Call me stupid but where is the 5?
And honestly the rest I don't get.
Maybe I'm too English. I never got it when bitchy got her grades
Capitalism, yay or nay?
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
Call me stupid but where is the 5?
And honestly the rest I don't get.
Maybe I'm too English. I never got it when bitchy got her grades
It's possible to have "A's" and to not have a 4.0 because not all "A's" are created equal. GPA breaks the letter grades down into values for "+, neutral, and -" levels of the letter grade. Several states substitute "F" for "E". See below...
O.k. I'm getting it bit by bit
Curve score?
@Carolina Red I know you teach in SC. Do you find your high school kids growing up in a relatively conservative area open to liberal viewpoints? Curious what they're like nowadays.
Curved toward rewarding taking harder classes. A mid-range B (85) in an AP is the same as a midrange A (95) in a CP.
Yeah I'm retarded in that respect. A is an A
It's touch and go and split hard between economic and social policies.
When you present liberal economic ideas without any labels and point out how many other nations do them, they ask "well why don't we have that!?!?" Then they have a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that their beloved GOP is typically the biggest reason why.
When you present liberal social ideas, regardless of labels, they reject them outright and it typically devolves into a "but the Bible says..." discussion in which I have to point out that the Constitution doesn't care what the Bible says.
Getting an A in an AP course though requires an obscenely greater amount of work and quality of product in comparison to a CP course though.
Scoring 20 goals in the Premier League vs. scoring 20 goals in League 1.
Interesting how early those seeds have been sewn. Must make for some lively class discussions! Also imagine it's walking a tight rope between what you're thinking and what you can actually say.
Sunday school indoctrinated them long before they stepped foot inside a public school building.
And yes, there are oh so many things I have to self censor about suiting the average school day.
One thing I do enjoy doing though is actually walking that tightrope, so I'll pull in religious references whenever they relate to a social studies topic, which isn't hard. Example... The Book of Acts describes early Christian communities as placing all possessions in the middle of their settlement and dividing them equally among themselves. I really enjoy using that one in economic systems discussions.
In a situation where demand is higher than supply it's easy. But what happens if there aren't enough customers to finance every (good) restaurant in the area?
Again, it's just a very broad and certainly speculative characterisation. But in my opinion some of the main benefits would be:
- The reason for production not being profit, but directly adressing human needs. Enabling much more rational choices on what is produced and how it is distributed.
- Emancipating humans from the state of being tools for profit generation with all its ugly consequences.
- Making decreasing need for human labour due to improved production methods a promise, not a threat.
- Being able to distribute the workload evenly instead of overexploiting some, while treating others as superfluous.
- Making the huge resources and brainpower currently wasted on things like military, arms industry, advertisement, overblown bureaucracy, etc. available for actually useful things.
- In the most general terms: stopping the connection of human existence to an endless economic, political & military distribution battle.
(Also want to say that I'm off for a long weekend, so I might be slow answering.)
Was having a conversation with my brother in law about politics, one I regretted starting very quickly. He's a double glazing sales middle manager, very conservative, thinks Corbyn is a communist hippy etc.
One thing that struck me (and on reflection has been the case with other right leaning people I've spoken to) is that when you talk about wealth distribution, he thinks he's in the "rich" category. For example I stated I didn't agree with cutting the top tax rate and his reply was, "I work hard for my money, why should it be taken from me and given to people who can't be assed to work."
He earns about 50k so why would he be so upset about taxing people who earn over 150k?
One thing that struck me (and on reflection has been the case with other right leaning people I've spoken to) is that when you talk about wealth distribution, he thinks he's in the "rich" category. For example I stated I didn't agree with cutting the top tax rate and his reply was, "I work hard for my money, why should it be taken from me and given to people who can't be assed to work."
He earns about 50k so why would he be so upset about taxing people who earn over 150k?
He's thinking about his future. Still, you should be able to articulate an argument against top tax rate cuts other than "the money isn't mine or yours anyway".
I honestly don't think that's the case, I think it's pure naivety. I did of course articulate arguments, upon deaf ears.
Thinking about it logically, a double glazing salesman would benefit from the working classes receiving tax breaks and being more affluent.
The two don't go hand in hand.
How many cutting boards do they really need?
How many $120 cereal bowls do they need? 12, apparently.
Most of those things look like a nightmare to clean.
Those fecking lettuce vessels, together 700$, establish beyond question their absolute lack of taste. Expropriate now.*
*I need extra plates so that I can go for a week without washing.
*I need extra plates so that I can go for a week without washing.
6 napkins for 70$ hahahahahaha
cum laude doesn't mean what I hoped it would.