Ugh - what did you do to the quotes? I'll see if I can make some sense of this. 
Ended up with double vision the night I wrote that on...
Firstly, in Britain effectively (to be concise) parents can buy their kids access to the best schools - often to the disadvantage of those kids in poorer backgrounds. (...) By removing parental choice, you vastly reduce the opportunities for all these people to cheat like that.
And put people at the mercy of the government instead.
Absolutely - over 90% of the population are in the state school system. What happens sadly under the current catchment area system is that parents can buy a house in the right place, effectively buying kids the best places in our state schools. In short, the more clued up and middle/upper class someones parents are - the better education they get. How on earth is that fair? In the UK (and elsewhere it seems) the top of the societal structure is those who are of richer backgrounds, often far from the brightest. Removing parental choice creates a meritocratic system which means the best people are in the most important positions. Certainly a set of people I would trust to run an education system.
Instead of removing parental choice (which effectively eliminates student choice - some parents, like mine, actually let their kids pick the school), why not fund merit scholarships?
There are two key issues here - a) middle class parents will always hoodwink it so their kids get in ahead of a brighter but poorer kid. The private schools do have merit scholarships - but these just go to posh kids whose parents divorced.
(b) What age do you select kids for a merit scholarship? Our grammar school system selects at 11 (grammars are only in certain areas of the UK - some areas had the sense to abolish them), but kids mature at different ages and writing them off at 11 is very unfair. Also again the admissions process gets hoodwinked.
The way social structure currently is in the UK and other western civilisations is that its very difficult to be deeply into a social circle as a male without doing some form of sport. Gutting it from schools (and the TV imo) would help our cause a lot.
So basically, you want to make things better for male aspies at the expense of everyone else? I'm all for self-interest but that's awfully short-sighted. Rather than change people's attitudes, or even fix the system from the inside, you want to completely eliminate it? There's no way you'd get a majority to agree with you on that.
Well it benefits more than ourselves - really its a culture change. Having a society of morons, which this sports culture encourages, only benefits morons. Asides, how does getting rid of team sports from the culture harm you, surely popular culture changing in such a fashion benefits you in practise. As for fixing the system - feel free to suggest any other way. I doubt you would find one tbh. As for getting people to agree - there are ways around it.
The only form of merit that can be justified in a modern society is intellectual ability and the openmindedness to think originally. The rest may as well be morons which we might want to farm like Horses for our own entertainment - but nothing else.
Okay, now I really don't take you seriously. That's as bad as Lit.
Everyone is supposed to be unique or special - but how can they be if they do not think for themselves. A religion more typically called society tends to be opiate that the moronic majority subscribe to - and it really does not make these people too openminded.
