This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 209210211 212213 ... 251
6301
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:47:15 PM »
If a Mexican cartel leader wants to run for US president - let him. It's not like he could win.
>Cartel member runs
>puts a hit on all other candidates
>no one else runs
>wins by default
You can't have a presidential candidate running unopposed. People will not vote for that person.
6302
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:35:48 PM »
If a Mexican cartel leader wants to run for US president - let him. It's not like he could win.
6303
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:31:54 PM »
I didn't know Obummer was into ladyboys
6304
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:27:22 PM »
Is there any indication that women commit crimes as equally often as men do?
6305
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:08:23 PM »
We already have a president that wasn't born in this country.
Can't be bothered to read the whole OP, I see...
6306
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:07:12 PM »
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.
It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?
He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
Nobody sees anything, regardless of their faith.
Then the assertion is totally off. Because it is saying the skeptic sees more of God.
If God isn't real, HOW can they see more of something nonexistent?
Exactly. It doesn't follow. The religious see more of God than the skeptic, for one by simply believing he exists.
That's a start. Anything on top of that, just increases their lead over the skeptic. If anything, the analogy should be flipped; skeptics see a pillar, rope, etc, whereas the religious man sees an elephant. Even then it's still a bad analogy.
6307
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:59:01 PM »
It's probably some fancy moisturizer lotion or something.
2fancy$4me
6308
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:58:09 PM »
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.
It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?
He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
Nobody sees anything, regardless of their faith.
6309
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM »
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.
6310
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:35:05 PM »
P.S: No, this is not an invitation for certain members to claim Obama was born in Kenya.
But have you even seen that Fox news report where they prove his birth certificate is a fake???
*sigh*
Yes, Grandma...
6311
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:11:00 AM »
Is there a "play it for the plot" version of /r/watchitfortheplot?
6312
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:00:41 AM »
If a person holds that countries citizenship then yeah they should be able to run for office. I'd be okay with that if it was a minimum of 15 years or something.
6313
« on: October 15, 2014, 10:59:04 AM »
So we don't have some Keny—- P.S: No, this is not an invitation for certain members to claim Obama was born in Kenya. ...oh
6314
« on: October 15, 2014, 10:06:18 AM »
Common Core is trying to get kids to think about math differently than their parents' generation. Not really. All the same methods are used as before, now they're just asking more questions. Instead of saying "solve 427-316" they're asking the student to find where Jack went wrong, which is a degree more challenging than the former. Truth be told, we won't know whether it's made a positive or negative impact until these kids are going into college and the work force. This is true. I find it bollocks because I don't get the methods used. Are we still talking about the number line? Because implementing a number line unnecessarily isn't part of the Common Core guidelines. I'm not even sure what Common Core has to do with the picture in the OP. I'd wager that the Frustrated Parent is just a butthurt conservative trying to blame liberals for something.
6315
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:18:18 PM »
Possibly more concerning is: how are some of these people becoming the ones to represent us?
Because young people, by and large, don't vote. They could swing elections, but don't.
6316
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:19:37 PM »
It's better than what we have.
What you guys need isn't a more convoluted method, what you need is to start increasing the difficulty and raise expectations. artificial difficulty just causes more problems.
What the fuck do you think Common Core is?
you aren't challenging a mind when you resort to simple things like number lines
Common Core isn't about replacing traditional math with a useless number line. It's not making things needlessly difficult. Nothing in the guidelines suggest removing traditional methods. OP's post just happened to include a number line, which we all know are stupid. Number lines existed before Common Core, and will continue to after.
6317
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:06:19 PM »
6318
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:04:04 PM »
It's better than what we have.
What you guys need isn't a more convoluted method, what you need is to start increasing the difficulty and raise expectations. artificial difficulty just causes more problems.
What the fuck do you think Common Core is?
6319
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:56:20 PM »
Wait wait wait
You're complaining about American standards dropping, which they aren't, when you went to school in Canada, which had higher standards to begin with?
So what you're saying is that your standards AREN'T that high to begin with, and yet you're allowing this garbage in your education system? what the frack dude, you americans must REALLY be stupid then if common core is an improvement.
No. What we're saying is that Canadian education standards have exceeded the US's for quite some time. Saying that the US's implementation of CC is lowering standards is false. Just because the standards in Canada are higher than the US doesn't mean ours are getting worse.
fine, but seriously, US needs to pick up the pace
I don't disagree , and common core isn't the answer you need. It's better than what we have.
6320
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:32:10 PM »
 lol
6321
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:58:00 PM »
Wait wait wait
You're complaining about American standards dropping, which they aren't, when you went to school in Canada, which had higher standards to begin with?
So what you're saying is that your standards AREN'T that high to begin with, and yet you're allowing this garbage in your education system? what the frack dude, you americans must REALLY be stupid then if common core is an improvement.
No. What we're saying is that Canadian education standards have exceeded the US's for quite some time. Saying that the US's implementation of CC is lowering standards is false. Just because the standards in Canada are higher than the US doesn't mean ours are getting worse.
6322
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:25:43 PM »
6324
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:12:17 PM »
specialized degrees
>clicks link
>are actually apprenticeships
gg
It's even in the URL...
6325
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:07:29 PM »
Common core is making children dumber.
And yet Kentucky showed an increase in high school graduation from 80pc to 86pc over the course of three years.
Y'know, for people willing to (rightly) attack the one-size-fits-all approach, you really are all too willing to use a one-size-fits-all criticism.
the reason graduation is going up is because of these lowered standards, built by idiots for idiots, so that smart people who WANT to learn and succeed can be held back. you don't seem to understand the concept so let me spell it out for you.
Common core lowers standards and allows dumber people to pass on instead of fracking learning the shit they need to learn for the real world. those 6% that are now passing are passing because of lowered standards, and allowing dumbasses who don't know the material to just go on through.
Which standards and measurements are lowered under Common Core?
In common core it takes you until grade 5 to learn about brackets and basic double/triple digit division. when I was in elementary we were learning about basic double digit division in grade 3, and we were learning basic algebra in grades 5-7. this is proof that the standards are lowered, and the retarded number lines that we discarded in kindergarten are being used beyond grade 3 for frack's sake!
Source? I haven't seen this before.
6326
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:06:46 PM »
I think at this point it's time to actually talk about what's going on.
Common Core focuses less on the answer, and more on the logic and reasoning behind why the answer is what it is [or in this case, why the answer is wrong]
With CC, you see more questions about explaining instead of just providing the answer to a math question, or a question about a passage you just read.
In OP's example, not only does the student need to know the correct answer, but they also have to know why Jack's answer is incorrect.
This has nothing to do with number line bullshit.
6327
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:57:50 PM »
Common core is making children dumber.
And yet Kentucky showed an increase in high school graduation from 80pc to 86pc over the course of three years.
Y'know, for people willing to (rightly) attack the one-size-fits-all approach, you really are all too willing to use a one-size-fits-all criticism.
the reason graduation is going up is because of these lowered standards, built by idiots for idiots, so that smart people who WANT to learn and succeed can be held back. you don't seem to understand the concept so let me spell it out for you.
Common core lowers standards and allows dumber people to pass on instead of fracking learning the shit they need to learn for the real world. those 6% that are now passing are passing because of lowered standards, and allowing dumbasses who don't know the material to just go on through.
Which standards and measurements are lowered under Common Core?
6328
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:19:21 PM »
So, I think we can all agree that this parent didn't destroy common core at all.
Nope. This parent completely destroyed it.
Common core is making children dumber.
Did you even read the problem? Jack got the wrong answer. The correct answer is 111. The problem is to explain why he is wrong.
6329
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:06:03 PM »
So, I think we can all agree that this parent didn't destroy common core at all.
6330
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:55:42 PM »
telling about creationism gives another view and refrains from making education a one-sided concept. Education is a one-sided concept because there is only one side - facts.
We don't teach numerology, astrology, or phrenology for a reason.
A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. So you're partially correct when science teaches facts, but science is the general consensus on a subject and can possibly be disproved with more research in the future
But Creationism is not science. Period. Saying that teaching creationism will make people dumber is kinda redundant. Brazil forbids the teaching of evolution but still ranks lower than American science courses. On the other hand you have Germany which discusses creationism and it's education is ranked far higher than America's
Correlation/causation.
Pages: 1 ... 209210211 212213 ... 251
|
Show Posts
