: What it means is that you still don't see that your position on "comparative advantage" is an ideological one, despite the fact that I've told you thisDo you not get just the tiniest sense that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of reality? How is comparative advtage just ideology? Does not a faster Zebra have comparative reality over its slower 'herdmate' and is it not in its interest to have such?
Before you leap at the chance - this is not a comparison of man to zebra - it is a 'natural' context in which comparative advantage can be seen.
: SDF: Yet you boldly went forth to assert an ideological position claiming that teachings on "self-esteem" are what cause low test scores in math, and then you tried to defend that position. It was only the fact that someone else showed you how deficient an argument that was, that caused you to put some time into it.
Isnt that what such debate is all about? - the development of knowledge. Whilst you seem to perceive me as making wild assertions what I am actually doing on the matter of 'self esteem' is exploring something widely reported in various media. You can slap yourself on the back now, however your experience in schools seems very specific to poor neighbourhoods though - I would be ineterested in what age you teach and what subjects, and whether you have experience schools on middle class suburbia for any length of time.
: SDF: As the impeccable Gee would put it, voting (or not voting) is widely regarded as a choice made by sovereign individuals. Representatives, by this logic, thus represent those who choose to participate in the process, and this fits the logic of school systems appropriately. There is no way a teacher or a principal or a school board member can respond to a parent who didn't say anything about the schooling process of his or her child.
Nor is there any equity available to those who voted for something and got the exact opposite just because a greater number of people happened to want it
None.
