grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:14:44 GMT -5
I still stand by my point that until you can fully prove all of the theory of evolution it is to be taught as evolution and not fact. If it is taught as fact, what would inspire a scientist to try and prove what happened? Maybe, Darwin is totally wrong. Maybe, it happened another way. Once scientists accept something as fact, they tend to forever fight changing it. It is like when a scientist studied the fossilized remains of a tyrannosaurus rex. They determined that from the shape of the teeth, and the way they were attached to the jaw, the tyrannosaurus rex was a herbivore. It was basically denied by the scientific community, and the topic was buried.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,547
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 12, 2013 23:14:55 GMT -5
i just had an interesting thought- not to do with any specific post. the word indoctrinate is interesting. the root is doctrine. critical thinking is non-doctrinal by definition, and therefore it cannot be something one is indoctrinated in, by definition. i think..... ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) I don't even believe critical thinking can be taught to any significant extent, so you're asking the wrong person. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) i don't think i was asking.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:16:24 GMT -5
What happens in those meetings, and what become reality are two different things. It seems to be something which some of you cannot grasp. I am going to bed. I sure this thread will rage on long after we are all dead from old age.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,547
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 12, 2013 23:17:02 GMT -5
truly. clearly what is important to Howard Zinn is completely different than what is important to the Texas GOP. As a true scientist, I studied evolution as the theory that it was presented as being. Until all steps of the evolution can be proven with factual evidence, it cannot be accepted for anything but a theory. A truly analytical mind would require that all steps be proven with facts, and that nothing was left to chance. Teaching it as a theory is one thing, teaching it as a proven fact is an altogether different matter. it is, however, a VERY strong theory, even without all of the "intermediates". studies in the formation of bacteria and disease should provide all of the evidence that one needs to provide a robust modern proof, without having to worry about whether we were decended from rats for the moment.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:17:29 GMT -5
I don't even believe critical thinking can be taught to any significant extent, so you're asking the wrong person. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) i don't think i was asking. Want to go get a coke? I am sure we'll be blasted by someone for drinking empty calories but we can watch the cars go by.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:18:35 GMT -5
As a true scientist, I studied evolution as the theory that it was presented as being. Until all steps of the evolution can be proven with factual evidence, it cannot be accepted for anything but a theory. A truly analytical mind would require that all steps be proven with facts, and that nothing was left to chance. Teaching it as a theory is one thing, teaching it as a proven fact is an altogether different matter. it is, however, a VERY strong theory, even without all of the "intermediates". studies in the formation of bacteria and disease should provide all of the evidence that one needs to provide a robust modern proof, without having to worry about whether we were decended from rats for the moment. I did not say the theory was without any merit. I said until it is totally proven, it should be taught as a theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 7, 2024 14:57:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 23:19:54 GMT -5
Evolution is taught as a theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 7, 2024 14:57:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 23:20:16 GMT -5
A scientific theory I should say....
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,881
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 12, 2013 23:20:20 GMT -5
And yet other scientists disagreed and proved that one scientist wrong. That's how science works. You keep on trying to disprove your theories until you run out of them and you are left with Law.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,547
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 12, 2013 23:20:55 GMT -5
The scientific understanding of "theory" is basically fact. The lay understanding of "theory" is basically hypothesis. But, as a true scientist, you knew that already. It is a theory because it is a hypothesis that is supported by some facts. If you were a true scientist you would know that it is not 100% proven by facts. It still has some holes that they have not yet filled. When they do fill those holes, it will go from being a theory to fact. When/if it is finally proven at all levels, it should indeed be taught in the schools as fact. no theory need be 100% proven by facts. it need only stand up to refutations to remain viable. Newtonian mechanics was a viable and robust theory for many centuries before it was modified by Relativity. Relativity remained robust until Quantum theory challenged it. etc. Evolution is pretty durable by comparison.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,547
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 12, 2013 23:22:47 GMT -5
i don't think i was asking. Want to go get a coke? I am sure we'll be blasted by someone for drinking empty calories but we can watch the cars go by. i just finished a DIET Coke, if you want to talk about empty.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:23:29 GMT -5
It is a theory because it is a hypothesis that is supported by some facts. If you were a true scientist you would know that it is not 100% proven by facts. It still has some holes that they have not yet filled. When they do fill those holes, it will go from being a theory to fact. When/if it is finally proven at all levels, it should indeed be taught in the schools as fact. no theory need be 100% proven by facts. it need only stand up to refutations to remain viable. Newtonian mechanics was a viable and robust theory for many centuries before it was modified by Relativity. Relativity remained robust until Quantum theory challenged it. etc. Evolution is pretty durable by comparison. Evolution still has too many holes in it. They do not have the missing link or links to show the leap from one animal to mankind.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 12, 2013 23:25:45 GMT -5
Want to go get a coke? I am sure we'll be blasted by someone for drinking empty calories but we can watch the cars go by. i just finished a DIET Coke, if you want to talk about empty. Sometime in the last week, I read an article online that discussed a study that showed drinking one diet Coke a week increased the risk of diabetes by 33%. The article said it was worse than sugar sweetened Coke. I have to sign off. The guy who was supposed to call hasn't, and I am going to call him. One does what one must to help someone in need.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 12, 2013 23:44:19 GMT -5
I don't even believe critical thinking can be taught to any significant extent, so you're asking the wrong person. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) i don't think i was asking. I think you were and I think you think you were asking. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) The regulars on P&M are, by and large, better than average critical thinkers. Politics, current events, religious debates, etc., tend to attract a more critically-minded audience, and being able to participate in discussions effectively requires at least a modicum of current events knowledge, which itself requires some curiosity and research ability. I believe the majority of participants in this discussion are taking this fact for granted, and that this is indeed why so many are arguing that critical thinking is a teachable skill. The average P&Mer can think back to inspirational pedagogs or rousing lectures about the nature of critical thought, and, reminded of the feelings those things elicited, mistakenly come to believe that his/her reactions to them were somehow 'packaged' with the instruction rather than being intrinsic qualities of the self that were simply exposed. Was this the P&Mer being 'taught' critical thinking? Perhaps, in the sense that an accomplished pianist may have been 'taught' to play chopsticks on the piano, or the builder of the world's largest lego machine might have been 'taught' to stick a few lego bricks together. Perfunctory basics that are all but insignificant compared to the innate talent, passion, and hard work ultimately required to produce an accomplished pianist or lego champ. That is the sum of my argument. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 13, 2013 0:15:07 GMT -5
I regard critical thinking as a skill that can be developed to its greatest potential in the individual. You may look at that as a belief that it can be taught, or not. It makes no difference to me. I know it can be developed because I have developed and implemented programs to do so for nurses. I know what presented itself at the beginning of a development program, and I know what walked out at the end. That is the sum of my argument. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 13, 2013 0:39:16 GMT -5
I regard critical thinking as a skill that can be developed to its greatest potential in the individual. You may look at that as a belief that it can be taught, or not. It makes no difference to me. I know it can be developed because I have developed and implemented programs to do so for nurses. I know what presented itself at the beginning of a development program, and I know what walked out at the end. That is the sum of my argument. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png) I think your personal investment in the success of the programs presents a rather egregious conflict of interest. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png) Put more plainly: I don't disbelieve you, but I've met precious few individuals who didn't think they were competent teachers. My mother was a professor of education for 10 years until her retirement, and a teacher by profession in every imaginable situation and environment before that. She'd back me up on the issue. People who claim to be successful teachers outnumber actual successful teachers four-to-one. People who think they're successful teachers outnumber successful teachers six-to-one. Yes I know you could very well be that one. But in this instance, falling back to the blind improbability of it being the case is more conducive to my argument. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/charmed.png)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 13, 2013 1:57:25 GMT -5
And, of course, what is most conducive to your argument is, ipso facto, the proper course of action in any and all circumstances. What your mother was does not reflect in any profound way on what you are, Virgil. Frankly, during your tender years (and comparatively) you've met precious few individuals. You'll meet many more on your way to your seventh decade. There may even be a surprise, or two, along the way. It's been known to happen ... the young learn that which they thought they knew over the course of time. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) On my part, no conflict of interest, at all. We saw a need, we worked together to supply the necessary elements to fill that need. Fortunately, our efforts proved successful. We didn't find it necessary to guess. We could observe it.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 13, 2013 2:59:29 GMT -5
If I'm a teacher, and a kid comes to me and says "I think I have feelings for other boys, what should I do?" How should I, as a teacher respond?
I think the only thing you can say is "talk to your parents about it." How is a teacher or any school offical supposed to know if the kid is gay or not gay, or what they should do, if anything about it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 13, 2013 3:47:27 GMT -5
And, of course, what is most conducive to your argument is, ipso facto, the proper course of action in any and all circumstances. I think you missed the satire in that last statement. Ah, but herein lies the flaw in your reasoning. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png) Indeed most would-be teachers do not fail to observe their students, nor do most fail to evaluate their students and obtain favourable results. However, most do fail to recognize what exactly was learned. To put it more simply: unless you know what you're doing (which typically implies you have some expertise in the field of education), it is almost a given that what you think your evaluations prove a student has learned does not equal (and oftentimes does not even resemble) what the student has actually learned. This is an extension of the "mmhmm principle" that states we can't know what other people are thinking. It turns out that even if we evaluate our students to the nth degree, it is an extremely complicated matter to construct instruments that will accurately determine what they've learned. In short, we "can't know what other learners are learning". Or more accurately, it is extremely difficult to do well. The claim you've made is that you were able to teach several people--grown pupils, even--to "think critically". That's a claim that few trained, certified, and accredited teachers would make, let alone a layperson. Without any information to go on, perhaps you'll agree that a critical thinker would take the claim with a rather hefty grain of salt. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wink2.gif)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2013 9:15:41 GMT -5
sounds like a joke, right? www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.htmlIn the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education: Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.” It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
hilarious send-up by Colbert, here:
www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/416535/july-17-2012/the-word---on-the-straight---narrow-minded
Actually, in rejecting "Outcome Based Education"- a philosophy and a program that has been a demonstrable failure; it's actually supporting critical thinking over New Age fluff that defines government run education today. Of course the fundamental problem is government run education. The idea that education should be part of any political party's platform itself perfectly describes / illustrates the problem. Parents in local communities should get together and decide how best to educate their children, and what should be taught. Let the chips fall where they may. The tens of thousands of micro labs will tell us what works without any input from state- let alone national political leadership. The government run school system is, for all intents and purposes, dead. This is really just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic by self-important politicians that are still trying desperately to pretend they matter, or are needed. We're fast developing into a two-tiered nation. We already have a two tiered health care system- those of us who pay and get what we want, and those that stand in a Soviet-style breadline and get abused by doctor's staff who basically function like postal workers. We have two tiered communities- which is really prevalent in Florida- down here, you live in a subdivision, or you live in the hood. The only in between is up north where it's still basically the southern US and there is more of a gradual change from nice areas to the hood. And now, we're entering two tiered education- those of us who pay and/or home school our kids and make sure they don't grow up complete fucking ignorant stooges of the state who graduate high school, go to "good" schools, and who get a job on CNN where they wonder if man-made global warming attracts asteroids from space.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,694
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2013 9:41:08 GMT -5
... Parents in local communities should get together and decide how best to educate their children, and what should be taught. Let the chips fall where they may. The tens of thousands of micro labs will tell us what works without any input from state- let alone national political leadership. ... Having "tens of thousands of micro labs will tell us" nothing. It would take longitudinal studies of the products of those labs to tell us what worked and what didn't. What has changed over the past 30 years is that the Federal Government has collected and published information on what is happening in regards to education in this country. The system was never significantly more or less effective than it is today. We just have better information.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 13, 2013 9:55:04 GMT -5
Can you point out what in science is 100% proven fact? Gravity is a theory... Germ theory, cell theory, relativity... Why is it only evolution people get spooky about? Evolution is as rigorous a theory as all the others... Not really. You can replicate the effects of gravity, germ theory, etc in a lab. Nobody has replicated life springing from nonliving things. And even if they could, proving what happened millions of years ago is a lot harder than proving things that happen every second, like gravity.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,938
|
Post by chiver78 on Feb 13, 2013 9:56:47 GMT -5
and many people figure out who they are as teens. others, when presented with intolerant or unfavorable adult opinions, may flounder as they try to align their view of themselves with the view that's been presented as the only acceptable option. if a teen goes to an adult and says that they think the might be gay, the last thing I would hope they would hear is Virgil's wavering reply, based on his own opinion of the teen's immediate safety. that teen might be perfectly safe, but with no guidance from his/her largely absentee parent who happens to share Virgil's views. what advice would he give said teen? I wouldn't bet money on the answer to that. How is my reply 'wavering'? If a student wanted my opinion of whether it's acceptable or not from a moral standpoint, I wouldn't mince words in stating that it certainly is not. If a student isn't interested in my views on the morality, simply on how to proceed, I'd express my firm belief that the student would benefit from his parents knowing, partly because they might provide him with guidance, partly because they might reason with him, and partly because they should know sooner than later so that the student isn't living a lie and creating a rift in his family as well as engaging in homosexual relationships. I'm accessible to that student for maybe a few years, with no personal stake in what happens to him. His parents, if they're anything close to normal, love him, want what's best for him, and will be there for him for decades to come. It is not unreasonable that I should defer to their judgment, because frankly my control over the situation is all but nonexistent. Call that 'wavering' if you want, but I stand by it. it wavers because you yourself said that you would alter your reply if you felt a child was in danger. in this sort of situation, your reply is supposed to guide the teen to finding their own answer, not provide your own moral/religious opinion.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,938
|
Post by chiver78 on Feb 13, 2013 9:58:23 GMT -5
and many people figure out who they are as teens. others, when presented with intolerant or unfavorable adult opinions, may flounder as they try to align their view of themselves with the view that's been presented as the only acceptable option. if a teen goes to an adult and says that they think the might be gay, the last thing I would hope they would hear is Virgil's wavering reply, based on his own opinion of the teen's immediate safety. that teen might be perfectly safe, but with no guidance from his/her largely absentee parent who happens to share Virgil's views. what advice would he give said teen? I wouldn't bet money on the answer to that. I don't believe it is the job of the schools to tell them what they are or are not. The school counselor can refer them to someone who is better equipped to handle the matter. I don't believe I said it was the school's job to tell the teen what they are. see my reply to Virgil, just above this one. the school counselor's job is to guide the teen to finding their own answer, not to give his/her own moral/religious opinion.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 13, 2013 10:03:25 GMT -5
And, of course, what is most conducive to your argument is, ipso facto, the proper course of action in any and all circumstances. I think you missed the satire in that last statement. Ah, but herein lies the flaw in your reasoning. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png) Indeed most would-be teachers do not fail to observe their students, nor do most fail to evaluate their students and obtain favourable results. However, most do fail to recognize what exactly was learned. To put it more simply: unless you know what you're doing (which typically implies you have some expertise in the field of education), it is almost a given that what you think your evaluations prove a student has learned does not equal (and oftentimes does not even resemble) what the student has actually learned. This is an extension of the "mmhmm principle" that states we can't know what other people are thinking. It turns out that even if we evaluate our students to the nth degree, it is an extremely complicated matter to construct instruments that will accurately determine what they've learned. In short, we "can't know what other learners are learning". Or more accurately, it is extremely difficult to do well. The claim you've made is that you were able to teach several people--grown pupils, even--to "think critically". That's a claim that few trained, certified, and accredited teachers would make, let alone a layperson. Without any information to go on, perhaps you'll agree that a critical thinker would take the claim with a rather hefty grain of salt. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wink2.gif) *chuckle* No. That's not the claim I made. The claim I made involved developing the skill of critical thinking, Virgil. The program development team included two very well-trained and highly experienced nurse educators. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 7, 2024 14:57:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2013 10:57:49 GMT -5
no theory need be 100% proven by facts. it need only stand up to refutations to remain viable. Newtonian mechanics was a viable and robust theory for many centuries before it was modified by Relativity. Relativity remained robust until Quantum theory challenged it. etc. Evolution is pretty durable by comparison. Evolution still has too many holes in it. They do not have the missing link or links to show the leap from one animal to mankind. ![](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n227/paklu_yy/archaeopteryx.jpg) Archaeopteryx is like literally the missing link. It sounds like you are more interested in the common ancester of modern humans and other species. We can piece together a lot of it from the fossil record. DNA teaches us a lot more. The Theory of Evolution is subtly different than our record of evolution. There aren't the big holes you are looking for in the theory. There are gaps in our knowledge about the actual record of events because there are so many species involved and not everybody has the courtesy to die in a pile of mud.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 13, 2013 11:25:50 GMT -5
Note to self: Have the courtesy to die in a pile of mud! Think! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 13, 2013 11:46:14 GMT -5
I regard critical thinking as a skill that can be developed to its greatest potential in the individual. You may look at that as a belief that it can be taught, or not. It makes no difference to me. I know it can be developed because I have developed and implemented programs to do so for nurses. I know what presented itself at the beginning of a development program, and I know what walked out at the end. That is the sum of my argument. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png) I agree with you that critical thinking can and should be taught in school, at the right time. But the fact of the matter is that if you have a bunch of lefties claiming to teach critical thinking, then the only views that will be challenged will be conservative ones, and critical thinking class can easily turn into "I'm telling you what to think not how to think" class. In my experience, liberals are more dogmatic than the Vatican when they get in power and folks in the education/social work field tend to be left leaning, so I have a hard time beleiving that critical thinking class in a public school will be anything other than liberal indoctination.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,881
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 13, 2013 11:53:02 GMT -5
Note to self: Have the courtesy to die in a pile of mud! Think! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png) With body spreadeagled, fingers splayed, and minus your tutu.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 13, 2013 12:50:50 GMT -5
Without my tutu!?! Can I wear my crystal earrings and lace-topped fishnet stockings, at least? Damn! Dying is getting to be a regular PITA! ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/angry2.png)
|
|