I send my child to private school because....?

[jabed]

Well, I don?t actually, I just work in one. But it seems to be a constant source of questioning on MN and given the current news articles (I have been reading the DM and Tory graph online) about how many of our left wing leaders hypocritically claim to be egalitarian and socialist whilst buying education for their children , or have had education paid for by their own parents. I just wondered, what is it we expect from education, and why is it some of us are willing to pay for whatever that is and how they see that as worthy of their money.

There you go. :)

Agree, those posts should not have been deleted.

Actually, Karlos some of the deletions were presumably because they quoted the offensive post. There was only one poster who expressed bigotry towards children with SN. One of the posters who had a post deleted is definitely the mother of a child with SN (as you can see from her subsequent posts) and she was just being vociferous in defence of her child. That's the problem with deleting - if you delete all posts that quote the offending post it makes it look like perfectly innocent parties have done something wrong when in fact I imagine some of them feel they (or their children) are the ones who have been wronged.

yes that's true, but the substance of the policy is right IMHO. This place was never friednly to disablist bigots but there was often a marked difference in approach to them and bigots of other types. If this has changed I'm glad MNHQ has finally listened.

If I may throw a spanner in the works and say something not politically correct? I do not think the post concerned was bigoted. Bigoted is violent and unreasoned. There was no violence in the comment as I recall. I am not sure how unreasoned it was. It was prejudiced. But it was a personal opinion.

The point is, whilst I may not share the views, I have heard similar ones expressed before. If one constantly pushes it under the carpet, refuses to deal with it and persecutes the person who expresses the opinion all it achieves is an underground movement of such thoughts which may motivate behaviour but does not have expression. That may be worse. Surely what we need here is education?

But at least we all know what the boundaries are here. :)

You need to check your definitions. Bigotry is intolerance of those who differ. It does not need or require violence to qualify.

" Bigoted is violent and unreasoned."
What?

I send mine to prep because the HT in the local primary was complete loon who thought that we should be grateful that our children were getting a 'free' education, and parents should mutely fall into line.

I'm happy with the preps my DC go to, but would have probably been equally happy with other primary schools, but it was too late to apply to them.

Metabilis _ OED definition as follows:
bigot:
" violent and unreasoning adherent of a creed or view"

bigoted
" that is or befits a bigot"

I looked it up before I commented because I didnt feel the word bigot was appropriate for what was actually said.

Hope that helps.

Dictionary.com:

big·ot·ed   /ˈbɪgətɪd/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tid]

adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

You must have a different edition to mine jabed
bigot
noun
a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

The Penguin English Dictionary:

Bigot: narrow-minded person whose belief in something is obstinate and intolerant

Bigoted: narrow-minded, prejudiced

I don't subscribe to the OED online so I can't actually check the facts, but it seems a tad unlikely to differ that much.

I've been scrolling through this and can't find that sohia said she doesn't want her child/ren in a class with SN kids. She said chavvy kids. Not the same thing at, and I hope no one is equating the two!

@Jabed - Merriam-Webster definition:

'a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance'

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

No mention of violence there.

Wikipedia entry:

^"'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view. The word is used with caution due to the inherent reflexivity.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."[2]^

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot

No mention of violence there either.

Since those are online resources which don't require the possession of Jabed's copy of the OED to check I think they are more appropriate to this discussion. Particularly since the online Oxford dictionary also doesn't mention violence:

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigoted?q=bigoted

^Definition of bigoted
adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one?s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:^

Hope that helps.

or from Websters

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially
: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

@kerrygrey she did. In a very nasty way. It was deleted by MN.

Which version did you use? The online one?

Mine is a hard copy I have here beside me.

I still feel the term bigot was too strong and harsh. If we use words to desctibe something when it is not, we have no words left to describe a circumstance when it does arise.

She expressed a personal prejudice and nothing more. There was no violence. I can?t even recall there being any intolerance of the views of others. It was more her own view which described a bias against a particular situation.

But of course it?s not there for us all to pick at now is it?

So let it drop and let?s agree to differ. I am not one for being
intolerant of anothers views even if I do not agree with them. :)

kerrygrey there were a number of deleted posts from sohia, in at least one of which he/she did say exactly that.

I did say the OED. Why would an academic Englishman such as myself want to use MW? :)

Ah! Must have missed it then.

"Which version did you use?"
The May 2012 paperback edition I have on my desk

So the hard copy you happen to have is significantly different from, and somehow more valid than, any (hard copy or online) dictionary that the rest of us can find ?

That casual "OED" definition combined with the passive aggressive "hope that helps" have annoyed me beyond all reason, such that I have checked the several hard copy dictionaries of various ages which we have around the house, and they all concur with the definition which everyone but jabed has. What a surprise.

People who are losing the argument always say 'lets agree to differ'. Every single online source which has been provided - with links - refutes your claim. So I say, let's all agree you were inventing things. Because it's quite clear the generally accepted definition does not encompass violence.

steaklthsquiggle - there were a number of deleted posts but only one that made any comment as I recall. The others were deleted for repeating it.

I was here at the time.

To be honest I didn?t raise much of an eyebrow over the comment. It totally missed my radar, that?s how strong it was. I think the reactions were OTT.

I wonder who it was who reported it and got her moved off - thats all I can say. All it has achived is this argument and a feeling the thought police won. Welcome to 1984 and all that.

I will not repeat or paraphrase because obviously it got the poor woman into trouble, to repeat it will most certainly get me in trouble too.

Oxford Dictionaries

Actually metabilis I would rather have a full scale argument with you but I know when to back off - the thought police are watching.