You know, if you had just chosen Compton, CA, you could have painted an even worse picture. But, let's be a bit more honest about the situation, eh?
www.statista.com/statistics/1380025/us-gun-violence-rate-by-state/
I wonder how closely those stats correlate to the politics of the state (i.e. "red" vs "blue"). Same goes with the state economies. But, that's besides the point, as we're talking about "freedom", not prosperity, right?
[deleted]
It really doesn't. Please answer the question. I'll go first: not only do I think that politicians (and police) should be prosecuted for crimes committed, I think the penalties should be even more severe than for John Q. Public. Furthermore, I believe that certain things should be crimes for politicians (and police) that are not crimes for John Q. Public (I'll be happy to go into details), as well as having even less freedom than John Q. Public (e.g. trading of stocks for members of Congress).
Let's instead start with direct answers to direct questions. Then, after the direct answer, embellish as needed/desired.
[deleted]
Let's link and quote from the source, if you please:
So, rather than link and quote to other people's opinions, link and quote to what's actually written.
[deleted]
Not sure what you mean by "the letter". It's the source of the mathematics framework for California public schools. From the link I gave:
A professionally-edited and designed PDF version of the framework will be posted at a later date. The content will not substantively change from the version posted below.
Please pay special attention to that second sentence. Below is the material, all with hyperlinks (just not in my cut and paste here):
*California Mathematics Framework Summary (DOCX; Updated Jul-2023)*
*Chapter 1: Mathematics for All: Purpose, Understanding, and Connection (DOCX)*
*Chapter 2: Teaching for Equity and Engagement (DOCX)*
*Chapter 3: Number Sense (DOCX)*
*Chapter 4: Exploring, Discovering, and Reasoning With and About Mathematics (DOCX)*
*Chapter 5: Mathematical Foundations for Data Science (DOCX)*
*Chapter 6: Mathematics: Investigating and Connecting, Transitional Kindergarten through Grade Five (DOCX)*
*Chapter 7: Mathematics: Investigating and Connecting, Grades Six through Eight (DOCX)*
*Chapter 8: Mathematics: Investigating and Connecting, High School (DOCX)*
*Chapter 9: Structuring School Experiences for Equity and Engagement (DOCX)*
*Chapter 10: Supporting Educators in Offering Equitable and Engaging Mathematics Instruction (DOCX)*
*Chapter 11: Technology and Distance Learning in the Teaching of Mathematics (DOCX)*
*Chapter 12: Mathematics Assessment in the 21st Century (DOCX)*
*Chapter 13: Instructional Materials to Support Equitable and Engaging Learning of the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (DOCX)*
*Chapter 14: Glossary: Acronyms and Terms (DOCX)*
*Appendix A: Key Mathematical Ideas to Promote Student Success in Introductory University Courses in Quantitative Fields (DOCX)*
*Appendix B: Works Cited (DOCX)*
*Appendix C: Vignettes (DOCX)*
Again, I don't know what "the letter" is (link, please!). But why does "the letter" matter more than the actual framework?
[quote="@JACS"]
Now my sacasmeter is having issues. If that's not sarcasm than it doesn't need a response from me. It says all it needs to by itself.
Firstly, it's not my site. Secondly, of course I won't ban you. You should know, from all the conversations on the subject of banning that go on here that it's not how I work. Bans are counter-productive. Also, I'm a libertarian. I know your political classification system doesn't allow for libertarians whose general political outlook doesn't match your own, but as I said before - politics is not a single dimensional thing. I'm thinking that maybe being banned would be for you the easiest way out of the rhetorical trap you've set for yourself. It's a bit like election denial.
As for my pretence and dishonesty, it seems that your evidence for this is my failure to deduce what you meant to say from what you actually did say. It's a bit like my two year old grandson's frustration when people don't understand what he says in the way that he intended it. It's loveable in a two year old, a bit less so in a maths professor. I would have thought that your training and background would have led you to welcome the invitation to explore a topic from first principles - which is what I was trying to do. If we can strip the claims back to the axioms, things we can take as self-evident and thus we agree on, we can work towards a mutual understanding from there. Unfortunately I get the impression that you think that most of your opinions are self-evident, and that there is no need to justify them further and any request to do so is teated as an insult or a trick.
The letter that he linked above. He's deploying argumentum ad verecundiam - an interesting approach for a maths professor.
A thought struck me. Times tables make use of the learning by repetition technique. The student doesn't have to understand - repeat it enough and the brain will accept it as the reality. Maybe there's a clue there as to why JACS is so upset that any pedagogist should even countenance doing without times tables.
The point is to disenfranchise people with government and politics, to create the chaos, politicise justice, allow christian fundamentalism to influence policy, take the teeth out of government enforcement agencies. Get back to the days of the Trusts. As Robert Peston said, you do't get to the very top by being ice ad so a lot of those at the very top are borderline sociophths with deeply prejudiced and hardliner views.
The trouble with Trump is he may become another Putin, and that didn't go well for Putin's business rivals.
Your viewpoint is far too absolute, far too compartmentalized by your own logic. And you can't see how important the communication media is here? It's all about how you deliver the message. How do you get a mass of people to disregard proven scientific fact and act on mass against something that is so plainly for their own common good while declarinfg and absolutely believing that they are acting only for their own common good? Indoctrination is all about how the message is delivered, propaganda is all about controlling the media. The message is secondary, and changes to suit the need. If people stop reading for themselves their choices become far more limited. 😀
There is only two plus two, everything else is a woke ideology.
And two plus two equals five. 😋
[deleted]
That all seems too conspiratorial to me. I don't doubt that individuals with the 'wealth and power' demographic think like that, but I don't think that there is a concerted move to promote Trump. Just too disruptive.
He won't become another Putin. He's much less intelligent and doesn't have the training or skills that Putin has. Also he's too lazy. In many ways as an individual more like Hitler than Putin.
I think you're over-generalising from a very specific point I was answering. I don't really disagree with anything you said there - it just wasn't what the discussion I was having was about.
I've run out of popcorn and I need another Coke ...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I haven't seen any evidence in what you say which supports that statement.
The problem here is you taking US definitions rather than the wider ones. From the Wikipedia article on 'Libertarian':
That describes my attitudes pretty well. In the USA it has gained a different meaning:
I don't remember characterising you as a 'conservative'. Maybe I have, but truly, I can't be arsed to go back throught the whole of this thread to see if it slipped out somewhere. If I was getting into adjectives, I'd have used a different one. Anyhow, if there is a reason to assume that you are a 'conservative' it is not your opposition to what you see as 'the current idiocy', but why you choose to characterise it as 'idiocy' and the themes around which you base your opposition. The Trump movement is not really conservative in the traditional sense, it's a radical, nationalist, authoritarian movement - just like quite a few we have seen before.
[deleted]
[deleted]
