Carborendum

I'm never going to let my grandchildren starve.

I'm planning on harvesting a bunch-o-watermelons. But that may not happen... I've been so busy lately that I haven't had proper time to tend to the garden. So, I may be lucky to get just one melon from each plant. I've had two die on me. So, that leaves 6 plants remaining. If I get 6, I guess I'll be happy. But it's a shame I didn't have proper preps to do more.

Milliseconds is an indication of bias? A time frame so small that it is imperceptible to the human mind? That implies bias? So, there's no way that it could be explained by any other mental gymanstics like trying to figure out the new format when they switch things around? Or how about the fact that I did the Blacks vs Whites test AFTER the Asians vs Whites? So, my fingers were that much more tired than the first test which cost me milliseconds of time in response? No, I'm sticking with: it was a stupid test.

This is one example. Is it the typical? I think not. I disagree. I've had many examples otherwise. And when the NEA, itself, is pushing this agenda, I don't know how much power individual teachers have to do otherwise. I can give you an example of something completely ideologically neutral: Freshman high school English class. The teacher was telling us This is perfectly correct, right. But then she used an example. I disagreed and told her the correct usage, and explained why. I'll paraphrase her response: No discussion. "My way or the highway." And you know what the other students' response was? Whether individual teachers allow it or not, this is how the students were conditioned. Regardless of the teachers, the "system" is designed to make children obedient (non-thinking) individuals. They're "trained" to be either a factory worker or a STEM person. Leaders and thinkers, movers and shakers are anomalies or they come through other modes of schooling. Now, on the flip side: I have raved many times about my OTHER English teacher. He openly had discussions about the meaning of various books, short stories, poems, etc. And if anyone said something he "disagreed with" he's simply ask, "How so?" And we had an opportunity to make an argument. And he was very receptive. But this was a minority example. Most of the teachers were "my way or the highway" kind of people. And my school district was considered a very high quality one.

HYG, https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/03/15/lawsuit-biracial-high-school-student-receives-failing-grade-in-sociology-class-after-refusing-to-attach-aspects-of-identity-to-oppression-and-dominance/ Where is the "open discussion" here? All public schools are based on the premise: either you do as the teacher says or you receive a failing grade. This is fine for things that are settled as fact (math). But when you're talking about requiring someone to "admit to their oppression and dominance" or fail the class, that is indoctrination.

I'm all out of love for you, man.

Further discussion: Correct: CRT (The legal theory discussed/defined earlier) is not taught in primary or secondary education. It is a legal theory taught in law schools as a method of analysis. Culture warriors are labeling ANY discussion of racism (etc.) as CRT. These are the same culture warriors who cry out about discrimination and white people are inherently evil. Incorrect implication: She implies that it is the parents of children who are objecting to what the schools are doing as the initiators of this false label. Nope, the liberal activists started using the label for such broad usage until it caught on. Now, that is the common language term to use. The legal language will probably still be used in law school. But this is the common language usage now. Consider: If she's perfectly openly correct in every way, will the requested bans affect anything?

I said this had happened a couple of years ago and no one believed me. But apparently, that was only the beginning of the case. It was decided just last month. (or it could have been a separate case). https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=4b0b5653-b3ae-4689-9a9d-1367516012d4&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=bba57f77-3765-4361-aacb-df368800ec01 This is a mighty fine line. I wonder which side of that fine line that this case lies. The Muslim couple signed some paperwork that is common in Muslim marriages. One point of contention is that it is very common to sign two copies of the same marital agreement. Unfortunately, the husband (to be) decided to slip in a pre-nuptial agreement (in lieu of the second copy) which stated that a divorce would be handled through a 3-Imam panel of arbiters which considers a woman's testimony as "half" the weight of a man's. The wife claims she was hoodwinked into the pre-nup since she believed it to be the customary second copy of the agreement. The judge refused to listen to the wife's testimony and summarily decided to send the case to the Islamic court for arbitration. For those who speak legalese (ahem -JAG -) I probably didn't use the word "summarily" quite right here. But it's close.

Today's options for homeschooling are greater than they've ever been before. You could literally get the equivalent of a high school level education with just Youtube alone. And that's just ONE website. For college level education, there are some caveats. Most subjects are taught on Youtube. But to really get that equivalent education, there are some things that require practice, submission, correction, commentary, discussion, etc. And that requires real-person interaction. I was fortunate enough that I basically had college prep courses throughout my jr. high and high school levels. We had classes that went through all that. But for what passes as a high school diploma (even back in the stone age when I graduated high school) really didn't require all that. Unless you find that one hermit family in the middle of the deserts of West Texas who has no internet, there is no real argument that says that people can't get a high school level education on their own.

I didn't hesitate on any of the answers. So, unless they are counting microseconds, I don't see how there could be any difference. And if they are counting microseconds, I'd say that's a pretty stupid test. Oh, wait, I already did.

I see the vision of the Iron Rod as an apt metaphor. But it is prone to being incorrectly applied. The nature of the rod is that there is only one way to get to the Tree of Life. And you need to hold fast to that one way. The thing that people don't consider is that the rod can START and any location. It need only END at the Tree. As long as you can grab hold of the rod from where you are, you make strides either towards or away from the tree. Notice that from wherever you are, only ONE direction will take you toward the tree. All others deviate from that path. If certain people start in the same place, then they will need to take the same path to get to the tree. Since most people start at different locations, they will necessarily go in a different compass direction to reach the same location.

Given the simple dictionary definitions of the words, I'd think it is pretty obvious that most people have some implicit bias. Biases are part of the human mindset when one learns. You can't escape it without being an ignoramus. But we learn to control such to a minimal level based on our personal experiences and education. Notice, that this is very human tendency is not isolated to any particular race, and is not isolated to the issue of racism. We have biases against foods, music, clothing, professions, religions, etc. The problem with such a statement is that it is often accompanied by outlandish statements such as "only white people can have implicit bias." Or how about, "Implicit bias makes you a bad person." Like so many things... it depends. I took a test about Asians vs Whites. I apparently had no implicit bias. I thought it was pretty stupid. I took a test about Blacks and Whites. I had a "slight" bias towards blacks. I thought that was pretty stupid. I don't see how the results were different since I got all the associations correct, just like for the Asian test.

Well, when you pulled the lipstick on a pig thing, it got me wondering, what is the mirror image of that? Making something quite innocent (and in some ways good) "sound" horrible?... Making a mountain out of a molehill -- too cliche'd and just misses the flavor test. But "pulling a Harold Hill" by making a pool table to be so horrible that its mere presence will corrupt out kids. All done to line a the pockets of a con-artist? Yup. When the idea of public schools were first instituted, the intent was innocent enough. And the utilization of such was a hallmark of what increased the ability of many people in this country to make America the industrial powerhouse it was always going to be. But that same power, now wielded by those who only seek to enrich themselves, is going to be the means by which yet another jenga piece is removed from the towering superpower that is America. (Wow, that sounded really inspiring and dramatic. It should go in a speech somewhere) A tool may be great. But what that tool is used for is quite a different question.

And who says homeschoolers don't do that? Where are you getting this idea that homeschoolers are "sheltering" rather than "protecting and nurturing"? Yes, a characterization. But it is one that you seem to have a distorted opinion of. It's like pulling a Harold Hill. Most homeschoolers I know have no problem with bringing up controversial topics. But they are controlled by the parents. It is really a question of parents' rights. Do we or do we not have a right to provide an ideology for our children? I'm not sure if you ever heard my struggle with accepting homeschooling. I hope you have. But it was not an easy sell for me. It was easy to discuss it in the theoretical. But when reality hit, I knew there were certain limits for ALL the same arguments you're making now, that I made back then. And today's schools are far beyond that line for me and mine. BTW, it is not just about one argument. It is about 13 years of arguments all tilted the same way.

I'd agree in principle. But in practical application (for this context) that is asking too much. Do you really expect a child of any age to hold his own against a teacher who has been practicing the arguments for 10, to 20 years? That ain't a fair fight -- especially with such a power imbalance.

Sorry, I didn't answer your first question. The difference between indoctrination vs education is the difference between opinion and facts. Only through dishonesty, misinformation, and disinformation can the two be conflated. When we are in the realm of opinions, ideologies, etc. I want to be in charge of my children's indoctrination. That is part of my right as a parent. And, this is what that man in my OP was really trying to say. But he didn't understand the contradiction in his own position.

And that's the argument that's always made, isn't it? What is considered a "settled" idea? What is "open for interpretation"? Not only that, but recently a MATH CLASS had a word problem about a transgendered boy wanting to calculate the number of tampons required for a day based on flow rate. Yup, a perfectly valid mathematical question. And it has a useful application (for all those who menstruate). But throw the transgendered boy issue in there and all of a sudden there's indoctrination.

Bruce R. McConkie. M. Russell Ballard.

I think that's a bad idea too. I welcome the exposure to differing ideas. What I cannot accept is the forced indoctrination of a differing idea. When you get an adult in front of the class room saying "this is the way things are" and the kids are supposed to parrot that, there is no open discussion about anything. The public school system is set up in such a manner that the teachers have all the power. There is no open debate about 2+2 = 4. The teacher says. The student accepts. When it comes to more esoteric topics like philosophy, there isn't much difference. You're thinking in terms of replacing public school with a substitute public school model that isn't publicly funded. I'm talking about a completely different way to teach and learn. https://www.amazon.com/Carry-Mr-Bowditch-Jean-Latham/dp/0618250743/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Carry+On+Mr+Bowditch&qid=1625596833&sr=8-1 That is spoken like a person who has never had any experience with homeschool. There is a difference between opening up the Communist Manifesto and Antifa website for educational purposes vs telling them that Communism is superior -- and they had better agree or they'll flunk that class. The myth that people believe about homeschool is that ALL the education a child gets is from one (or possibly two) parent(s). The vast majority of parents don't do the teaching. They get books and curricula to allow the child to explore many topics on their own -- many of which the parents may not have ever learned themselves. That kind of opportunity would never be had in a public school (nor most private schools).

Correct: CRT was supposed to be taught as a legal theory in the collegiate level among law students. It was never meant to be taught at a lower level as historical/political fact. Incorrect: It is your (schools) job to teach math and science. It is our (parents/family) job to teach them about life. The simple fact is that Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, history, etc. CANNOT adequately be taught without also teaching about life. It is never about a "school" (worth its name) teaching academics without also teaching values. It is only a question of "which" values are going to be taught. We don't object to values being taught in schools. We object to values we disagree with being taught in schools. This is true from whatever background one may come from. But if we give in to one person's request for values being met, then another person loses. There is no win-win in a system like this. The contradiction here is: 1) We have expectations that "the government" is in charge of paying for that education. 2) We expect to be in charge of what value system will be taught. You can't have both. Either you pay for it, or someone else will decide what to teach your children about life.

People think that racism is only a modern, western phenomenon? They've never really looked at the orient, have they?

I was teaching my son to drive in an empty parking lot. A lady came up to us and asked for help. The holiday weekend made for a perfect chance to spend a lot of time trying to help people and I thought it would be great to help someone in need. She told us that her truck had run out of gas. She had a gas can, but she couldn't walk all the way to the gas station. My reaction was: "Great, we'll go to your truck and we can take you and the can to the nearest station." Her: "No, I wasn't asking for a ride. I just need help with paying for the gas." Me: Sure, no problem, I can certainly fill up the can for you. Her: Thank you so much. Just a couple of dollars will probably do it. Me: Ok, get in and we'll go to the truck to pick up the can. Her: No I don't need a ride. I just need some help. At this point any other person would have gotten the fact that she just made up the story to get some quick cash off of an easy mark. But I was still thinking that she didn't understand that I was willing to drive to the station with the can and fill up the can on my credit card. So I tried several times to explain that to her. She didn't really understand that. But she understood that I was going to give her a ride... somehow. She eventually got in and she had trouble telling me where her truck was. She said it was south. Then she said it was west. Then she said it was north. She had a call on her cell phone from her "uncle". She had a "conversation" where she learned that her uncle already had a full can of gas. He was on his way to the truck to fill it up. Then her story changed since I was driving her to the truck. Now I needed to drive her to her uncle's house to pick up the can. When we got there, she asked for cash again to pay the uncle for the gas. I told her that I didn't have any cash. I was going to take her to the station and fill it up on my credit card. Then she added to the story: Two gallons of gas (the size of the can) wouldn't be enough to get her where she is going. I said that I could fill the entire truck the help her getting where she needed to go. She went in to "talk to her uncle". He refused to give her the can without money. So, she first heard that he was already on the way to her truck with it. Now he can't let her have the can without cash. I told her that I could still take her to the truck and get it filled up. She decided it wasn't worth it. Instead, she asked if I could take her to some people selling food on the roadside. She was going to beg some food from them. All this time, she "had a little daughter waiting alone at the truck." I guess she forgot about her. The thing that really disappointed me was not just that she was trying to pull one over on me. It was that I was really excited to help someone in need. And she just wasted my time.

IDEALLY: We always seek perfection. We always want to do our best. We don't want to cut corners. We want to make a quality product. We want to receive a quality product. REALITY: Products and workmanship must consider a cost-to-benefits ratio. We need to consider the "likelihood" of adverse scenarios. We as professionals need to consider what would be a more desirable product in the long run when the issues are too complex for the lay person to understand. EXAMPLE: In my profession there is no such thing as "a perfect product". There is just a gradual increase in quality for the gradual increase in cost. But this is not a linear relationship. There is a point of diminishing returns where a tremendous increase in cost will only return a small increase in quality. For the following example, I'm not saying any claims are true (I don't believe they are) and I'm shifting some numbers for illustration purposes. The "Life Straw" purports to remove 99.9999% of all microorganisms from the water. It costs about $20. A reverse osmosis system requiring pumped water will remove 99.99999% (one more 9 than the life straw) of all microorganisms from the water. It costs about $2000. Congress was making appropriations for humanitarian aid in foreign countries for water quality. They decided that the extra 9 was worth a 100x increase in cost. Uh, yeah... no. (true story).

I'm going to guess his first initial was a T and was a Gators fan?