto!
If it is a real person, could be, if it a nom-du-blog, probably not.
I was making an arch reference to old jokes out of Ireland, and especially to a passage in Heinlein’s Glory Road:
“So let’s speak of other matters. You mentioned the Strong Muldoon—”
“You mentioned him.”
“Well, perhaps I did. I never met Muldoon myself, though I’ve been in that part of Ireland. A fine country and the only really logical people on Earth. Facts won’t sway them in the face of higher truth. An admirable people. I heard of Muldoon from one of my uncles, a truthful man who for many years was a ghostwriter of political speeches. But at this time, due to a mischance while writing speeches for rival candidates, he was enjoying a vacation as a free-lance correspondent for an American syndicate specializing in Sunday feature stories. He heard of the Strong Muldoon and tracked him down, taking train from Dublin, then a local bus, and at last Shank’s Mares. He encountered a man plowing a field with a one-horse plow…but this man was shoving the plow ahead of himself without benefit of horse, turning a neat eight-inch furrow. ‘Aha!’ said my uncle and called out, ‘Mr. Muldoon!’
“The farmer stopped and called back, ‘Bless you for the mistake, friend!’—picked up the plow in one hand, pointed with it and said, ‘You’ll be finding Muldoon that way. Strong, he is.’
“So my uncle thanked him and went on until he found another man setting out fence posts by shoving them into the ground with his bare hand…and in stony soil, it’s true. So again my uncle hailed him as Muldoon.
“The man was so startled he dropped the ten or dozen six-inch posts he had tucked under the other arm. ‘Get along with your blarney, now!’ he called back. You must know that Muldoon lives farther on down this very same road. He’s strong.’
“The next local my uncle saw was building a stone fence. Dry-stone work it was and very neat. This man was trimming the rock without hammer or trowel, splitting them with the edge of his hand and doing the fine trim by pinching off bits with his fingers. So again my uncle addressed a man by that glorious name.
“The man started to speak but his throat was dry from all that stone dust; his voice failed him. So he grabbed up a large rock, squeezed it the way you squeezed Igli—forced water out of it as if it had been a goatskin, drank. Then he said, ‘Not me, my friend. He’s strong, as everyone knows. Why, many is the time that I have seen him….”
Is it true that most of the readers of this blog are familiar with Blazing Saddles?
It’s twoo! It’s twoo!
jokes out of Ireland
Better than “jokes” would be “entertaining tall tales”.
Performance “artist” bored with her own readings.
Two words in reference to the franchise:
Starship Troopers
Don’t blame me, I voted for The Arachnids.
Similarly, no one has suggested linking citizenship with conscription or federal service.
Yes I did. And so did Heinlein, although it’s fair to note that in this particular case citizenship and voting were synonymous – being enfranchised was the definition of citizenship in Starship Troopers. Given that Heinlein was a libertarian writing at a time when immigration was tightly restricted and the welfare state was much smaller than today, it’s a fairly decent argument that that’s all the definition necessary.
Can we eradicate voting by Vox columnists?
Given the proponents’ disingenuousness – the hope that unworldly children will endorse leftist policies – it’s hardly surprising that the excuses on offer tend to be unconvincing. As when Professor David Runciman claimed that not allowing primary school children to vote amounts to “an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.” As if small children are renowned for their selflessness and conscientious forethought.
Since statistically conservatives (small c) have more children than liberals (small l), the ingenious Ms Piper might find the outcome of her suggestion less attractive than she anticipates.
Ms Piper might find the outcome of her suggestion less attractive than she anticipates.
Such oversights may be a function of not being entirely honest about one’s motives. And so, we get creaky rationalisations for an absurd idea, because being honest and saying, “We’re counting on the credulity of children” may still sound a tad suspect. At least among much of the general public.
@pst – thanks for the info, been a spell since I read Heinlein and one can never tell, in some circles Muldoon can be as generic as Xerox, I knew a gent who used it as a synonym for “guy”, as in “those muldoons over there”.
Yes I did.
Just so, I missed it, apologies to you. Regardless, as I said, been a while since I read the book, but I did see the silly movie, and unless I am mistaken, one could, in either version, volunteer, so I remain a bit puzzled about the bugaboo about conscription/citizenship, which brings us to…
December 1972, sitting in the dorm common room all of us huddled around a radio, listening to the draft numbers being pulled. As it turns out, nobody from the ’72 draft lottery was actually going to be drafted (not that we knew it at the time) as authority to do so ended in July ’73 (draft lottery ended in ’75), though if your number was below 215 (IIRC) you could get called up for a physical (as he [215-(X<15)] stood there in the AFEES station in his shorts with a hundred or so new friends wondering why the hell he was there).
The point being, if some of us had been drafted and others not, we still would have been citizens, just some of us not voting ones, unless we volunteered. This, of course, brings us to what constitutes "federal service" ? By January 1972 a couple of muldoons who had been in that common room had toddled off to join the Peace Corps so as not to have to risk dealing with the War Corps, in the 1930s one could have joined the CCC, would either of those, or some similar scheme count ?
Is volunteering "government servitude" as some would suggest ? Many years after standing in the AFEES station I got to repeat the performance as I had been made an offer I couldn't refuse to trade time for a different education program. To me that seemed a good free market bargain, not "servitude", even though I couldn't just walk away without some consequences any more than I could a bank loan (OK, USDB vs. bankruptcy court, but you get my drift).
The whole thing is just not cut and dry - Zotz did two years honorably, but in year three was separated with a bad conduct or other than honorable discharge. Does that cancel out the two years that gave Zotz the vote ?
Who gets to vote is indeed a complicated question, but the first solution for the US would be no one with a degree in Useless and Angry Studies or who teaches in any such department, no actors, actresses, singers, or other performers who offer political messages in performances, and journalists who cannot pass a basic civics test.
Except that is nowhere in this thread anything I asked for, so I trust you didn’t strain yourself too badly with that reach into the past wherein you reveal you still cannot grasp, apparently rivaling depleted uranium for density, the concept of using non-judicial punishment rather than a ponderous court system as an an example of a technique that could be modified to fit civil society vs. thinking anyone was suggesting actually using the UCMJ on civilians.
In all that I find, ironically and if you don’t mind my borrowing a common complaint, that someone has escaped the point to say little of anything. Apparently one can lip off quite rapidly about something one didn’t analyze – and with that snark upset pst314 immensely – one can interject same into an exchange not involving oneself, and still one cannot defend the constitutionality of one’s preferred form of Orwellian heavy-handedness in the context of simple but fundamental conservative precept.
I find that all a little ponderous and tellingly counterproductive.
Similarly, no one has suggested linking citizenship with conscription or federal service.
Apparently one has and had. I then took this at face value.
You may find this interesting, but one can volunteer for federal service, military or otherwise, and in the US&A has been that way since July of 1973 when the draft went away, so where you pulled “conscription” from, other than your fourth point of contact, is a mystery, probably not only know even to yourself.
One can volunteer to vote for a communist as well, or eat Oreos all day (literally or politically). I pulled conscription from the same place I pulled servitude – and the same place I’ll now pull right as well as legal extortion – and you or anyone else is free to make of that what you will. One thing to make of it would be its offensiveness to the root of conservative, constitutional principle, and the other would be a nice ball of aimless defensiveness, or in another case, lying about things.
What would be truly unique in all your posts in all these pages if for you to offer what you think a solution for a change. In this instance, who get to vote, and why. I am sure we are all eager to see what true, rock-ribbed conservative gems flow from your keyboard.
You and I should be opposed to change, Muldoon, meaning we should be opposed to solutions to a valid status quo. Juveniles and even children voting would be such a change. The solution to it is obvious.
Back to other change and solutions. For example, you’ve proposed a draconian measure to – and get this – counter a legal system that’s itself fallen into gross disrepair in a land of ostensibly conservative tradition, maintenance, and momentum. You’ve then gone on to defend this Medusa, now apparently offering that third parties solve it.
But at least our respective memories aren’t completely shot. I simply have no duty or desire, when someone lobs a slug of statism in, to follow-up, as if that turd was a satisfactory status quo, with my own solution to their structural sloth. Children mustn’t vote and they also mustn’t be subject to federal discipline, discipline that would likely violate a few of the Constitution’s amendments.
I myself don’t make wrongs right (given the state of things apparently precious few do) nearly as much as I expect simple answers to simple questions as to how my fellows, sometimes in deeply left wing-critical settings, have adopted elements of draconian collectivism to tacitly call it conservative. What would be truly unique in all your posts in all these pages is if they’d entertain their writer’s appreciation of his triviality somewhat less and apply to that reason somewhat more.
So that’s the other difference between us. If you have a specific you’d like to complain about, do so, and any next guy shall consider how or whether to defend. When you get one very wrong, you can also consider whether to defend or capitulate. One thing we cannot do with any degree of logic or reason, is present a concept offensive to founding structure and its principles, and in all seriousness, expect to leave it standing there while the rest of the world accommodates it.
We were once about better solutions, to the point we officially encoded them. Rigid structural types may want to themselves consider original rigid structuralism.
Granted, it is not quite as snappy as your “dickheads”, you Oscar Wilde, you.
Punchlines can’t be explained, but you’ll agree that some monikers have more conscious utility than others…
Farnsworth, I hoped you (and others) would enjoy the quote.
Children mustn’t vote and they also mustn’t be subject to federal discipline, discipline that would likely violate a few of the Constitution’s amendments…For example, you’ve proposed a draconian measure…
You are beyond reason.
No one ever suggested children be subjected to federal discipline. Applying the tenets of non-judicial punishment, punishment without layers of cops, courts, judges, juvenile halls, reform schools, jails, can be applied at any level below federal, it is not throwing the rather hefty book of UCMJ at some damn kid, no matter how much you wish it to be so, so that you think you can, for once, have made a point.
In the olden days, it was not wholly unlike the way it was, Junior got in a fight in school, was hauled before the principal and given some minor punishment, not hauled off by the cops in handcuffs as happens too often today.
How such a simple very much the opposite of draconian concept is beyond your ken, other than your desire to strut while sitting at your keyboard, is baffling.
”No one ever suggested children be subjected to federal discipline.”
In this case I suspect Ten knows that and is merely noting two ideas he opposes—child voting and service for voting rights—without explicitly noting that the former was proposed only by the leftist in the linked article. This illustrates one reason why I like to intersperse comments with quotes of what I’m commenting on: to keep things clear for others and myself.
Regardless, as I said, been a while since I read the book, but I did see the silly movie, and unless I am mistaken, one could, in either version, volunteer, so I remain a bit puzzled about the bugaboo about conscription/citizenship, which brings us to…
That’s right: the idea as presented in both was that there was no conscription but that one could volunteer and after a term of service one could vote and hold office.
I remain puzzled at those who are so certain that Heinlein presented that idea as a firmly held policy recommendation, as in other places and he depicted ideas and comments that would contradict that. It’s always worth remembering that he, like many writers, liked to play with ideas, working out their implications. (Although I believe he clearly stated on more than one occasion that he opposed conscription on libertarian grounds.)
Whether or not service-for-the-vote it is a good policy is debatable; respectable arguments can be made for both sides.
I am curious about what sources Heinlein consciously drew upon when he developed that idea. As I noted very briefly much earlier in this thread, pretty much all human societies have required military service in times of crisis, and those individuals who refused to serve have faced serious consequences of various sorts.
This illustrates one reason why I like to intersperse comments with quotes of what I’m commenting on: to keep things clear for others and myself.
You’re being very reasonable. I thought they were going to have to sort it out the old-fashioned way. I’d fetched a tarpaulin and a box of condoms.
What?
What?
😀 I denounce myself for laughing at your joke.
Not that I don’t have more longstanding “issues” with Ten: He jumped on my single brief comment with a rude misinterpretation of what I meant. And he is, I believe, the individual who, some time back, simultaneously claimed that astronomically expensive audio components do yield audible differences *and* that it was unreasonable to expect him to demonstrate his golden ears in a double-blind test (listen for any length of time to each component, repeated as many times as desired, and then tell us when he’s listening to “A” and when to “B”.) I don’t like being told that I must accept bullshit as caviar.
I denounce myself for laughing at your joke.
I’m steering clear. I’m busy compiling ephemera for tomorrow. And playing Hades’ Star.
You are beyond reason.
No one ever suggested children be subjected to federal discipline.
Obviously, I’m not beyond reason; it was reason that finally got you to be more specific. You’re abusing truth to make a public pose.
Applying the tenets of non-judicial punishment, punishment without layers of cops, courts, judges, juvenile halls, reform schools, jails, can be applied at any level below federal, it is not throwing the rather hefty book of UCMJ at some damn kid, no matter how much you wish it to be so, so that you think you can, for once, have made a point.
First, military discipline is by nature federal. That safely out of the way, elaborate. You’re all about solutions; overreach and creep being what they are, is there some prohibition against legal reform in favor of a new system that honors my prior rights and serves your particular discipline? You’re about change and common sense solutions, almost Obama-like. I’m about rights and reform.
In the olden days, it was not wholly unlike the way it was, Junior got in a fight in school, was hauled before the principal and given some minor punishment, not hauled off by the cops in handcuffs as happens too often today.
In the olden days there were no such public venues or institutions either, and no way they or the legal system could be be abused like they have been. But you’ve made a start. Proceed.
How such a simple very much the opposite of draconian concept is beyond your ken, other than your desire to strut while sitting at your keyboard, is baffling.
And I didn’t say the principal’s office was draconian, Seer, nor is any of this strutting. From your first falsehood to this, you’re projecting.
He jumped on my single brief comment with a rude misinterpretation of what I meant … I don’t like being told that I must accept bullshit as caviar.
How alarming. Then kindly grant me the faculty to keep warning the place how sensitive you are to adult-sized dialog, if not the lengths you’ll go to to displace intellectual honesty with transparent slights.
I’m busy compiling ephemera for tomorrow.
For which delights we are grateful.
In other, random news…
Down the road there’s a residential nursing home for the elderly, the sign for which promises “quality care.” Oddly, however, the words quality care are actually in quotation marks on the sign, as if they might be wryly ironic.
The downside was that, when I first voted as an adult myself, it was almost boring, and not the rite-of-passage it usually is…
Your introduction to voting sounds remarkably like my introduction to beer. I suspect that in each of our cases, we’ve awakened some mornings with serious misgivings about the previous day’s activities.
The primary threat of extra-judicial punishment when I was young consisted of “Wait until your father hears about this.” I wonder how much trouble could be solved simply by bringing fatherhood back into vogue.
First, military discipline is by nature federal.
What part of “can be applied at any level below federal” are you failing to grasp ? Does “template”, “pattern”, or “model” suit your meager ability to grasp abstract concepts better ? You may be surprised to learn that in a private military school, discipline is conducted on a military model, but is not federal in any way.
I’m about rights and reform.
No, all about blowing smoke and offering nothing of substance, yes, but seeing as how you have your panties in a bunch about what you think, but clearly know nothing about, “military discipline” and in particular the UCMJ and NJP is, let me try the Augean task of educating you a bit.
Under the UCMJ one does lose minimal rights, a commissioned officer cannot, for example, make disparaging remarks about certain elected officials in official correspondence or in uniform in public (Article 88). Once again, no one has suggested applying that sort of thing to a civilian. If I repeat this enough, you may one day get it.
However, one thing the UCMJ does that civilian courts do not across the state and federal levels, is lay out exactly what the maximum penalty is for any given offense, that applies to every service member, everywhere. I will eagerly await your learned discourse on how that is an infringement of rights.
Then we get to Nonjudicial Punishment which is, in reality, a marvel of rights. Some muldoon gets hauled before his commander for some infraction, lets say a DUI. Guy is read his rights and charges by his commander, commander reads him the pertinent sections of the UCMJ and punishments and offers the dude the option of taking a Court Martial with lawyers, judge, and jury, or taking NJP, and lists possible punishments under that. Unless the guy is an idiot, he opts for the NJP.
The commander, depending on rank, has several options, restrict the guy to post for X days, take not more than half pay for not more than 2 months, reduce him in rank, give him extra duty, some combination, or just an oral or written reprimand. The icing on the proverbial cake is that the commander can impose any or even the maximum punishment (restriction/rank/pay/extra duty/reprimand), and then suspend it, or file it in his local personnel file so it doesn’t follow him the rest of his life. Yeah, draconian.
Meanwhile, in the civilian world, his buddy has had at a minimum to throw bail, hire a laywer, and go to court, maybe he gets off, maybe not, all depending on where he lives, who got elected DA, and the mood the judge is in.
Now, for those who can’t grasp the abstract, Junior gets caught tagging the Piggly Wiggly. He gets taken to the East Overshoe NJP session where, on the “template” “pattern” “model” he is offered the option of being charged with malicious mischief and possibly sent to the juvenile detention center, or taking the NJP and having to repaint the wall and clean the statue in the town square. Again I eagerly await your discourse on how being given a choice of which punishment route to take is some egregious abuse of rights.
In the olden days there were no such public venues or institutions either, and no way they or the legal system could be be abused like they have been.
What you don’t know, but think you know, could fill entire libraries. Here is a primer for you, the “public venues” and “institutions” of the juvenile justice system has been rife with abuse from the start.
If we keep this up I am going to have to start charging you tuition.
What part of “can be applied at any level below federal” are you failing to grasp ? Does “template”, “pattern”, or “model” suit your meager ability to grasp abstract concepts better ? You may be surprised to learn that in a private military school, discipline is conducted on a military model, but is not federal in any way.
Good to see you’ve walked that back for a more acceptable, updated version of yourself. I’ll weather the bonus, superficial huffing and indignation.
Ten: I’m about rights and reform.
The Seer: No, all about blowing smoke and offering nothing of substance…
Go right ahead and have that pound of flesh. At least you firmed things up and in the doing, escaped more scrutiny.
[Diversionary tome on military policy snipped because it again gets sideways with both the point all y’all are so incensed to discover in a conservative, and because it’s a dodge.]
However, one thing the UCMJ does that civilian courts do not across the state and federal levels, is lay out exactly what the maximum penalty is for any given offense, that applies to every service member, everywhere. I will eagerly await your learned discourse on how that is an infringement of rights.
I’m not aware I had. I said – in deliberate and incontrovertible effect, since apparently you’re a seer – that a criminal and/or disciplinary system propagated by the military would clearly infringe, as well as violating original structuralism, that kinda being a thing. Three times I said this, in one form or another. I know we agree on it because when you weren’t telling me what I think, you capitulated.
The same is absolutely true for voting, science fiction writers notwithstanding.
[More irrelevant militarism snipped.] Snipped because this:
Yeah, draconian.
Is exactly, precisely what it is when it’s applied to the civilian and the juvenile civilian. You threw that fallacy in because, having transferred it from its valid point to your subjective example way over in a different legal domain, apparently you thought you could get away with it. I doubt you honestly thought it’d pertain there.
Taking liberties is when you deliberately don’t define terms.
Again I eagerly await your discourse on how being given a choice of which punishment route to take is some egregious abuse of rights.
In your formulation? Not as long as you redefine terms to take liberties with an entirely valid point. Children shall not be subject to those disciplines, voting shall not be predicated on service of any kind, and instead you get to go reform the justice system.
What you don’t know, but think you know, could fill entire libraries. Here is a primer for you, the “public venues” and “institutions” of the juvenile justice system has been rife with abuse from the start.
Bloviating to serve another projection. And: I’m under no misconceptions concerning those or other systems, Muldoon, which had you asked you’d know in remarkable detail.
Obviously you’ve no idea what I know, no interest in it, and you’ll take liberties with us both.
Oddly, however, the words quality care are actually in quotation marks on the sign, as if they might be wryly ironic.
Is this the first manifestation of that particular grammatical error that you have seen in the UK? It’s been increasingly common in the USA for a good while now.
In other, random news…
Down the road from here there’s a residential nursing home called Ennis Court. Every time I see the sign I wonder if they have a Wimming Pool.
…the sign for which promises “quality care.”
A resident in our neighbourhood announces his offsprings’ unfortunate malady with a sign on his lawn that says, “Slow Children at Play.” I wanted to stop and offer condolences and a gift certificate to Kumon but the other half pooh-poohed the idea.
Friday Ephemera can’t come fast enough to save us all from this thread.
“Slow Children at Play.”
Even more disturbing: those parking meters known as roadside gods: If you do not render an offering a red flag pops up saying “expired”…and you die.
Slow Children at Play.
Reminds me of neon sign I saw years ago, outside an unsavoury-looking takeaway in Nottingham. It flashed words in sequence and presumably should have read “Hot. And. Cold. Food.” However, due to an unfortunate malfunction, the sign actually announced “Hot Food. Cold.”
“Hot Food. Cold.”
I joined some coworkers for lunch at a sushi joint they had raved about. The sushi had obviously been prepared well ahead of time and stored in a very cold refrigerator, slightly above freezing. When they asked me what I thought of the place I said that the sushi was cold. They couldn’t stop laughing. Apparently I’m funny when I’m not trying to be.
Even more disturbing: those parking meters known as roadside gods:
My City just got rid of that type of meter last year. Now you buy a ticket from a machine and place it on your car’s dashboard. Thousands have been spared expiration.
The money grubbing b@st@rds at the City make you enter your licence plate number which prints out on the ticket so you can’t share any of your extra time with someone who might arrive while you’re leaving. At least with the old gods time on the meter was time on the meter to be used by whoever occupied the parking spot.
…that a criminal and/or disciplinary system propagated by the military would clearly infringe, as well as violating original structuralism…
Still trying to get a whinny out of that dead horse, aren’t you. One modeled on it, run by civil authorities, wouldn’t, but you know that, you scamp.
Taking liberties is when you deliberately don’t define terms.
Do David a solid and use his link to spring for one of these.
Obviously you’ve no idea what I know…
When you demonstrate any knowledge of anything I might.