But some parents simply are not in a position to teach their children. School is the solution for that, so if we all accept that new lessons need to be taught, school is the best place for it.
If your parents don't know DIY or cooking, then you won't learn it from them, so who do you learn it from when it comes time to teach the next generation? Also, whose fault is it? Theirs or their parents'?
Saying school is for college just kicks the can down the road. What's the purpose of college? Should children not going to college be allowed to just skip school entirely?
If you believe that children should universally learn DIY, and you believe that the best way for that to happen is to learn it from their parents, and because of that oppose teaching it in school, then at the very least you're just letting perfect be the enemy of good. We aren't going back to the times before, so if the only solution you'll accept is teaching at home, then simply put you're functionally against children learning DIY.
What if they didn't have a good family life? Is that it? Is your whole family line doomed to microwave meals?
I think schools should teach knowledge for the sake of knowledge, not because there's some specific end goal in mind beyond having a general populace that is well versed in things.
Some people receive a better education being homeschooled than what their local school system could provide. Does that mean we should abandon the school system entirely?
The worst case school is still better at teaching you then the worst case parents. Parents who aren't in a position to teach you anything are also a lot more common than the worst case school.
My dad's uncle works for hugh wolverine and he says he looks like that from doing 20 pushups a day
Where do you draw the line? Some people's parents teach them reading, writing and mathematics before they even enter the school system. Does that mean the school system shouldn't teach those three?
What if your parents don't know how to fix a clogged sink? Or to cook food more complicated than pasta with ketchup?
What do you see as the purpose of the schooling system?
But for there to be somebody to downwardly punch, then it must be true.
There is no genocide happening.
Place your bets, people: is it willful ignorance or just denial?
Yeah gym gear like lifting gloves and gym shark leggings
That and a couple of intense workouts
Doesn't matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I'm a murderer whether or not I'm convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it's not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn't make him innocent though.
OJ Simpson also wasn't convicted.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That's murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.
The act of inserting this context into the system is itself context, so I'm still existing in the context of what came before
If somebody tricks you and you fall for it, it doesn't mean what you were tricked into believing isn't context, or that the fact you were tricked at all isnt context.
Yeah they're going to cast like the highest paid actor in the world and then not show his face
My guy "you said demand not ask" is the most sniveling, weasly argument I've seen on this website so far.
I'm trying to figure out if you've convinced yourself of this or if you're just trying to avoid appearing wrong on the internet. Utterly fascinating.
For reference, demand would very obviously be a synonym of ask in this case.
If you pointedly and repeatedly demand which alternate candidate somebody canvassed for, then one of three things is true:
- You don't think an alternate candidate exists
- You think somebody needs to canvas to hold an opinion
- You think there is an alternate candidate, but are just being difficult for the sake of it
Why bother pretending otherwise?
The point being that you went from not believing anybody else could do the job to believing in Harris because it turns out that if somebody isn't campaigning then they don't seem a viable candidate?
You're really doubling down at every opportunity?
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion more justifiable than expecting them to donate before having one?