Posts by nimblelynx7

Larry Walker24 said:RIP Smile Age Chengic 🤦🤦

Honestly, this is one of those books that actually holds up.
I've read plenty of much worse.

The servant answers to Smail aga,
within his own Tower of London,
deep in Germany.

If they’re working under the table, there isn't even an official contractor involved.
Who exactly are you planning to sue then?
Even if you try to take a handyman to court for off-the-books work, you're just wasting your breath; he can easily claim he was never even on the property.
How can you be so sure it's all cash jobs? Are you saying every single bit of work was done under the table, rather than just most of it?

Sure, you can file a lawsuit, but the real question is whether you’ll actually win. Technically, the liability falls on the general contractor, the building's cleaning crew, and even the victim themselves.

It might be a viable path if you don't go after a massive settlement—how much would the contractor's liability insurance actually cover?

ironcyclist81 said:I’ve honestly always felt that being forced to read certain classics is just a massive waste of time... especially back when the school system used to obsess over those old Russian novels—you know, the ones where some bored alcoholic probably just wrote hundreds of pages out of sheer nothingness because they had nothing better to do

There are plenty of great books out there, so I think kids should just be allowed to dive into whatever actually sparks their interest instead of having these outdated perspectives shoved down their throats under the guise of it being "good" for them.

Exactly. What counts as a "classic" or a "must-read" shifts constantly depending on whatever the current political climate is.

The actual reading wasn't even the hard part. It was the busywork. If you don't transcribe the entire book into a notebook, or write at least fifteen to twenty pages of summaries, you get a failing grade.

Susan James said:I think you missed the sarcasm there.

The world is changing. There was a time when churches were the primary drivers of literacy and education, but that’s just not how things work anymore—and it shouldn't be. It's actually pretty sad that people were pushing to bring those old ways back into the classroom as if it were something to be proud of. To me, that feels like taking forty-five steps backward.

At the same time, as people push to bring religious instruction back into schools, we're seeing an increase in violence, more parents being aggressive toward teachers (or just losing respect for them), and more discrimination against minorities... You'd think that bringing religion back into the classroom would make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place. Instead, it seems like a bunch of officials with political agendas (and their kids) finally found a way to declare themselves believers without risking their jobs, which apparently wasn't an option for them back in the day.
Nowadays, being a member of a specific church group or showing up for services can practically give you an edge in hiring and promotions, especially in smaller towns.
And let's not forget how that one grade in religion can artificially bump up a student's GPA.

But hey, somehow the number of kids taking religious studies keeps dropping. Personally, I think once they stop including those grades in the overall GPA calculation, the numbers will drop even further.
The fear of what a teacher or classmates might say about a non-religious kid has definitely faded. Now, it's just a matter of making sure those grades don't skew the averages, so the students who actually care about faith can focus on it during extra sessions or Saturday mornings instead.🥳

Not me, it was you. You honestly think I’d write something like that while being fully conscious and serious?

Susan James said:I think you missed the sarcasm there.

The world is changing. There was a time when churches were the primary drivers of literacy and education, but that’s just not how things work anymore—and it shouldn't be. It's actually pretty sad that people were pushing to bring those old ways back into the classroom as if it were something to be proud of. To me, that feels like taking forty-five steps backward.

At the same time, as people push to bring religious instruction back into schools, we're seeing an increase in violence, more parents being aggressive toward teachers (or just losing respect for them), and more discrimination against minorities... You'd think that bringing religion back into the classroom would make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place. Instead, it seems like a bunch of officials with political agendas (and their kids) finally found a way to declare themselves believers without risking their jobs, which apparently wasn't an option for them back in the day.
Nowadays, being a member of a specific church group or showing up for services can practically give you an edge in hiring and promotions, especially in smaller towns.
And let's not forget how that one grade in religion can artificially bump up a student's GPA.

But hey, somehow the number of kids taking religious studies keeps dropping. Personally, I think once they stop including those grades in the overall GPA calculation, the numbers will drop even further.
The fear of what a teacher or classmates might say about a non-religious kid has definitely faded. Now, it's just a matter of making sure those grades don't skew the averages, so the students who actually care about faith can focus on it during extra sessions or Saturday mornings instead.🥳

The Church didn't keep people illiterate; if anything, they did the opposite. Sure, the Church founded the first universities, but let’s be clear: that wasn't about spreading literacy or educating the masses. It was a calculated move to monopolize knowledge. Real public education only arrived when enlightened absolutists stepped in to establish the first public school systems—and even then, it took centuries and only happened once the Church's grip on society finally started to loosen.

Susan James said:I think you missed the sarcasm there.

The world is changing. There was a time when churches were the primary drivers of literacy and education, but that’s just not how things work anymore—and it shouldn't be. It's actually pretty sad that people were pushing to bring those old ways back into the classroom as if it were something to be proud of. To me, that feels like taking forty-five steps backward.

At the same time, as people push to bring religious instruction back into schools, we're seeing an increase in violence, more parents being aggressive toward teachers (or just losing respect for them), and more discrimination against minorities... You'd think that bringing religion back into the classroom would make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place. Instead, it seems like a bunch of officials with political agendas (and their kids) finally found a way to declare themselves believers without risking their jobs, which apparently wasn't an option for them back in the day.
Nowadays, being a member of a specific church group or showing up for services can practically give you an edge in hiring and promotions, especially in smaller towns.
And let's not forget how that one grade in religion can artificially bump up a student's GPA.

But hey, somehow the number of kids taking religious studies keeps dropping. Personally, I think once they stop including those grades in the overall GPA calculation, the numbers will drop even further.
The fear of what a teacher or classmates might say about a non-religious kid has definitely faded. Now, it's just a matter of making sure those grades don't skew the averages, so the students who actually care about faith can focus on it during extra sessions or Saturday mornings instead.🥳

Today, Catholicism and religious education in schools have essentially become the new version of joining the Boy Scouts or the old political youth leagues.

Susan James said:I think you missed the sarcasm there.

The world is changing. There was a time when churches were the primary drivers of literacy and education, but that’s just not how things work anymore—and it shouldn't be. It's actually pretty sad that people were pushing to bring those old ways back into the classroom as if it were something to be proud of. To me, that feels like taking forty-five steps backward.

At the same time, as people push to bring religious instruction back into schools, we're seeing an increase in violence, more parents being aggressive toward teachers (or just losing respect for them), and more discrimination against minorities... You'd think that bringing religion back into the classroom would make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place. Instead, it seems like a bunch of officials with political agendas (and their kids) finally found a way to declare themselves believers without risking their jobs, which apparently wasn't an option for them back in the day.
Nowadays, being a member of a specific church group or showing up for services can practically give you an edge in hiring and promotions, especially in smaller towns.
And let's not forget how that one grade in religion can artificially bump up a student's GPA.

But hey, somehow the number of kids taking religious studies keeps dropping. Personally, I think once they stop including those grades in the overall GPA calculation, the numbers will drop even further.
The fear of what a teacher or classmates might say about a non-religious kid has definitely faded. Now, it's just a matter of making sure those grades don't skew the averages, so the students who actually care about faith can focus on it during extra sessions or Saturday mornings instead.🥳

Things are moving in the right direction. Slowly, sure, but steadily. Unfortunately, it’s just not happening fast enough.

Back when I was in elementary school, religious education wasn't just some elective class you took at school. It was also part of our church curriculum. We had mandatory Sunday Mass at 8:00 AM—the "student service"—and the only thing that was technically optional, though highly encouraged, was choir practice on Saturdays. This whole setup applied if you actually wanted to receive the sacraments, and it lasted for all eight years.
The Church will likely fight tooth and nail against any attempt at abolition. It’s not just about tradition; it's about protecting their entire cultural foothold. Not to mention, it calls into question the whole system of paying religious instructors through taxpayer money—people who were educated at state-funded universities and are now being paid out of the federal budget to push their own agenda.

Exactly. And religious studies was the very first subject mentioned in the testimony.
The Department of Education used to be called the Department of Commerce and Instruction—honestly, we should bring that back if we want any real results.

Sent from my SM-G991B via Reddit

Jose Wells3 said:I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. They separate kids by physical ability in PE class, too. But apparently, that isn't considered a valid argument.

Look, my kids are right here in the hallway. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of discrimination.

I don't have an issue with the financial side of things either, though I could give you a very vivid demonstration of how much those religious instructor salaries, the hiring processes, and their standing within the school system actually irritate me.

That's not what I'm talking about.

In PE, you don't tell kids they're fat. You don't bar them from entry because they wear glasses. You don't shove them into special rooms for being "fat and blind" where they're told they're headed straight to hell just for existing.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

What else is there to say? It implies institutional separation, yet that separation doesn't exist—it's being breached. That's like saying, "I ran a red light, but I didn't commit a violation." Makes zero sense.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

The term "client" implies consent. There is no consent here. This is forced imposition, just like this entire thread.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

From where? Is anti-theism supposed to be a dirty word? Is it in the same league as "fascist," "criminal," or "abuser"?
As an anti-theist, I believe no religion belongs in public schools, let alone the government paying for religious "tutoring" for specific faiths.

What if they added Islamic studies to the standard schedule, and anyone wanting Catholic classes had to attend an after-school shift? Or what if they integrated the Quran into the American English curriculum?

Jose Wells3 said:That’s just not true. Honestly, you’re missing the point entirely here. Why don't you try defining "secular" for yourself? Secularism isn't about denying religion; it's about separation and acknowledging its existence. There are plenty of secular people within religious communities—among parents, even among the clergy. Raising children in a faith-based environment doesn't inherently clash with a secular society. And please, let's not start bringing up radicalism as an argument. Secularism isn't some antagonistic force against religion, nor is religion against it. It's meant to be neutral. The laws built on secular principles should reflect that exact neutrality.

School administrators answer to their founders and are obligated to follow their specific guidelines. For those whose founder happens to be a Bishop, they still have to follow the laws of the USA, but a huge part of their accountability lies with their founder.

In many parts of the world, religious schools are actually recognized as premier educational institutions.

If the church and state are truly secular, yet we have religious education in schools, does that mean churches should host lectures on civics? Should teachers walk into churches to give presentations hand-picked by the government, with the church footing the bill?

While secularism might be a neutral term for the state, for the Catholic Church, it acts as a red flag—something deeply negative.

Jose Wells3 said:Extremely slim. But the number of people actually paying attention to how religious instructors are positioned is growing—which means this kind of thing will become harder and harder to pull off.

Honestly, you show up here almost exclusively with arguments that would be tossed out of any decent logical debate. You're stacking logical fallacies before you even finish making your point.

It feels a lot like trolling, doesn't it? It adds nothing to the discussion. Why don't you go ahead and pull some actual statistics showing how many religious teachers hold administrative roles, and then explain how that percentage represents the whole picture? Please.

In larger schools, you can manipulate the schedule. In smaller ones? Not a chance. If there's no practical way to make it work, you might as well complain to the local water department. I find myself muttering the same thing every year when I see my kids' schedules. And mine, too—especially seeing that gaping hole where my teaching hour should have been instead of religion class...

I'm not seeing much "awareness" regarding religious education, let alone anyone actually doing anything about it.

Jose Wells3 said:Extremely slim. But the number of people actually paying attention to how religious instructors are positioned is growing—which means this kind of thing will become harder and harder to pull off.

Honestly, you show up here almost exclusively with arguments that would be tossed out of any decent logical debate. You're stacking logical fallacies before you even finish making your point.

It feels a lot like trolling, doesn't it? It adds nothing to the discussion. Why don't you go ahead and pull some actual statistics showing how many religious teachers hold administrative roles, and then explain how that percentage represents the whole picture? Please.

In larger schools, you can manipulate the schedule. In smaller ones? Not a chance. If there's no practical way to make it work, you might as well complain to the local water department. I find myself muttering the same thing every year when I see my kids' schedules. And mine, too—especially seeing that gaping hole where my teaching hour should have been instead of religion class...

There are 27 in elementary schools. Out of 878 total schools. That's 3.07%.
Only 8 in high schools out of 378. So, roughly 2 percent.

And what if the principal happens to be a theologian who teaches religion classes? There’s definitely an opening for that...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Twitter

Slowly, they’ll fall. It's just a matter of when, though I doubt it’ll be anytime soon.

Naturally, as one declines, the other rises. Expect more hours dedicated to religious studies, likely at the expense of math, chemistry, and physics.

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Reddit

James Phillips92 said:If Russians insist that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, does that mean Russians are actually just Ukrainians?

At the start of the invasion of Ukraine, there was this joke about how Russians are basically Ukrainians because the first Russian settlements were established on what is now Ukrainian territory.

Daniel Ward87 said:What do you guys think—are the Ukrainians going to go all-in on Luhansk and Donetsk? If the Russians are retreating this fast, maybe it means they’re losing interest and just letting those regions slip away, which could be a sign they're handing them back to the Ukrainians. Since the Ukrainians used HIMARS to hit their ammo dumps and wrecked so much gear, basically gutting their logistics entirely, those territories might end up facing a fate similar to what happened in Knin.

As for Crimea, I'm not so sure the Ukrainians can just grab it right now. It feels more like a political chess move than a purely military one.

Back in '91, Knin was occupied because they had nothing to defend it with. By '95, the tables turned. They built up strength, liberated Knin, and ended the whole Appalachia situation once and for all.

Joshua Myers432 said:It's clear they've given up on taking over Ukraine, even that eastern portion. Now, they're just looking to systematically flatten the entire infrastructure and industrial base, assuming they even have enough left to pull it off. Honestly, we already know they have 😁

You don't need anything special to shell civilian infrastructure. You just need a massive amount of desperation and rage born from helplessness.

The user provided "proab" which appears to be a fragment or a typo. Please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite according to these instructions. [Username] says:
Look at this. Nowhere in the school handbook does it actually specify the schedule, so we’re stuck dealing with arbitrary interpretations instead of anything set in stone. It’s the same nonsense you see in federal regulations regarding other election matters. The hourly schedule is supposed to comply with the law, which states that for multi-grade classrooms, there's a maximum of six hours per day. Schools stick to that limit, but beyond that, they have total discretion on how they structure things—whether they use block scheduling or whatever else they feel like. Besides, at my kid's school, they often hit more than six hours if religious studies is on the calendar for that day, since those hours aren't even counted toward the total.

It’s about zoology. This isn't some matter of interpretation. None of the other elective subjects are even mentioned in there.

Michelle Nelson4 said:If you look at the Department of Education guidelines, there isn't a specific rule laid out regarding the daily schedule, which means any interpretation of it is pretty much subjective rather than set in stone. You see similar ambiguity in the legal statutes for other election matters as well. Essentially, the hourly schedule just needs to comply with federal law, which states that for multi-grade levels, the maximum is six hours per day. Beyond that, schools have total autonomy to organize their day however they please—whether they want to use block scheduling or something else entirely. In my experience, some days actually end up being longer because if religious studies is on the calendar, those hours don't even count toward that limit.

As for The Contract, of course it can be terminated. We are a sovereign nation, after all, and we’ve entered into agreements with other entities, like the Holy See, which we can rescind whenever we see fit. Naturally, there's a process involved; if things get complicated, there are plenty of international arbitration courts designed specifically for disputes between nations. You just take it to court, much like a divorce settlement.

The Contract actually states that parties can initiate renegotiations if circumstances change from when it was originally signed, but I have zero interest in watching a movie where some ruling political party tries to pull that stunt (unfortunately). Honestly, most parents only sign their kids up for religion because they don't want them becoming the black sheep of the family. That entire system runs entirely on perfidious pressure and emotional blackmail.

Larry Walker24 said:
Whatever the Federal Government tries to push through, it's just a fast track to losing the next election.

Circumstances might change one day, but don't hold your breath. It’s highly unlikely. Even Ireland didn't manage to shake off KC Inc. until centuries had passed. Only then did things finally start turning around—but by then, the skeletons were falling out of the closet like rain.

We’re looking at a film where you can become a teacher in less than five years, and we aren't even going to touch that famous Master's degree nonsense.

The reason? It’s all about protecting the cash flow for those overpriced Teacher's Colleges. They can't afford to let their tuition revenue dip.

On paper, undergrads can teach if there isn't a Master's holder available, but since those guys are always in high demand, it's basically zero chance.

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Reddit

Susan James said:Well, just like here in the States, there are probably teachers who explain the basics and then dive into exploration together with the students.
Unfortunately, that "exploratory" part is often left up to the teacher's individual style. Even if it isn't executed perfectly, it shouldn't really be an issue by the time they reach junior year of high school, because by then you have students who actually have the fundamentals down and are hungry for knowledge (since 🤔 🕺, which is why they're in honors tracks 🤔).

The thing is, while you see this in higher grades at middle school under normal circumstances (online learning just gave her a little boost), you also see more and more from the newer generation of teachers who love flirting with this exploratory method because they spent a few months on an exchange program in Finland and decided, sitting comfortably on an IKEA couch, that it felt right.
Or maybe they just realized IKEA couches are great and decided to ride the Finnish trend (that’s how I see these reforms).

On top of that, so much happens during these "exploratory" projects outside of the classroom, where you can truly learn through experience—faster, better, and more lasting than just listening to stories in class. And I won't even compare that to the "do-it-yourself" group work using textbooks filled with pictures.
In the US, we don't have the same level of restriction, but sometimes it feels like every single field trip requires a mountain of parental consent forms (and then you're crossing your fingers and praying that at least one parent doesn't say no, or that some kid doesn't mess up and get the whole class grounded from going anywhere).

Interactive and engaging museums are only just starting to pop up more frequently here; in Scandinavia, they're standard, so a good chunk of education happens there too... plus, families there tend to have a much stronger culture of traveling to different countries to experience other cultures and visit museums with their kids. Around here, the summer "tradition" is often just heading to a beach house for two months, or maybe a quick ski trip or a shopping spree in a nearby big city.
So, the more kids like that in a classroom, the more foundational knowledge they bring, which gives even the most laid-back teacher a solid base to build upon.
In our schools, those types of kids are in the minority.

But regardless of what a class looks like, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with direct instruction. In fact, that should be the backbone of education. Without it, it's a waste of taxpayer money on teacher salaries—at least not based on those advanced degree pay scales.

We’d have a travel culture too if we had their income levels.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S21 using Reddit

Jason Ortiz5 said:So, what’s the actual point of high school anyway? Is it about actually soaking up a broad range of knowledge, or is it just some way to grind kids down—basically making them bleed just to prove they're worthy of graduating from an "elite" prep school?

The first part is de jure. The second is de facto.
I see this at a local high school near me all the time. Certain teachers constantly belittle their students by comparing them to kids at a vocational school, using that as some sort of insult. They don't even realize how little distance there actually is between their classroom and a retail job at a Target.

Regarding teacher education: the more educated the instructor, the worse the students.

It used to be that a two-year associate degree was plenty for teachers. Then they bumped it to four years so they could hold a bachelor's. Now, under the new standards, they’re demanding five years of university.

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Reddit

Michelle Nelson4 said:Well... they do have a full faculty dedicated to agriculture and economics, though.

Look, we have to preserve the teaching staff at all costs. They’re the only ones that matter; they're the only metric that counts.
That said, in defense of the system, it makes zero sense to shut down an ag school in regions where farming is actually a major industry. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look into quotas, though.

mellowskipper said:I mean, if we actually decided to open a game development track at a high school over in a place like Memphis, I suspect the enrollment would be filled up in the blink of an eye.
We really ought to be paying closer attention to where the job market is heading—it’s about following the trends, I guess.

You can't just launch a specific "game production" major—that's way too niche. But you could offer something like computer programming technology. Graduates from those programs could go into gaming, sure, but they could also handle serious software like CAD or CAM.

Susan James said:That’s exactly why we need to focus on improving transportation. It isn't just about the students, either. I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect every teacher to own a car and commute long distances every single day.

Honestly, people are leaving these rural areas for a reason. Just because there's a high school in a tiny little town doesn't mean it'll stop the exodus; it might keep teachers there until retirement, but the local government needs a better strategy than that.

Besides teacher salaries (and those massive commuting costs since not everyone lives locally), you also have to factor in the utility bills for the building, which are going to be sky-high this coming winter.
That total cost eventually trickles down to everyone's taxes, so I don't really get the complaining about closing schools.
For elementary schools, sure, maybe. But for high schools? It doesn't make sense.

If I were to add anything, I'd say the problem is also keeping vocational programs that aren't even in demand anymore (since kids learn things differently now). Some schools stay open just to keep jobs available for teachers across the entire USA.
(Like a photography major, for example)

There are as many career paths as you want. Salesperson, waiter, tailor...

One interesting point. A guy I know wanted to start his own photography business, but he couldn't pull it off because he doesn't have a degree in photography—he’s got an Electrical Engineering degree instead. Even his high school was technical.

Sarah Hall53 said:You don’t live in a sleepy little town like I do, so you're probably looking at this whole emigration thing through a pretty simplified lens. We aren't just talking about twenty-somethings looking for adventure here. We’re talking about people in their thirties and even forties who end up packing up entire families—both spouses and all the kids—to head overseas. It’s usually an incredibly gut-wrenching decision, too, and most of the time, the hardest part is the kids—having to pull them out of their schools, their classrooms, and away from all their lifelong friends...
When that same kid has to spend an hour and a half commuting to school every single day with multiple transfers—whereas somewhere else abroad, everything is just more organized and efficient—the choice becomes a no-brainer. And that leads to a situation where it isn't just one person leaving the US, but four or five at once. Once two or three of those children stop seeing America as home after such a short time, they are essentially lost to us forever.

But hey, if a country views education as nothing more than a drain on the budget, then maybe it doesn't even deserve them.

How else should one view emigration? If not like this? I'm not happy here; I'm going where things will be better. All that nonsense about "home" and "motherland" is for the patriots. It's easy to talk about patriotism when you aren't facing major problems.

Sarah Hall53 said:You don’t live in a sleepy little town like I do, so you're probably looking at this whole emigration thing through a pretty simplified lens. We aren't just talking about twenty-somethings looking for adventure here. We’re talking about people in their thirties and even forties who end up packing up entire families—both spouses and all the kids—to head overseas. It’s usually an incredibly gut-wrenching decision, too, and most of the time, the hardest part is the kids—having to pull them out of their schools, their classrooms, and away from all their lifelong friends...
When that same kid has to spend an hour and a half commuting to school every single day with multiple transfers—whereas somewhere else abroad, everything is just more organized and efficient—the choice becomes a no-brainer. And that leads to a situation where it isn't just one person leaving the US, but four or five at once. Once two or three of those children stop seeing America as home after such a short time, they are essentially lost to us forever.

But hey, if a country views education as nothing more than a drain on the budget, then maybe it doesn't even deserve them.

And what's the alternative?

Schools? Is there any real damage? You think they'll miss anything vital? The geography of Kazakhstan, an alphabetical list of those fallen at Thermopylae, the reproduction cycles of Precambrian plants...?
Friends are fine, but they aren't the ones feeding their children, nor can you live off them.

Sarah Hall53 said:You don’t live in a sleepy little town like I do, so you're probably looking at this whole emigration thing through a pretty simplified lens. We aren't just talking about twenty-somethings looking for adventure here. We’re talking about people in their thirties and even forties who end up packing up entire families—both spouses and all the kids—to head overseas. It’s usually an incredibly gut-wrenching decision, too, and most of the time, the hardest part is the kids—having to pull them out of their schools, their classrooms, and away from all their lifelong friends...
When that same kid has to spend an hour and a half commuting to school every single day with multiple transfers—whereas somewhere else abroad, everything is just more organized and efficient—the choice becomes a no-brainer. And that leads to a situation where it isn't just one person leaving the US, but four or five at once. Once two or three of those children stop seeing America as home after such a short time, they are essentially lost to us forever.

But hey, if a country views education as nothing more than a drain on the budget, then maybe it doesn't even deserve them.

What else? We can baby ourselves by calling it an "investment" or whatever, but the return is uncertain and highly questionable.

rowdypanther12 said:What kind of advantage is that? Is he just going to die of boredom while his kids are still learning their ABCs and 123s?

That’s exactly the point I was making regarding potential issues. Boredom breeds trouble—kids start acting out in class or disrespecting their teachers just to pass the time.

On the flip side, you get high grades, and let's face it, those are the only thing that matters. But what happens when they hit middle school? If we follow this logic, there'll be some specialized prep school for sixth graders where they can pre-learn American history, geography, or fractions... Where does it actually end?