No. I think there is more evidence for Special Creation than for Evolutionism. But neither one is justified by evidence alone. Both are primarily philosophical/religious ideas, not science-based ideas.

(As an aside, I'm not sure why I italicized SIX words in the above paragraph. )

I agree. But it's also possible that some things absolutely are perverse. I assume everyone in this forum would agree that engaging in pedophilia is wicked and perverse.*

*My assumption might be wrong, the more I think about it.

Whether or not we are all made of 14 billion year old slightly electrified stardust, or if Jesus rode on the back of a velociraptor on his way to layeth the smackdown on the heathens at the temple, I think we can all agree that remote learning sucks and children need actual peer interaction to not end up being weird.

Also, no phones until you're 16 at a minimum.

The TV may not have rotted the brains of all the 80s babies, but modern social media and popular apps are not just your average Saturday morning cartoons. ****'s scary, yo.

the new cartoons suck indeed.

I strongly agree with this. All kids are different, and I'm sure homeschooling works well for a few kids, but regular school is surely a better option for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And homeschooling your kids to shield them is ridiculous. That goes one of two ways. Either you homeschool your kids but otherwise allow them to lead normal lives (in which case they will learn everything the internet has to teach them about buttplugs, school shootings, ketamine, or whatever else lagtight is worried about), or you restrict their information so much that they end up unprepared for the adult world.

I remember when North America was colonized , by Catholics nonetheless, many woman were married before 18 ……

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marr..._United_States
“The minimum marriage age was 12 years for females and 14 years for males under English civil law until 1753.”

So when I hear today don’t teach sex at school o0 …..

Gotta replace the population before everyone dies of dysentery by 29.

Times change.

The 12 year olds are still banging in the school bathrooms, if that makes you feel better.

So let them bang without teaching them is better right ?
Regardless the point was about pervers and pedophilia !
Yes time changes and the definition of perverse can easily differentiate depending which culture u belong to or what timeline u end up be in .

So when lagtight talks about indoctrination at school being a problem about what HE believe it is , it has a very narrow definition on what could be pass as perverse or other problem HE BELiEVE to be a problem because his Indoctrinated himself …..

My example was to show the world isn’t as binary as the bible says it is …..
That is what usually public school
Teach , diversity .

Wow, you're older than I thought!


In my opinion, parents (rather than some weirdo public school sex-ed teacher*) should teach their kids about sex certainly before the age of 12.

As an aside, I wonder if the percentage of pervert sex-ed teachers is higher or lower than the percentage of pervert priests in the Catholic Church? I suspect there isn't much difference, but who knows?

*How come "Health Ed" teachers almost always seemed creepy to me? Anybody else have this same feeling? Wouldn't surprise me a bit if at least half of them were pedophiles.

As long as the kids are doing it without wearing a MAGA hat, I suspect the school will be fine with it. The poor little tykes might be scarred for life if an adult insists that they not engage in such behavior.

this is a common trope

they don't see it as a paradox/contradiction because they don't pretend like money should go to public schools like those two-faced liberals who want the town to raise taxes for the local school that they'd never send their children to

i've been to both an elite new england boarding school (and the college with the wealthiest student body in the country) and a nondescript rural public school

the only noticeable difference is the student body - the school itself is mostly the same, in fact, the best teachers I ever had were at public schools

but being around kids who intend to go to college and start a law firm like their dad did is going to be a wildly more enriching experience than being around kids who plan on joining and one day taking over their dad's landscaping business

colleges were no different i did a semester at American University as a DC semester program and didn't notice any real difference despite that AU would have been a safety school for me, I doubt I had a much better education than someone who went to a state school or lower ranked private one like AU etc, but my college had a very unique culture and it was always weird during that semester as well visting friends at other schools and noticing all the differences unless their school also had a fairly affluent student body - i didn't grow up affluent but had been around that culture for so long it's what was normal for me at that point

I attended two different state colleges and a community college. Overall, the best teachers I had were for sure at the community college.

I’ve been to two community colleges and two private schools. Private schools had the better teachers.

size of classes is a huge factor i forgot to mention, all my classes in hs and college were people sitting around a big wooden desk and having discussion, my college had a rule that no class could be over 25 students

there's definitely something to be said about that and found myself so out of place at AU sitting in on a class that was all lecture and over a hundred kids in attendance

By and large, people do not choose schools based on assessments of how good the teachers are. They choose schools based on their perception of how strong the students at the school are.

Makes sense.

I graduated w honors in top 7% of my class with no knowledge of mao. No knowledge of hitler or even Vietnam. Let that sink in. Two years of foreign language required. I didn’t learn a lick of Spanish. 2 weeks a year of grammar. Looooolll. Public school is an effing joke

It does make sense

i never took a single class that taught anything on either mao nor hitler as well in high school and this was an elite boarding school - not even sure they even offered any classes that would have covered that era

my 7th grade social studies class in public school did focus heavily on the holocaust though - but that was at a public school

also know plenty of kids who took spanish for two years and also couldn't speak a word of it as well

In my experience in the old days, history was taught in a very linear way. Classes began with year X, and you got through as much material as you got through. Unsurprisingly, classes often got behind, which resulted in more contemporary history getting short shrift.

besides, if kids studied mao and hitler they could learn some dangerous nuances about life instead of just repeating that they were evil men and communism/fascism are bad

Foreign language learning from school to high school in the USA is predicated on the idea that studying grammar rules some hours a week will magically help you to achieve even mediocre goals, like having a basic conversation in French or Spanish. Obviously that isn't the case for most people; teaching methods are as antiquated as one can imagine. According to the Foreign Service Institute Romance languages require on average 600/700 hours to reach a good/acceptable level. I don't know how this ''problem'' could be solved, but analyzing the methods used in Nordic countries and later implement them in the USA would be the way to go. I used quotation marks before since I don't think this is actually a problem at all in English speaking countries. We should shift away from the paradigm that knowing some French -or any other foreign language- will be somehow helpful in your adult life. If it depended on me, I would encourage people to learn a second language but I don't really see the use of wasting school hours that could be used for more useful subjects. If you want to learn another language you must have a truly compelling motive or you will fail big time.
Interesting read: https://www.fsi-language-courses.org...ge-difficulty/

Anyone following the Stanford Law School "Free Speech" episode?

Pretty wild stuff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...umbles-on.html

Cliffs:

--Conservative student group invites Conservative Federal Circuit Judge to give a speech on a matter completely unrelated to LGBTQ issues.
--Judge is unable to give speech because he is being heckled the whole time, ostensibly for past LGBTQ related rulings.
--Diversity dean takes the podium, ostensibly to quiet the hecklers. Instead she reads a prepared speech how the Judge's rulings have done harm and caused pain, making it obvious the entire Kabuki theatre was set up from the go.
--Judge continues to be heckled, until he is eventually escorted out by security.
--Stanford law school dean apologizes to the judge for the behavior of the dean and students.
--Stanford students are now protesting the law school dean for her apology.
--Stay tuned for more.


Needless to say, if this type of behavior becomes the norm for how the new breed of law students, and eventual lawyers, are going to conduct themselves, it isn't a great sign for the future of the law profession moving forward.

On the bright side, at least the hecklers didn't cause hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to the venue that the U.C. Berkeley mob did when Milo was scheduled to speak at that campus.

Stanford can boast that they have a classier Mob of Pea Brains than Berkeley has.

i'm just happy that the law students unlike you apparently, understand what "FREE SPEECH" is, and how this has nothing to do with free speech..