Posts by nimblelynx7

Paul Davis2 said:In the USA, it’s all in the laws—and since every state does its own thing, it varies wildly; some have a floor of 14, while others go as low as 9.
Over in the United Kingdom, the legal age is 12.
Just a quick rundown—I didn't dig through the other places just this second.
As for our own traditions, we know how it works—nobody's going to come knocking on your door to check up on you unless something actually catches fire.

Those state laws aren't a benchmark for anything, let alone for how we raise our kids.

Under our family law, you can't just leave a preschooler unsupervised.

Paul Davis2 said:Prasica can't—and shouldn't—be left home alone from 10:30 to 4:00, five days a week. It doesn't matter where you are—not in Brooklyn, not in the Bronx, nowhere.

First point. Who is making this claim? Or better yet, where is it actually written down?

Scott Booth said:That’s not quite right. In Italy, students on a science track usually have about 27 to 30 hours a week, depending on their grade level.

http://www.liceidibra.com/CategoriaD...%20Scientifico

Not only is that false, it’s ridiculous. It is clearly a rigged study designed to push for full-day schooling—which is just a ploy to hire more teachers when there aren't even any open positions left.

Scott Booth said:They already have 33 hours of classes per week, and that doesn't even include electives or any other extracurricular activities. How many more classroom hours could you possibly cram into their schedule?

Supposedly, those 33 hours are among the highest in the entire European Union. If that's true, just how much are those "model" Europeans actually studying?

When actual competence—not just a fancy GPA on paper—becomes valued, then kids and adults will finally start prioritizing learning over grades. Let’s be real: what does society actually value right now?

The second issue is defining what "knowledge" even means anymore. We spend eight years drilling kids through elementary school until they "know" everything, scoring straight A's, yet if the power goes out for five days, they’re completely helpless.

Then they graduate high school, and you have vocational students who can't even figure out how to fill out a basic check or a bank deposit slip.
You can't let an electrician out of your sight or they'll end up dead, and once you actually hand them a tool, it's like handing a toddler a loaded handgun.
If you don't supervise a locksmith, they'll find a way to shove their hands into some moving machinery.
If I started listing the disasters involving college grads, I wouldn't stop until tonight.

And this isn't some exaggeration for effect; it's the truth, and I'm willing to swear to it under oath. Every single person involved is still out there working today—though I wouldn't say they earned it.

We wanted grades, and we got them. Only problem is, they’ve got professors showing up at the dorm entrance flanked by two security guards, grilling anyone who secured housing before they even move in.

If you don't know Kazakhstan's GDP by heart, can recite the casualty lists from WWII, and haven't memorized everything about prehistoric settlements, you aren't getting a room.

mellowskipper said:A ton of people have left the healthcare system to head over to Germany—though honestly, without knowing the language, they’re basically just following people around. They can't actually practice their profession until they pass those language exams. Doctors, specifically, are completely stuck without it. And I hear Austria is even more intense about it, demanding a much higher proficiency level.
I mean, I don't think IT is the only sector on this entire planet.
Maybe you don't need to speak the language if you're a programmer, or if you're just digging ditches or doing DoorDash in Germany, but for pretty much anything else? You definitely need it.
But my main point—if I can call it that—is that any extra knowledge we possess is just an added bonus.
Also, there are plenty of successful people out there who only speak English.
The real key is making sure foreign language learning is accessible to kids through the US school system. At that point, it's up to them whether they take advantage of it or not.

Exactly. Back when I was enrolling in fourth grade, that’s when foreign language instruction kicked in. There was supposedly a choice between English and German. Of course, "choice" didn't mean students actually got a say; instead, they’d just pull names out of a hat to decide which two classes would take English and which would take German. Naturally, if you wanted to protest the luck of the draw, you could try filing a formal complaint with the local Water Utility board, provided you had three certified copies notarized by the County Clerk.

Thankfully, there isn't an American university dedicated to training teachers for Swahili, Chilean, or Uzbek, because then those instructors would actually get hired in schools—and then their languages would just end up being decided by a coin toss. Let the students fend for themselves.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Haha, I’m just talking nonsense now because I pointed out the simple fact that you can absolutely build a career in Germany without knowing a word of German. So, basically, the exact opposite of what was claimed.

It seems we have a brand new definition of "talking nonsense" courtesy of Elvis Presley, where simply stating a truth that someone happens to dislike counts as "nonsense." 🤣

Good grief, how did you all pass basic logic if you can't draw a single straightforward conclusion? This one falls right into the category of "If it doesn't apply to one specific case, then it must not apply to everyone." 😉

Sure, you can. But it’s a bad move. If you're stuck in some low-level service job and don't speak the language, you're basically handing yourself over to those shady American bosses who will exploit your lack of German to their own advantage. If you know English, maybe you can scrape by in a high-level corporate role, but even then, you won't be using it every single day.

No way.

It’s more likely they just have a terrible birth chart, or maybe their horoscope for the day of the exam was garbage, but a bad teacher? Highly unlikely.
There's also a slim chance the curriculum is poorly designed or too bloated, but even that seems like a stretch.

Terry Martinez10 said:So, you end up in this weird situation where you can supposedly take an elective on your high school graduation exams that you didn't even actually study during your senior year, assuming you just handle all the prep work entirely on your own—and it’s the same deal if a university decides to run those prerequisite entrance exams. It makes you wonder, though, how many applicants actually have the guts to pick a subject they’ve never even touched before?
I mean, isn't it pretty much impossible to pull that off in the real world if the college explicitly demands certain prior knowledge, or if you walk into a major with zero background and immediately find yourself at a massive disadvantage compared to everyone else?

I don't know what the current system looks like, but I assume if you nail the specific state standardized tests the colleges demand, you're set.

Take me, for example. Twenty years ago, I tried applying for an English or German major right after graduating from a technical vocational school. Thank God I failed. I applied, sat through the entrance exams, took the language proficiency tests... but since I only had one year of History and Geography compared to the four years the liberal arts kids had, I lost massive points. Not that it mattered much in the end. 🙂

mellowskipper said:My daughter originally wanted to go into graphic design for web work, but her school basically brainwashed her into thinking it was for losers—telling her everyone there was just out to cause trouble.
Now she’s insisting on going to an academic high school because, apparently, that's where all the "smart" kids go. I suppose she's just terrified of looking unintelligent.
It's a mess.

Back in St. Louis, we have an arts academy—it’s technically a school for applied arts. I’ve had to swing by there a few times for work, and honestly, the scenes are pretty wild. We walked past dozens of students, and man, they are inspired by everything under the sun. Hair colors that look like a botched paint job from an auto shop, hairstyles that look like a failed experiment at a salon, and clothing styles that scream "natural disaster meets zero cares given"...
And yeah, every single one of them was smoking right out front of the building.

Scott Booth said:Losers?

It's pretty easy to slap a label like that on a 14 or 15-year-old kid who just wants to pursue a career that doesn't fit some narrow, middle-class definition of a "respectable" job.

A talented chef, a skilled carpenter, or a great barber... these aren't just hardworking people. They’re intelligent, creative, and honestly, they often possess qualities that set them far above the average American.

I agree with what you wrote. I also didn't say in my first post that I agreed with those snobs I was describing.

For those complete idiots, anything that isn't a prep school—and even some of the "non-elite" ones—is just a school for losers. Luckily, people like that are rare.
The slightly more realistic crowd? To them, any three-year vocational program is basically a dead end.

What’s the point of giving him a 3 if he’s only reading at a "satisfactory" level? And if she gave him a 2, that would be "adequate." Theoretically, someone reading at a 2 shouldn't even be struggling in 5th grade, right?

What does reading at a 1 even look like?

Jacob Lopez2 said:I strongly disagree with the notion that you can always just "catch up" later. In the lower grades, physical disparities are glaringly obvious; if a classroom is mostly composed of six and seven-year-olds, an eight-year-old is going to tower over everyone, which creates massive issues with social integration.

Furthermore, staying in preschool for an additional year usually means the entire group shifts together, and by the time they finally move up with the younger kids, those children have already physically outgrown the curriculum entirely.

Fitting in? It’s a joke. Maybe it's because they wear glasses. Maybe it's because they don't. Maybe they're too tall, or maybe they're too short. Could be their ears stick out. Could be they're just too reserved. Or maybe they simply know more than everyone else in the room. "Fitting in" might be the problem—or it might not be.

Carl Bishop2 said:How is it even possible to justify holding a kid back if they aren't actually struggling?
Maybe some people find it a little easier to say, "We decided to give them more time to just be a kid," rather than admitting, "Our child is having a hard time."

It’s possible.
Why on earth should a kid born in the second half of the year, or even late March, be forced into school at six years old? Just because some arbitrary law says so? That law is absolute nonsense. It needs to be bypassed and ignored entirely.
That’s the primary, fundamental, and more than sufficient reason to delay. If there’s even one more minor excuse to push this back, then in my opinion, there’s really nothing left to debate.
Like I said, one year makes zero difference. You'll get there eventually.

urbanowl81 said:Probably, but enrolling them early makes it much harder to get the timing right. There's a much higher chance of making a mistake.

@Trump: now I'm curious, are we talking about something serious here, or just issues like blood pressure fluctuations and such?

Exactly my thoughts. I don't see why anyone is rushing. Waiting a year isn't going to ruin anything, and it might actually mean getting a better deal.

Not exactly. In this specific instance, everything is so vague and spread thin that it's doubtful he’d ever even face a lawsuit. And even if he somehow managed to pull one off? It wouldn't be worth the cost of the legal fees.

slycobra5 said:Both of you are watching way too many Hollywood movies. Speaking from experience, if a lawsuit actually lands on someone's doorstep—not that I’m predicting an outcome here—nobody is going to play the martyr. People will just tell the truth about what happened and how it went down just to dodge extra headaches. It's easy to sit around playing academic armchair philosopher in some endless "what-if" loop. But once the police show up at your door or you get served with a subpoena, things change. A landlord isn't going to claim they didn't renovate the apartment when it's incredibly easy for anyone to find witnesses to prove otherwise; in fact, they'll probably point the finger right at whoever did the work. And you can bet your life the contractor won't be claiming they weren't the ones who handled the job either.

You’ve been watching way too many movies if you actually think the police, federal inspectors, or the IRS are going to lift a finger over something like this.
The longer we wait after construction wraps up, the more likely it is that everyone just forgets everything happened. It’s honestly not even hard to believe that the neighbors have no clue or don't even remember the work being done. It’s simple: they schedule this stuff for mid-morning when most people are already at the office. As for those retirees hanging around? They can barely remember what they had for breakfast, let alone some construction crew that was out there ages ago.

Timothy Nelson5 said:If the contractor who renovated the unit gets sued, he’ll probably go talk to a lawyer—assuming he’s got any sense at all.
It’s pretty debatable whether a contractor or the property owner would even be held liable just because someone wasn't watching their step on the stairs. I mean, the person could have tripped anytime in the last month. It wasn't like a brick fell out of a worker's hand and hit them.
So, honestly, a lawsuit like that feels like a real long shot.

But calling the IRS or reporting them to OSHA for hiring workers under the table? That's a different story. That would almost certainly trigger some massive fines.

And the witnesses? They're just neighbors or other people in the building who would likely prefer not to get caught in the crossfire between two parties in a legal dispute.
They'd probably just say they didn't see anything happen and that they don't know a thing about it.

Investors carry specific responsibilities when it comes to executing work, as laid out in the Building Code, OSHA regulations, and Mandatory relationship law. But let’s be clear—we’re talking about a third party here.

Timothy Nelson5 said:If the contractor who renovated the unit gets sued, he’ll probably go talk to a lawyer—assuming he’s got any sense at all.
It’s pretty debatable whether a contractor or the property owner would even be held liable just because someone wasn't watching their step on the stairs. I mean, the person could have tripped anytime in the last month. It wasn't like a brick fell out of a worker's hand and hit them.
So, honestly, a lawsuit like that feels like a real long shot.

But calling the IRS or reporting them to OSHA for hiring workers under the table? That's a different story. That would almost certainly trigger some massive fines.

And the witnesses? They're just neighbors or other people in the building who would likely prefer not to get caught in the crossfire between two parties in a legal dispute.
They'd probably just say they didn't see anything happen and that they don't know a thing about it.

Proving any of this is an absolute nightmare.

Timothy Nelson5 said:If the contractor who renovated the unit gets sued, he’ll probably go talk to a lawyer—assuming he’s got any sense at all.
It’s pretty debatable whether a contractor or the property owner would even be held liable just because someone wasn't watching their step on the stairs. I mean, the person could have tripped anytime in the last month. It wasn't like a brick fell out of a worker's hand and hit them.
So, honestly, a lawsuit like that feels like a real long shot.

But calling the IRS or reporting them to OSHA for hiring workers under the table? That's a different story. That would almost certainly trigger some massive fines.

And the witnesses? They're just neighbors or other people in the building who would likely prefer not to get caught in the crossfire between two parties in a legal dispute.
They'd probably just say they didn't see anything happen and that they don't know a thing about it.

That’s probably how it goes, and honestly, it wouldn't be far from the truth. Like I said earlier, the more time passes, the higher the chance that everyone truly forgets everything. And let’s face it, our justice system doesn't exactly have polygraphs or brain probes to figure out who actually remembers what and who is just lying through their teeth.

slycobra5 said:Are you suggesting a contractor who renovated an apartment would claim he has no memory of doing the work?
Is that really what you're getting at?
What possible motive would he have for that?
Fear of some crew of unlicensed handymen working under the table?

Because it’s none of his business. Honestly, the smartest move is to stay out of it entirely.

He can just claim he never renovated the unit. Or, if he wants to be more subtle, he can admit he did it but "forget" which contractor was used or when it happened. If the OP wants to play prosecutor and sue the homeowner for damages, go ahead—but they'll be on their own with that mess.

So there’s your answer on what required reading is actually for. It exists to spark a desire to live through the events in the book and to stir up specific emotions toward the author.