Izzy

Oh man.. that takes me back a decade. I'll tell my version. Forgive the immature humor to follow, but I was literally six when this was THE joke. Three guys are driving down the road on motorcycles named Shut Up, Manners, and Poop. They're racing. Poop falls over, and Manners stop to helps him up. Shut Up takes the lead, and a cop pulls him over. "What's your name?" "Shut Up." "What's your name?" "Shut up." "WHAT'S YOUR NAME." "DUDE, SHUT UP." "Where are you manners?" "Picking up Poop on the road."

Schools won't ever all be equal, that's entirely dependent on the students in them, and teachers can only teach so much. Some people are inherently intelligent, and others, are not. The schools that score better are either magnet schools or schools in the center of wealthy areas. Just because giving more money to the poorer schools makes the schools better than the schools that weren't poor to begin with doesn't mean it's a bad system. The other school doesn't do less well, it just doesn't look as good in comparison. Schools should be sponsored soley on a tax basis, and taxes should be distributed equally through-out the county, with consideration of school population and programs being taken into account. If taxes don't cut it, screw what the people have been led to believe they want: raise them. Your equation doesn't make sense. If a school is failig solely based on budgeting problems, the school + money = good.

How does transfering them remove the problem? Now more has to be paid in transportation costs (which the county still has to provide), and the problem is just moved elsewhere. The lack of money is still there, and spreading it out doesn't solve anything. (Haha, based on that sentence, I sound really pro-ads. I'm actually pretty against it.)

Haha, Dawh agrees with me, and gvg agrees with Dawh yet disagrees with me. I wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. I was purposely leaving my opinion out of it so I won't influence the discussion, lol. Okay, but take into consideration that schools don't have to take all offers. They can refuse McDonalds sponsorship, and accept something healthy and school related. Does that change your answer? What about in poor areas where tax payer money just isn't cutting it? Is this morally questionable behavior still wrong if it does more good than bad? I like Dawh's voting system. ..We learned about the Butterfly Ballet in Stats today. ..Bush should never have been president.

Like corporations (Nike, the NFL, Camel Cigarettes, etc.) buying ad space in the school, either during the announcements, posters in hallways, through vending machines and so forth, and paying the school a certain amount for that space. The school gets the money they need, but should students be used to in the process?

This. When you finsih that, move on the the Ender's Game series. They aren't related, but read the former first because everyone needs to understand the awesomeness of my e-hubby Zaphod Beeblebrox.

What do you guys think about corporate sponsorships in schools?

Thanks guys. One of my friends helped me the morning before the quiz and we compared homework answers, and I was good in the end. (..After serious revision. >_>)

I anticipate things that I have no reason to believe won't happen, and just deep down I feel the world can't possibly go my way even though things usually seem to. I just.. don't let myself get excited over things anymore, meh. I have no idea if that's a side effect of (minor) depression or one of the causes, and don't really care enough to look into it. Example (not personal). Stressing out, about life, the universe, etc. This anxiety can be assuaged by a little miracle pill, d-amphetamine. You've set up a plan to obtain some, an easy enough exchange. Consequently, you freak out over everything that can go wrong: relying on the meds and then not getting them, wrong meds, wrong dosage, lose your money, the guy loses the pills, etc. If everything goes smoothly, great, but what if: your sleeping schedule gets too messed up, someone notices, you get kicked out of school for academic dishonesty, you get addicted, you want to start using meth instead, you die, etc. Or, if you don't get the pills, you end up twice as stressed as before because now you've halved the time you have to do the work. Meh. This is why I'll actually be pretty pissed if there's an afterlife. It needs to *end* sometime.

In a way, I think I'm the opposite? Anticipation of the future, whether good or bad, never ceases to depress me. It might just be because I've been kinda down lately, but something happy that's about to happen makes me feel worse than something happy that has recently happened. The build-up just makes everything feel worse, whether I know I'm going to get into trouble or I know something awesome is going to happen. Meh. The past doesn't really bother me all too much.

Just updating: Languages: German and English; fluent in both. French... to an extent. Maths: Alg 1&2, Geometry, Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, and Statistics, all at a competition level. (Which means we've gone far beyond the standard curriculum in all of those.) Sciences: High school biology, physics, chemistry, and Earth/Space. In two years, I'll have three years of experience in the first three subjects, so I'll be more able to help then. History: I meh at most of it, but if you ever have questions relating to the religions or governments of certain cultures and the continuities of them, hit me up. Basically, if you're in high school or middle school, I'm pretty qualified to help, otherwise.. probably not.

I missed much of my physics lecture on Friday, so I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing, and we have a homework quiz on this Monday. =/ If this seems really trivial.. it probably is, but I wasn't there to learn it (so don't judge me >_>). The homework is pretty much all reminiscent of this problem, so if I understand this, I should be clear. Check mah answerz pwease? A river flows due east at 1.50 m/s. A boat crosses the river from the south bank to the north bank by maintaining a constant velocity of 10.0 m/s due north relative to the water. a. What is the velocity of the boat as viewed by an observer on the south bank? b. If the river is 325 m wide, how much time will it take for the boat to cross the river? c. How far downstream is the boat when it reaches the north bank? d. What is the boat's displacement? e. What is the magnitude of the boat's displacement? f. What is the boat's average speed? My answers, work omitted. a. 10.1 m/s NE b. 32.2 seconds c. 12.0 m d. 325.22 m NE e. 325.22 m at 87.8° North of East f. 10.1 m/s

Hah, for the longest time, I was completely convinced I would never be with someone of a religious affiliation. Not so much because of my feelings toward the religious, but just because I could never imagine it working out. I'm currently dating a Muslim whose parents moved here from Iraq sometime before he was born, go figure. We don't just awkwardly shove religion into the corner when we're around each other, either, though. Luckily, he's intelligent to realize how silly most of it is, and I'm not particularly bothered by him praying throughout the day. The main 'whatever' I judge (I judge before I prefer ) people by is intelligence, so in that sense, I'd consider myself fairly unshallow. I'll just sum myself up with saying "I'm attracted to cool people", not too bothered by any of the traits I mentioned above. ...Including gender. *kicks tumbleweed* *edit* I think I'll draw the line if we have completely different political views, though. Think, because this was exactly what I thought about religious people, and it's currently working out.

Hmm. Out of curiousity, any non-straights posting in here? On the topic of sexual preference, do you guys judge (well, not really judge, more like prefer) based on age/gender/race/religion/whatever? I'll get to my own sometime later.

My gawds.. Tea Party. In AP Lang we're covering the art of persausion, so have been non-stop debating politics for the last three days. The next door teacher has her plan period while I have English, and is a Tea Party Member who likes to join in on our class discussions. (I say class, it's really me, four-five other people, and two teachers.) ...Craziness. Today my English teacher (who has Christopher Hitchens quotes in the room!) and I started arguing against the other teacher about Beck and Coulter. I love this class. I think the quote you were thinking of was "Don't lie with a man as you lie with a woman", which is actually a verse against polygamy, not homosexuality. Hmm. Self-restraint is a good thing, and I definitely don't want to bring Thought Crime into this, but I think it's fair to judge people for their thoughts. If they don't act on or voice their ideas, then on some level they realize how silly they are. While thinking about doing something unforgivable is nowhere near as extreme as carrying out the action, if you're mentally, say, stoning homosexuals, I will judge you. I will question your morality. I realize I'm wrong for doing this, and like you, I can't control my feelings on the situation. Not that I'm implying religiousity in and of itself is immoral (just illogical ), but fundamentalism as I've described most definitely is.

As well as it was pre-determined that you would elicit your response and I would retort with this. Even so, how is that a question? Well, I sorta see what you mean, but you have to realize most gay people wouldn'tt think of it as "God made me gay? Why? ", but rather "Yeah, God made me gay."

How so? If an omniscient deity exists and set particles in play that must follow laws of the universe he set out, he was the direct cause of every action, including whether or not people are gay. Mmm.. I like to adhere to the opposite view of the above (which works with or without a god). I can't prove it, and I feel seriously inclined to believe the opposite (honestly mostly agnostic on the issue), but I'm hoping we have free will. Meh. If we don't, *shrug*, *sigh*, *tear*; if we do, I'm happy I didn't waste it. I guess that's my sort of faith. (faskdjfaksjdfa eugh I just realized that sounds as irrational as having a religion; so, sticking with agnosticism on free will but hoping we have it, which is different.

Are you facepalming me or yourself? Meh, the thought of a predeterministic universe freaks me out, but then again, it's *supposed* to.

Chemicals!

I own this t-shirt, but, but, but, ACCURATE. http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/the-god-delusion-t-shirt I definitely agree that humanity is inherently stupid, stupidity defined as almost any arbitrary concept like "racist", "homophobic", "intellectual elitist", "music elitist" (haha.. According to almost everyone, I have this written all over my face/clothes. I get a bit.. out there.. if I think your depriving yourself or not seeing the awesomeness in certain music >_>), etc. I disagree that everyone falls into multiple categories, though. Meh, t'is the bane of our existence, but it's hella interesting. Levels are also interesting. As a fairly nihilistic person, I'll occaisonally swap maturity and my reputation for having a good time, aware and fully content with looking like an idiot in the process. Then again, people capable of doing that also don't rely on others' constant validation, so there's a maturity component in there too. Life is complex, yet simple. More on topic: live to live. F'uck who you want to f'uck, curse when you want to curse, use when you want to use, and die when you want to die. Mmm, there are some song lyrics I want to quote, but if the previous sentence doesn't get me banned, this will. >_> The rest of the song is eh, though, so linking to lyrics will provide the wrong effect, meh. Bah, I r sleepy. Redemptive work? So.. literal interpretation of the NT?

Uh.. no? Birth-rate. Well, Google doesn't give any interesting graphs, but, there's two things I can think of when it comes to homosexuality and birth rates. The Greeks, in response to over-population, encouraged young men to compete in the Olympics where they could find suitable partners to distract themselves from women and having kids for a years. This kept the population fairly controlled, so I guess you could say higher proportions of homosexuality will yield lowers birth rates because less heteosexual intercourse = less pregnancies. ..Meaning you indirectly gave up on Google. Not at all. Most religious people tend to be fairly normal, and fundamentalists (as I define them) really stick out as outliers on the bat-sh*t crazy and inherently idiotic scale. It's a huge difference, but also remember that my original argument was that religious people, over all, will be less intelligent than their non-religious peers, especially when considering matters of logic, reasoning, and science. Their average is probably significantly brought down by the fundies that think the Earth is 6k years old, flat, and that we co-existed with dino-rawrs. I think it's fair to say that faith is a silly thing to have, and where faith exists is a great deal of naivity and gullibility, which *shrug* isn't often associated with what one would consider "smart" people. I think the hugest counter-point to any of my arguments is the existence of Hindus, who tend to be religious but also very talented in maths and sciences. So.. *shrug* Though, that's comparing two different of different cultures and different environmental pressures leading to different specializations. Indians atheists vs. Indian hindus would be interesting. *googles* Haha, relatedish. Meh, couldn't find a chart I liked. New Google Images search sucks. =/

Why would I have anything bad to say about people who want to burn Qur'ans as a method of political bullying, hold "God Hates Fags" signs, and are generally really ridiculous? No idea, bro, no idea. (Hmm, because I'd honestly never considered a correlation between IQ and sexuality. I'm not convinced one exists, and have no reason to believe otherwise. *googles* ..After considerable googling, I found no studies, only some haphazard guessing similiar to what I'm doing here. I'm going to go with no correlation. *shrug* If there would be one, it's definitely caused by some lurking variable because I'm doubting sexual attraction has anything to do with quickness to understand concepts or that intelligence leads to a different sexual orientation.)

Definition one is how I and most of the internet interpret fundamentalists: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundamentalist Why would I have anything bad to say about homosexuality?

It's by countries. Are you telling me Germany is less accepting of the handicapped than Cambodia, where they don't have the resources to deal with them? What the graph indicates is clear: as socities advance, religions disappear. Then, this is probably a bad example, but have you ever been on RDF (now nonexistent ) and compared it to religious-based forums with users of the same ages? The difference in content, typing styles, et al. is astounding. ...Meh, if I had my way, schools would conduct some survey where students are polled by religions and then the religions (or lack thereofs) are ranked by GPA or something. I think it'd be something like Atheist > Hindu > Jainist/Buddhist > Islam > Christianity. Not because I oppose the latter two or anything, but that's just what I've observed. Now, it can be argued that immigrants are going to try harder, and therefore acquire higher GPAs, and that people from Asia tend to be more intelligent, but.. if anything the religions people in those regions have developed reflect that and be less ridiculous by contrast. No, homosexuality neither good nor bad, it just is, sort of like the color blue is neither good nor bad. Fundie-ism bad; I don't think I need to explain myself on this one, right? Attempting to outgrow religion bashing. ...Because homosexuality isn't a social construct? You don't have any more choice in being gay than you do in being born left handed. It's not like if we started raising all children with a homosexual mentality, gay rates would be higher than they are now. Wait.. are you a fundie, and if so, are you one of the "Gays? Burn in Hell! Let G-dawg pass judgement on thee!" ones?