"You will use math everyday of your life". Fucking bullshit. I don't even ADD everyday of my life, let alone that algebra crap. I can't stand math teachers, they think they are the end all and be all of life.
because math and physics geniuses are probably the most important people we currently have in the world right now and every significant modern advancement we'll have will come from them or bio-chemists?
That's not what they mean by "using math." But yes tell me more about why I should use long division and solve for X in my day to day life.
History teachers telling us that the Civil War was fought over States Rights and not slavery and such.
Oh, and I also had a biology teacher. But he wasn't a normal biology teacher. He was a CHRISTIAN biology teacher. He wasn't actually that terrible, since he taught us real science most of the time, but occasionally he would teach us the worst kind of nonsense about Noah's Ark having existed for real and humans having lived to 800 years of age. He'd even show us christian science videos in which we were shown the "evidence" of such claims. But thankfully we were educated to the point where nobody at all believed a word of those things. High school kids are easy targets for this kind of nonsense because they don't really have the knowledge to refute it with scientific facts yet.
Well, if you want to be a grocery bagger or a busboy for the rest of your life, then sure. You probably won't ever have to do any sort of math.
Though, I do agree that long division is not something you'll use, ever. Because we have calculators. But algebra does have several, practical real-world applications, and you'll discover yourself using math more if your position in employment ever exceeds peon at a branch of a random corporation, or perhaps custodial duties. The blue collar middle class and higher will use math all the time.
To be fair, he sorta is right in the regard that state's rights was a huge thing the civil war was about,
Discussion on "geluk" vs. "genot"... 'Geluk is een hogere waarde dan genot: je kan immers gelukkig worden van genot, maar je kan niet genottig worden van geluk!' Translated to english this'll be something like 'you can enjoy being happy but you can't happy being enjoy' which doesn't make much sense at all. I don't know about you but being happy feels really good.I wish I could just give you a valid explanation of why this makes no sense at all, but it makes so little sense I can't even figure where to begin. What a nerd. How can you even come up with that?
Though, I do agree that long division is not something you'll use, ever.Actually we use Long Division in mathematics at the University here, mostly related to polynomials and stuff like that.
When I was in grade one my teacher and I argued for like 10 minutes, because she said black was all colours, rather than the absence of all colours.Um. Actually, black is all colors if you're talking about subtractive colors. An object that's black looks that way because it adsorbs all colors, so that very little light remains. Objects reflect the color that they look like. For example, a red object adsorbs all colors except red.
Dumb bitch.
but it was about the rights of states to own slaves, so saying it wasn't about slavery was a flatout lie. (I mean, ok, it was also about the rights of states to secede from the Union, which isn't a right they actually had, and the only reason they wanted to secede was because they didn't want the new President to take away their slaves)
I wish I could just give you a valid explanation of why this makes no sense at all, but it makes so little sense I can't even figure where to begin. What a nerd. How can you even come up with that?maybe he was possibly trying to explain the difference between verbs and nouns? I remember when I was first learning german we had lessons like this because lol everyone else was just some typical dumbass american kid who had no idea what verbs/nouns were
I'd probably tell him to stop comparing apples with oranges (pears).
Wow you guys had really shitty teachers.....the only thing I would have to say sucked about my education was the 4th and 5th grade school building which basically was run more like a day care than like a school, and how my 11th grade math teacher couldn't teach.
Although, i will say that anything lower than university level education really does NOT promote thinking.
Cho.. really off topic... (Click to reveal)
Actually, not to go off topic, but the Civil War wasn't about a State's right to own slaves. The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery (issues, not right of), competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, tariffs, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Although slavery was an issue of the Civil War, and was a major political factor in the ending of the war, there was much more issues at the table. To simply state that the Civil War was about Slavery is like saying that Hitler just wanted a few countries to himself...
the only thing i really have to say is that my science teacher THIS YEAR is stupid. she's an evolutionist, as science teachers usually are.
but the thing is, she's an evolutionist for NO REASON.
she's an evolutionist for NO REASON.
Actually, not to go off topic, but the Civil War wasn't about a State's right to own slaves. The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery (issues, not right of), competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, tariffs, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.
God forbid your science teacher teaches you science mkkmypet.From what she's saying it sounds more like half science half pretty fun makebelieve.
God forbidexactly
the only thing i really have to say is that my science teacher THIS YEAR is stupid. she's an evolutionist, as science teachers usually are. and i'm normally okay with that since there's really nothing i can do about it, and i'll believe what i want to believe. but the thing is, she's an evolutionist for NO REASON. she has no evidence or anything to support her claims (some of which are pretty ridiculous and not part of the theory of evolution when she says they are). and when i point it out and ask about it, she says "well that's just the way it is. you don't need to worry about it; it won't be on the test."She doesn't need evidence to support her claims any more than you do. She's only a science teacher; smarter people than her have figured it out, and it is safe to assume that what they're saying is probably correct for the most part.
and that's pretty much what she says about everything. we were learning about atoms, and one kid asked about "what happens when there's more electrons than the ones that fit on the 2, 8, 18, 32 levels?" and she mentioned that it had to do with "orbitals. but don't worry about that, it's not going to be on the test. you'll learn that in high school." our class debated with her for like 10 minutes saying "at least just TRY and explain it; we WANT to know" and she just kept repeating her same thing over and over and she said "you guys would just get confused if i tried to explain it and we have to move on now."The thing is, what she's teaching you is only a model. It's a mostly accurate model, and it's relatively easy to grasp. Real quantum physics isn't. But the point is that the model is valid and trying to switch to a more complex model halfway through is not going to help at all and it will confuse you. If you're really that interested, a primary school science teacher or whatever most likely isn't the right person to ask.
and there's this one kid in my class who's INCREDIBLY smart with science, and he constantly asks questions that my teacher doesn't know how to respond to. she makes poor attempts at coming up with something not true, but the kid shoots down her arguments. then she just says, "well, i honestly don't know. that's a good question. i'll have to look it up." and then the next few days, the kid asks "so did you look it up yet?" and she's like, "oh, no, i forgot. i'll do that tonight." she never looks it up.If the kid is that smart he could just ask her for a referral to a decent book on the matter or something. He'd probably get it because it means he'll shut up about it and she can get on with teaching less intelligent pupils.
and my teacher's idea of science labs/experiments are almost ALL ones that we've done before... in first grade. we did a lab to put a gummi bear in water overnight and then write down what changed. we did that same experiment that year before. and another "lab" was where we had to cut out construction paper and arrange it to look like an atom. that's the kind of thing we all did in 1st grade. my science teacher really doesn't know how to do her job.Yes, that is pretty bad, and you should really talk to her about it. Maybe she doesn't know you've already done those things.
maybe he was possibly trying to explain the difference between verbs and nouns? I remember when I was first learning german we had lessons like this because lol everyone else was just some typical dumbass american kid who had no idea what verbs/nouns wereNo. I told you it doesn't make sense in english. And he's a philosophy teacher, and most dutch kids know what nouns and verbs are anyway. The point he was making was that out of two types of 'happiness' values, a purely physical one ('genot') and a purely mental one ('geluk'), the mental one was better because physical pleasure can give mental happiness but mental happiness does not give physical pleasure. I can sort of see where he's coming from, but the argument he used would break apart outside of most germanic languages.
so it was rather difficult for them to figure out even basic phrasing in another language and shit sucked. maybe this is some sort of similar example (to like show that you cant say I yogurted an eat... in other words conjugate your verbs and decline your nouns and dont confuse the two lol)
She doesn't need evidence to support her claims any more than you do. She's only a science teacher; smarter people than her have figured it out, and it is safe to assume that what they're saying is probably correct for the most part.
the only thing i really have to say is that my science teacher THIS YEAR is stupid. she's an evolutionist, as science teachers usually are.
She doesn't need evidence to support her claims any more than you do. She's only a science teacher; smarter people than her have figured it out, and it is safe to assume that what they're saying is probably correct for the most part.
The thing is, what she's teaching you is only a model. It's a mostly accurate model, and it's relatively easy to grasp. Real quantum physics isn't. But the point is that the model is valid and trying to switch to a more complex model halfway through is not going to help at all and it will confuse you. If you're really that interested, a primary school science teacher or whatever most likely isn't the right person to ask.
If the kid is that smart he could just ask her for a referral to a decent book on the matter or something. He'd probably get it because it means he'll shut up about it and she can get on with teaching less intelligent pupils.
Yes, that is pretty bad, and you should really talk to her about it. Maybe she doesn't know you've already done those things.
I love it when people try to seriously debate with mkkmypet. You people realize that she's also a 12 or 13 year old little girl who also believes that she possesses telekinetic powers, right?
i've always not used capital letters in those cases, because i think that they shouldn't be capitalized; it doesn't make sense to me.
the only thing i really have to say is that my science teacher THIS YEAR is stupid. she's an evolutionist, as science teachers usually are. and i'm normally okay with that since there's really nothing i can do about it, and i'll believe what i want to believe. but the thing is, she's an evolutionist for NO REASON. she has no evidence or anything to support her claims (some of which are pretty ridiculous and not part of the theory of evolution when she says they are). and when i point it out and ask about it, she says "well that's just the way it is. you don't need to worry about it; it won't be on the test."
and that's pretty much what she says about everything. we were learning about atoms, and one kid asked about "what happens when there's more electrons than the ones that fit on the 2, 8, 18, 32 levels?" and she mentioned that it had to do with "orbitals. but don't worry about that, it's not going to be on the test. you'll learn that in high school." our class debated with her for like 10 minutes saying "at least just TRY and explain it; we WANT to know" and she just kept repeating her same thing over and over and she said "you guys would just get confused if i tried to explain it and we have to move on now."
and there's this one kid in my class who's INCREDIBLY smart with science, and he constantly asks questions that my teacher doesn't know how to respond to. she makes poor attempts at coming up with something not true, but the kid shoots down her arguments. then she just says, "well, i honestly don't know. that's a good question. i'll have to look it up." and then the next few days, the kid asks "so did you look it up yet?" and she's like, "oh, no, i forgot. i'll do that tonight." she never looks it up.
and my teacher's idea of science labs/experiments are almost ALL ones that we've done before... in first grade. we did a lab to put a gummi bear in water overnight and then write down what changed. we did that same experiment that year before. and another "lab" was where we had to cut out construction paper and arrange it to look like an atom. that's the kind of thing we all did in 1st grade. my science teacher really doesn't know how to do her job.
i hate my science class this year. >_<
mkkmypet is like 15whoa i wish i could go back in time and prevent you from posting that because this is misinforming man
Christians can use the scientific method too
mkk you do know being in an honors class in that level doesn't really mean anything (I know, I was in them, it didn't make a difference at all)
where i live, it does matter. my class learns (or at least, we're supposed to be learning) about chemical formulas, radioactive decay, alternative fuel sources, etc... the normal classes are currently learning about solids, liquids, and gases.
why does everyone make a fuss over the words "evolutionist" and "evolutionism"? do you want me to say "SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION" every single time? i only say it because it's easier. and evolutionism instead of just "evolution" is what i called it when i was little... it stuck with me. xD i didn't think it mattered. (the first time i ever heard it as being something Christians say is matt.dk's rant. i didn't know it was something anyone smart cared about.) but if you really require me to go back and edit my post so every "evolutionist" becomes "a person who believes in evolution" and so the "evolutionism" is turned into "the belief in evolution" for you to read and even respond to my post and not just those 2 words, then i will.
EDIT: dude, i only even said it once. i don't see what the difference is between the original and what i replaced it with... -_-
actually while honors classes may not matter, it really means the difference between a good educations and a decent education. at least it did in my high school. so for those of you saying being in regular classes vs honors classes doesn't make a difference, you're pretty much a dumbass.
In my school it meant more homework but the exact same curriculum and teaching. A lot of teachers taught both standard and honors versions of their classes and taught them exactly the same but added more assignments (or papers would be the same assignment but the honors class would have to write two more pages than the standard or something).then i refine my statement so exclude people's schools which didn't have improved curriculums, but for those that did (like mine) it applies. i've seen the regular classes in my school, they were shit. honors classes: the students feel like learning and the teachers feel like teaching.
hypothesis: the word evolutionist is only used by overreactionary creationists who are unaware that the more precise term is "anyone with even an inkling of understanding towards modern science and biology" instead of some insulting belief system attribution.
experiment: check it Thats your experiment? Do you realise how horribly wrong that is?
This is why I hate Atheists, they assume that their answer is the SIMPLEST one, if it was so simple people would stop believing in "some insulting belief system"
conclusion: I'm right. Full sentences for answers.
hypothesis: the word evolutionist is only used by overreactionary creationists who are unaware that the more precise term is "anyone with even an inkling of understanding towards modern science and biology" instead of some insulting belief system attribution.hahahaha, that's just incredible.
experiment: check it Thats your experiment? Do you realise how horribly wrong that is?
This is why I hate Atheists, they assume that their answer is the SIMPLEST one, if it was so simple people would stop believing in "some insulting belief system"
conclusion: I'm right. Full sentences for answers.
why does everyone make a fuss over the words "evolutionist" and "evolutionism"? do you want me to say "SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION" every single time? i only say it because it's easier. and evolutionism instead of just "evolution" is what i called it when i was little... it stuck with me. xD i didn't think it mattered. (the first time i ever heard it as being something Christians say is matt.dk's rant. i didn't know it was something anyone smart cared about.) but if you really require me to go back and edit my post so every "evolutionist" becomes "a person who believes in evolution" and so the "evolutionism" is turned into "the belief in evolution" for you to read and even respond to my post and not just those 2 words, then i will.
EDIT: dude, i only even said it once. i don't see what the difference is between the original and what i replaced it with... -_-
mkkmypet doesn't believe in capital letters:I like this. Why do we have capital letters? Do we really need them? Studies have shown that lowercase letters are easier to read than uppercase letters!Quote from: mkkmypeti've always not used capital letters in those cases, because i think that they shouldn't be capitalized; it doesn't make sense to me.
i've always hadBefore the invention of creationism, which is an attempt to blur the line between religion and modern science, "evolutionists" did not exist. No modern scientific theory* has ever been proven so well as evolution has, so anyone who disagrees with it is simply a bad scientist. There are few words that I have a problem with, but "evolutionist" is nothing but an attempt to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution by putting those that believe in it into a separate group, as though it's "just one group out of many".evolutionist science teachersSCIENCE TEACHERS WHO TEACH EVOLUTION.
Why do we have capital letters?
I like this. Why do we have capital letters? Do we really need them? Studies have shown that lowercase letters are easier to read than uppercase letters!FACT: Without capitalization, it is a lot easier to interpret Greek translations (which lacked spacing) of ancient Hebrew scripture (which lacked capitalization and punctuation) in any way you want!
derail, can someone find me a serious feminist article/movement about why capitals should be removed from the language?all i have is feminist articles about how the english language is THE WORST EVER because it's an ancient product of masculinity and it only caters to men and we should default to "they" instead of "he" when referring to generic objects and shit like that
I get bell hooks's reasoning (as a black female she's been marginalized and disenfranchised more than anyone else, and so she...represents...) but I can't find nothing else about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks ahahhaha wikipedia christ that is the worst picture!
all i have is feminist articles about how the english language is THE WORST EVER because it's an ancient product of masculinity and it only caters to men and we should default to "they" instead of "he" when referring to generic objects and shit like that
I wouldn't say gender neutral language is kind of LMAO CRAZY FEMINISTS dogg. its not that unreasonable to ask people not to call a group of men and women GUYS.well yeah i didnt say it was crazy but the article goes off on such a weird tangent its hilarious
w00t derail rules.
"Further, the presumed incompetence and immaturity of women are evidenced by the linguistic company they keep. Women are categorized with children ("women and children first"), the infirm ("the blind, the lame, the women"), and the incompetent ("women, convicts, and idiots")."
Women and children first is a survival instinct. Yes, it's sexist in the sense that people get discriminated by sex, but it's logical, isn't it?
Women and children first is a survival instinct. Yes, it's sexist in the sense that people get discriminated by sex, but it's logical, isn't it?Not really, because it implies that humanity should survive and that we should continue to spread our genes around and continue our families, which isn't logical at all--that is an entirely EMOTIONAL response. I could budge if you had said it was rational in that we understand this is an emotional response and cater to that 'instinct' knowing there isn't really a logical basis for such beliefs, but yeah
I hope that being an honors student in college is worth itNot sure if you're joking here or not, but if you're just going for a bachelor's degree, then no, it's not worth it. I took honors courses all through K-12 school, and when I got to college, I asked my counselors what the benefit of taking honors courses was. Here's the response I got:
anyone who has made this decision... thoughts?
how so? children first is survival. women have nothing to do with that.Well, the instinctive reason is that few men can impregnate many women. Not very relevant today, seen as how there's no such thing as polygamy anymore, but there's still the issue of the woman being seen as the superior parent for the child.
Well, the instinctive reason is that few men can impregnate many women. Not very relevant today, seen as how there's no such thing as polygamy anymore, but there's still the issue of the woman being seen as the superior parent for the child.
why is it being a dick though? Am i being a dick for being careless and referring humanity as "men"?I'm a Communication Studies major, and one of the major emphases on feminism is that language is created by those in power (men), and so women, who apparently think differently, struggle with the language. It's like there aren't certain words for things they think, so they don't know how to say what they feel.
its so goddamn silly. i mean, i guess its ok if people want to use it but anyone who thinks that language is INHERENTLY SEXIST is a dumbass. words are given meaning by ther context, not their other way around.
why is it being a dick though? Am i being a dick for being careless and referring humanity as "men"?
its so goddamn silly. i mean, i guess its ok if people want to use it but anyone who thinks that language is INHERENTLY SEXIST is a dumbass. words are given meaning by ther context, not their other way around.
I'm a Communication Studies major, and one of the major emphases on feminism is that language is created by those in power (men), and so women, who apparently think differently, struggle with the language. It's like there aren't certain words for things they think, so they don't know how to say what they feel.
Since I'm a dude, I can't really say whether this is true or not. But if it's true, then language is indeed INHERENTLY SEXIST.
Feminist theories are really fascinating. They've got some really good ideas, but the only way they could ever be implemented is if the dominantly male structure is broken down, which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
Anyway, I'd like to go back and tell all of my teachers that I haven't amounted to anything. Many of them said I had a bright future ahead of me.
well hey at least this isnt europe where half the languages have grammatical genderAlso, in Spanish the nouns are either male or female. Oh, and guess what? The male noun takes dominance when the noun is plural and includes male/female.
Hey guys let's change a language because it's sexist. Man these languages have been around for longer than long and it's more TRADITION than anything else really that they should be kept as such. Of course languages evolve and such but, come on, no one's going to decide to remove all gender-related pronouns and nouns and stuff in Spanish (i.e. everything!) because of some claims that they're sexist.I'm still unsure what I think of the changing language thing, but keeping things the way they are because "they've always been that way" is the stupidest reason to keep things the way they are. This is why the US still uses the electoral college process for voting even though it makes no sense, and why cars are still running on fossil fuels, and why republicans exist.
Hey guys let's change a language because it's sexist. Man these languages have been around for longer than long and it's more TRADITION than anything else really that they should be kept as such. Of course languages evolve and such but, come on, no one's going to decide to remove all gender-related pronouns and nouns and stuff in Spanish (i.e. everything!) because of some claims that they're sexist.
I'm a Communication Studies major, together with one of the major emphases on feminism is that language is created by those in power (men), together with so women, who apparently think differently, struggle with the language. It's like there aren't certain words for things they think, so they don't know in what manner or way to say what they feel.