Fee-Paying Schools

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Food for thought... if only one dog gives a clean, humane bite to the back of the fox's neck to quickly and painlessly sever the spinal cord and kill it, then why aren't the rest of the dogs muzzled to prevent the excited dogs from tearing at the fox?

I can show you a done of pics that anti-abortion people use of babies limbs sticking out of garbage cans too - is that the norm? You have no idea where those pics really came from or how normal they are to fox hunting. Shooting an animal isn't always a clean kill either.

The web site has a reason for posting those pics. They need them to support their cause. It's shock value.

[Nurvingiel]

I was following this thread for a while, because I was interested in fee-paying schools, (called private schools in Canada).

Recently, there was an issue over Catholic schools getting government funding, but no other kinds of private school.

Personally, I don't think any private school should get government funding. If someone wants to start their own school and operate outside the government's system that's fine, but they should do it without the funds from the government.

I'm okay with a small amount, I'm not going to be completely rigid. However, I'd only agree to that if all private schools get the same amount.

Even then, there are many more viable projects we should be giving our money to in this country.

What do you guys think?

[jerseydevil]

I personally don't think that Catholic schools or other private schools should get direct funding from government - that is why they are private.

On the other hand, I do support vouchers which allow parents to choose to send their children to a particular school - whether it is religious based, a secular private, or another public school in the area. I believe in leaving it up to parents on where they send their children.

Why would Canada only choose to support Catholic private schools anyway?

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I personally don't think that Catholic schools or other private schools should get direct funding from government - that is why they are private.

In Australia, all schools used to be funded by the Government, regardless of whether they were Catholic, State schools or whatever. In 1872, an Education Act was passed, whereby all education in Victoria was to become free, compulsory and secular. Catholics had to set up their own schools in shabby buildings with oversized classes and underpaid staff. Catholic schools were left to fend on their own. So I see it as a good thing that we Catholic schools are now partially (and increasingly) funded by the government; otherwise it'd cost so much more to attend such schools, and for those who wanted it, to obtain their desired relgious guidance, or the good education the school offers.

My cousin just sent me this article. This bites, it's going to make university entrance even harder for me in a few years. It's a good thing we have the HECs, but I'll be paying for the rest of my life with this increase. (I'll explain what HECs are if anyone's not sure). 22000 people missed out on first round offers into their university courses this year. Our system sucks! Stupid universities!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I can show you a done of pics that anti-abortion people use of babies limbs sticking out of garbage cans too - is that the norm? You have no idea where those pics really came from or how normal they are to fox hunting. Shooting an animal isn't always a clean kill either.

The web site has a reason for posting those pics. They need them to support their cause. It's shock value.

You don't know either that its a clean and civilized kill. You only want to argue this point with me, regardless of what you know or don't know. You just want to be on the side that's right. But you aren't. You even admitted that you thought the fox was shot by the hunters... you didn't even know that it was the dogs that are bred, raised and trained to do just this one thing, to track down and attack this fox.

I can show you many more sites that don't have pictures on them. I showed you a site at CNN.com and the BBC, which showed both sides. You want to believe that people against fox hunting are animal rights extremists that throw paint on women's furs on Broadway, and want everyone to give up eating meat.

There's no meat to be eaten in this hunt. There's only the witnessing of the dogs killing the fox.

Of course they're going to show you those pics, so that people like you who refuse to believe that these so-called civilized people would participate in such a blood sport. But it's true, and its covered with the blanket of tradition.

They'll quickly condemn dog fighting, cock fighting, and hare coursing... but they will keep their bloody sport because they have a nice drink before, have an exhilarating ride during, and then after they've witnessed the fox's brutal death, they have a nice dinner afterwards. Therefore, it makes it most civilized and far removed from the other blood sports.

And after all, who but the gentry and nobility participate in the fox hunt? Therefore, it must be civilized. But you can't ignore the fact that it's a brutal death for this animal for the pleasure of a few sick people.

[Jonathan]

A few years ago, a law was passed in Sweden which made it illegal for fee-paying schools to exclude students who don't pay their fees. Every private school should be open to everyone, they say, even those who can't afford attending private schools. It's totally ridiculous. How are the schools going to manage with only little funds from the government and no fees payed by the students?
I go to a fee-paying school and we no have fees. Instead, we have 'voluntary contributions' which everyone has to pay . The school emphasizes that people who don't 'contribute' are not welcome, but there is nothing the school can do if someone decides to come here get some free private school education.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You don't know either that its a clean and civilized kill. You only want to argue this point with me, regardless of what you know or don't know. You just want to be on the side that's right. But you aren't. You even admitted that you thought the fox was shot by the hunters... you didn't even know that it was the dogs that are bred, raised and trained to do just this one thing, to track down and attack this fox.
[

oh - I DO KNOW that the dogs are bred to do this. Why do you think I don't know that? Just like retrievers are bred to retrieve fowl that the hunters shoot - without eating it.

I just don't think the dogs RIP the fox apart as you try to show it. You want to beleive that the dogs attack the fox it rip it to shreds. YOU DO NOT KNOW - because you have never seen a fox hunt. You just want to believe the extremists.

I can show you many more sites that don't have pictures on them. I showed you a site at CNN.com and the BBC, which showed both sides. You want to believe that people against fox hunting are animal rights extremists that throw paint on women's furs on Broadway, and want everyone to give up eating meat.

Yeah - and the people who were neutral - not part of fox hunting said that the fox was not ripped apart - like the professor from Oxford.

Sorry - I do think the people you have shown to back up your position are extremists. Just because they make a statement to CNN, BBC or develop their own site - doesn't change who they are.

There's no meat to be eaten in this hunt. There's only the witnessing of the dogs killing the fox.

And that is not in itself bad.

Of course they're going to show you those pics, so that people like you who refuse to believe that these so-called civilized people would participate in such a blood sport. But it's true, and its covered with the blanket of tradition.

People - like me? yeah - I'm a colded hearted bastard aren't I? Sorry - but the anti-fox hunters use the same tactics as anti-abortionists. The anti-abortionists use pcitures of baby limbs in garbage cans - it just doesn't make it the norm. It does however make people shocked and sasy "that is sick - how can we allow that".

They'll quickly condemn dog fighting, cock fighting, and hare coursing... but they will keep their bloody sport because they have a nice drink before, have an exhilarating ride during, and then after they've witnessed the fox's brutal death, they have a nice dinner afterwards. Therefore, it makes it most civilized and far removed from the other blood sports.

Event he pictures you showed me and the rules of the sport - don't allow for the fox to be ripped apart. Even the video you shwoed had the hunter taking the dog off the fox. Whereas wtih cock fighting and so forth - the whole purpose is to inflict as much pain and suffering on the other opponent as possible. They are not the same - no matter how much you want to believe it.

And after all, who but the gentry and nobility participate in the fox hunt? Therefore, it must be civilized.

Well - there isn't any gentry or nobility in New Jersey - so it's normal people who participate here pretty much.

But you can't ignore the fact that it's a brutal death for this animal for the pleasure of a few sick people.

You can use extreme words - like ripped apart, brutal death, all you want, even the articles you gave me had people saying that the fox was NOT ripped apart. So you believe the side you want to and I'll believe the side I want to. Because neither of us have been on a fox hunt. All you are doing is getting your info from a bunch of people who are against it. If you think they are neutral observers and tell the truth without exageration then you are blind.

In the United States today, the sport of fox hunting has evolved to where the actual chase is more important than the kill. In fact, the hunt ends when the “fox” retreats to a hole in a grown, otherwise known as an “earth”. Sometimes, the hunt actually ends when the hounds lose track of the animal’s scent. In either case, the fox is unharmed and survives to be chased another day.

The actual animal selected for the chase varies widely, and often depends on the geographic location. Coyotes are often used because of their abundance as well as their strength, size and speed. Other animals of choice may include red and gray foxes and bobcats.

Organized fox hunts exist in about 35 states, with over 170 organized clubs in North America. Obviously, the terrain covered in the fox hunts varies from and dunes to forests to mountains. The events can involve a pack of hounds owned by a private individual or a “subscription pack”, or one that is owned by a club.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Radagast
The aristocracy is actually enjoying rather a boom at the moment. The landed aristocracy is far from redundant- vast acreage is still possessed by families and the Duke of Westminster is the richest man in the country.

Radagast... I was responding to "The Gaffer's" statement about agricultural subsidies. I had assumed he meant to landholders (and, since he was responding to some 'fox-hunting' discussion) and the aristocracy. By asking 'on the dole' I meant this: Is the aristocracy supported by public (tax) funds by means of agricultural subsidies? Of course I know the monarchy is supported by British tax dollars... I was just wondering if there's any similar set-up to support the rest of the aristocracy - even if only by subsidies.

In asking if it was redundant to say, 'landed aristocracy' - I just wasn't sure... does the very term 'aristocracy' necessarily imply that someone is definitely a land-owner? Or is there a such thing as a 'landless aristocrat'?

And... yes, I'm quite sure the aristocracy is doing very well still.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Valandil
Radagast... I was responding to "The Gaffer's" statement about agricultural subsidies. I had assumed he meant to landholders (and, since he was responding to some 'fox-hunting' discussion) and the aristocracy. By asking 'on the dole' I meant this: Is the aristocracy supported by public (tax) funds by means of agricultural subsidies? Of course I know the monarchy is supported by British tax dollars... I was just wondering if there's any similar set-up to support the rest of the aristocracy - even if only by subsidies.

In asking if it was redundant to say, 'landed aristocracy' - I just wasn't sure... does the very term 'aristocracy' necessarily imply that someone is definitely a land-owner? Or is there a such thing as a 'landless aristocrat'?

And... yes, I'm quite sure the aristocracy is doing very well still.

Of course there is such a thing as a landless aristocrat. For example, the 1800s were the days of fashionable townhouses and London palaces, and the craze for it has continued. Look at the receptions hosted by the Earl Spencer at Spencer Palace in London, etc. Many aristocrats merely have huge houses in London while selling off the old country estates. Most have both and acreage is not the definition of an aristocrat.

It is, of course, sad if something that has been possessed for so long is sold off, land included.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
By asking 'on the dole' I meant this: Is the aristocracy supported by public (tax) funds by means of agricultural subsidies? Of course I know the monarchy is supported by British tax dollars... I was just wondering if there's any similar set-up to support the rest of the aristocracy - even if only by subsidies.

It's actually via the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is intended to help farmers to survive.

It's a bit of a paradox, in that you have small holders who can't sell a pint of milk for more than it costs them to produce, and these folk deserve some sort of support. However, huge sums end up going to the huge farmers, which include the richest people in the country. An example is the charming policy of "set-aside", where the landowner is PAID to not grow anything on a piece of land.

The CAP is an anachonism from the post-war years which will probably never be changed properly because as soon as they try (such as by putting an upper limit on how much subsidy can be paid) the French farmers will park their tractors on railway lines and motorways and dump sileage in the Elysee Palace lawn.

Back on topic, our tax pounds also subsidise fee-paying schools because they have charitable status. They should be taxed like any other business.