Where Did God Go?????

T B K wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

T B K wrote:Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Christians should.

Someone symultaneously spreading presents across the world is just as absurd as someone hearing millions of murmurs at the same time.

loltweenagers

Ya, joke's already been used, torn up, tossed out. And not sure what you mean by "murmurs",?

Prayers. I'm definitly sure some people pray out loud (or murmur).

But we don't beleive in a God that is physically(in the worldly sense of the word) in every room listening every minute. He is omnipotent, and He soes not live in the limits of time.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:Stereotyping and generalizing are essentially the same concept. Stop being retarded. I don't know what definition of a stereotype you have read, but the differences between a stereotype and a generalization are miniscule.
Regardless, whether you are stereotyping or generalizing, you are making a broad assumption about a group of people. Why debate this?

Considering your asinine decision to join this argument for the sole purpose of asserting your position on the nonexistant discrepancies between the words stereotype and generalize, I have concluded you are yet another weak-minded individual who is unaware of his own stupidity.

I told you the difference of a generalization and stereotypes. Read my marbles post.

ARE YOU STUPID? Your explained difference between generalizations and stereotypes is completely incorrect. You are incredibly dense.

generalize

5.	to form general principles, opinions, etc.

6.	to deal, think, or speak in generalities.

7.	to make general inferences.

stereotype

5.	to make a stereotype of.

6.	to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.

7.	to give a fixed form to.

straight from the dictionary. these support what i said in my post. and i'll ignore the rest of the little christian put-downs. but i will admit you are smarter than me, i think i remember you saying you are out of high school and went to a catholic HS. so yes, i would expect that you would be smarter than me.

fail

he goes to public school

i, however, go to a catholic school

Way to use the word in the definition. Yes I know you used it from the dictionary, but maybe you should not use a definition as faulty as that. Oh and are you stereotyping that kids from public schools get less of an education than kids from Catholic schools? I wouldn't say Catholic schools do anything different that public schools do besides a few small formalities.

SourWorms wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:Stereotyping and generalizing are essentially the same concept. Stop being retarded. I don't know what definition of a stereotype you have read, but the differences between a stereotype and a generalization are miniscule.
Regardless, whether you are stereotyping or generalizing, you are making a broad assumption about a group of people. Why debate this?

Considering your asinine decision to join this argument for the sole purpose of asserting your position on the nonexistant discrepancies between the words stereotype and generalize, I have concluded you are yet another weak-minded individual who is unaware of his own stupidity.

I told you the difference of a generalization and stereotypes. Read my marbles post.

ARE YOU STUPID? Your explained difference between generalizations and stereotypes is completely incorrect. You are incredibly dense.

generalize

5.	to form general principles, opinions, etc.

6.	to deal, think, or speak in generalities.

7.	to make general inferences.

stereotype

5.	to make a stereotype of.

6.	to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.

7.	to give a fixed form to.

straight from the dictionary. these support what i said in my post. and i'll ignore the rest of the little christian put-downs. but i will admit you are smarter than me, i think i remember you saying you are out of high school and went to a catholic HS. so yes, i would expect that you would be smarter than me.

fail

he goes to public school

i, however, go to a catholic school

Yes, going to a catholic school would make me smarter...

Good thing your definition of stereotype does nothing but use the word in a sentence, not to mention you picked the last, least-used variations of the definition.

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" --Einstein

SourWorms wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:Stereotyping and generalizing are essentially the same concept. Stop being retarded. I don't know what definition of a stereotype you have read, but the differences between a stereotype and a generalization are miniscule.
Regardless, whether you are stereotyping or generalizing, you are making a broad assumption about a group of people. Why debate this?

Considering your asinine decision to join this argument for the sole purpose of asserting your position on the nonexistant discrepancies between the words stereotype and generalize, I have concluded you are yet another weak-minded individual who is unaware of his own stupidity.

I told you the difference of a generalization and stereotypes. Read my marbles post.

ARE YOU STUPID? Your explained difference between generalizations and stereotypes is completely incorrect. You are incredibly dense.

generalize

5.	to form general principles, opinions, etc.

6.	to deal, think, or speak in generalities.

7.	to make general inferences.

stereotype

5.	to make a stereotype of.

6.	to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.

7.	to give a fixed form to.

straight from the dictionary. these support what i said in my post. and i'll ignore the rest of the little christian put-downs. but i will admit you are smarter than me, i think i remember you saying you are out of high school and went to a catholic HS. so yes, i would expect that you would be smarter than me.

fail

he goes to public school

i, however, go to a catholic school

My bad, I knew it was one of you.

CT Track wrote:Way to use the word in the definition. Yes I know you used it from the dictionary, but maybe you should not use a definition as faulty as that. Oh and are you stereotyping that kids from public schools get less of an education than kids from Catholic schools? I wouldn't say Catholic schools do anything different that public schools do besides a few small formalities.

That was from dictionary.com, i think. I don't know about where you live, but around here it definetly seems like Catholic schools have more money and better equipment. But, i didn't even mean it like that. Someone from a catholic school would be expected to know more about this topic then a public school kid.

Um, the catholics school around my area and in my conference are all piss poor because they depend on tuition, not funding from the state.

Someone from a catholic school would be expected to know more about this topic then a public school kid.

NOT what you said.

i think i remember you saying you are out of high school and went to a catholic HS. so yes, i would expect that you would be smarter than me.

CT Track wrote:Um, the catholics school around my area and in my conference are all piss poor because they depend on tuition, not funding from the state.

Looks like you need to get richer catholic people.

CT Track wrote:

Someone from a catholic school would be expected to know more about this topic then a public school kid.

NOT what you said.

i think i remember you saying you are out of high school and went to a catholic HS. so yes, i would expect that you would be smarter than me.

Eh, that's what I meant.

So now catholics are rich????

And money = better education????

CT Track wrote:And money = better education????

Well, if one school has horrible AC/heating, books from 1980, disgusting lunches, and teachers that are paid so little they don't even care, then yes, the students are at a disadvantage to students in a new, big school in a rich community.

^^^Well put. Pretty hard to argue against that point.

It's ignorant shit like that is why politicians have us wrapped around their finger. Obviously money is important and having 0 money spent on a school budget will fuck it up. Politicians believe they can solve problems with education by funding schools with more money. Where has that gotten us? With the same problems and even less solutions. It's not about how much money you receive, it's about what you do with it. Places like Philadelphia have the highest spending budget per pupil, yet produce results near the bottom.

We've spent so much time trying to "equalize" schools that we forget that every child thinks different. Every right wing, left wing idiot believes that money improves your intelligence, not your brain capacity. They believe everyone is equal in ability. What a load of crap. In 2003 Colorado ranked 49th in expenditure per pupil and ranked 15th in overall test scores. NCES is a complicated site and I can't find the most recent results.

Another example I give you is the Kansas City Experiment by Paul Ciotti
"For decades critics have been saying , 'you can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them.' The education establishment and its supporters replied, 'No ones ever tried.' In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri school district to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to come up with it."

Some examples of what they put that money to is: Hightened teacher salaries, 15 new schools, 54 remodeled schools, an Olympic size swimming pool, two story libraries and art galleries, 900,000 in advertising to encourage whites to come to Kansas City, a 400 million dollar school budget which mind you is triple the size of any other district in the country, a 60:1 administrator to student ratio(3500:1 for Catholic schools in the area), and a 12:1 student to teacher ratio which all added up to a 2 billion school budget.

Know what happened as a result of this budget? Test scores stayed stagnant and more whites actually moved out of Kansas City. Every school is different. The kids at my school tested higher than the kids at the local Christian school. It's not about funding, it's about process.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:And money = better education????

Well, if one school has horrible AC/heating, books from 1980, disgusting lunches, and teachers that are paid so little they don't even care, then yes, the students are at a disadvantage to students in a new, big school in a rich community.

yeah, you cant actually argue with that.

Richer schools can "buy" better teachers also. DIss expains y im so dum.

Yes, thank you for actually reading what I spent the time to write and only look at the most extreme of cases. The type of school mentioned is 1 in a million.

CT Track wrote:It's ignorant shit like that is why politicians have us wrapped around their finger. Obviously money is important and having 0 money spent on a school budget will fuck it up. Politicians believe they can solve problems with education by funding schools with more money. Where has that gotten us? With the same problems and even less solutions. It's not about how much money you receive, it's about what you do with it. Places like Philadelphia have the highest spending budget per pupil, yet produce results near the bottom.

We've spent so much time trying to "equalize" schools that we forget that every child thinks different. Every right wing, left wing idiot believes that money improves your intelligence, not your brain capacity. They believe everyone is equal in ability. What a load of crap. In 2003 Colorado ranked 49th in expenditure per pupil and ranked 15th in overall test scores. NCES is a complicated site and I can't find the most recent results.

Another example I give you is the Kansas City Experiment by Paul Ciotti
"For decades critics have been saying , 'you can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them.' The education establishment and its supporters replied, 'No ones ever tried.' In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri school district to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to come up with it."

Some examples of what they put that money to is: Hightened teacher salaries, 15 new schools, 54 remodeled schools, an Olympic size swimming pool, two story libraries and art galleries, 900,000 in advertising to encourage whites to come to Kansas City, a 400 million dollar school budget which mind you is triple the size of any other district in the country, a 60:1 administrator to student ratio(3500:1 for Catholic schools in the area), and a 12:1 student to teacher ratio which all added up to a 2 billion school budget.

Know what happened as a result of this budget? Test scores stayed stagnant and more whites actually moved out of Kansas City. Every school is different. The kids at my school tested higher than the kids at the local Christian school. It's not about funding, it's about process.

It's OBVIOUS that richer school are better, most of the time. If you take a really rich school and a really poor school, are you telling me they are equal? And another thing, what do you mean by "procedure"? that's what you say makes the difference between bad and good schools?

CT Track wrote:Yes, thank you for actually reading what I spent the time to write and only look at the most extreme of cases. The type of school mentioned is 1 in a million.

Ha, a bad school is one in a million? lol.

first off what procedure are you talking about and second the real point is what is the difference between rich catholics and poor catholics? rich catholics are smarter than not so rich catholics?

No the school with all the attributes you mentioned are one in a million. Those are the schools you see in the movies like Sister Act.

I think by procedure he means what schools do with their money. For example, buying an olympic-sized swimming pool wouldn't be as helpful to a school as spending less money on better teachers.

If you actually read the article, this was without a budget. People don't purchase swimming pools with a smaller budget. On their no limit budget they increased the accessibility of students to that of college students. And yet, nothing was accomplished. I'm sure they hired great teachers not worth their salary but did it anyways. There is no simple answer to how to make the education system perfect. However idiots continue to believe that money can't buy happiness, but apparently it can buy intelligence.

This continues to stray away from my original criticism of Miler's constant stereotyping and profiling. All of which are inconsistent and incorrect.

CT Track wrote:If you actually read the article, this was without a budget. People don't purchase swimming pools with a smaller budget. On their no limit budget they increased the accessibility of students to that of college students. And yet, nothing was accomplished. I'm sure they hired great teachers not worth their salary but did it anyways. There is no simple answer to how to make the education system perfect. However idiots continue to believe that money can't buy happiness, but apparently it can buy intelligence.

A lot of schools have pools, mine included. I think that part of the reason is the teachers. You can spend as much money as you want on teachers with great educations, but the best teachers are those who can get what they know across to students, and that's something you can't really measure. Besides that I'd say happy students has a little bit to do with it but that certainly isn't worth too much money. Most of it depends on self-motivation and talent so that exaplains why scores fluctuate.