3 ms·

Nitpicking grammar on a casual internet forum is a great way to win an argument. I post on here (like most I'd imagine) as a distraction from the more mundane

Nitpicking grammar on a casual internet forum is a great way to win an argument. I post on here (like most I'd imagine) as a distraction from the more mundane parts of my job, forgive me for not applying enough rigor to my grammar in such a context... While you were busy being condescending and not making a point, you ignored my main point that, with the amount of money the Americans (happy?) have available to them, the answer should not just be blow up the entire system because GP has a hardon for libertarianism, but to use the vast resources available to make the system better, and allocate more if need be.

robotresearcher 14y ago
My point was my last sentence. I was attempting to ironically point out that you were criticizing from a position of assumed superiority without offering anything. My means of doing so was self-referential, until the last sentence which was intended to give the game away. I guess I was not clear enough, and I didn't mean to offend. Anyway, surely you can enjoy the irony of messing up grammar during a fierce critique of another country's education system? Meanwhile, the trouble with the argument you're using with libertarians that since the US is so rich they could afford better public services is that libertarians can easily counter with "America is so rich (partly) because we don't waste money on that stuff." I don't believe that, but it's very hard to refute.