Posts by Lawrence Torres56

brighteagle86 said:Consider this—science isn't a static monument; it’s an ongoing upgrade. Theories evolve as new data hits the desk—nothing is sacred, and everything remains up for debate if the facts simply don't hold up. 🎉

I mean, sure, but shouldn't we actually embrace that mindset and act like it instead of getting all defensive over stuff that might end up being proven wrong by tomorrow morning? 😉

brighteagle86 said:Are you suggesting that according to Catholic doctrine, non-believers simply bypass hell entirely?

yeah😉 just go read the Catechism and you'll see that Catholic teaching doesn't even mention anything like that. 😁

James Alvarez2 said:But the kid didn't get a trial run of Sunday school. They could've had a trial practice. Could've had five trial practices before you went out and bought all the gear.

Basically, you asked a 6 or 7-year-old if they wanted to learn about something totally abstract (even if you're a believer living by the teachings of the Church, your kid can't wrap their head around that yet) and then you drag them for eight—not even YEARS, but eight—to do something they don't like, if they don't like it.

I get the idea that you can't try everything and quit after two tries. But religious education is a super sensitive topic for that kind of logic.

They have it on Tapatalk! 😬

As far as I'm concerned, I don't even need a trial period, because if my kid is actually interested in something, it's on me to handle the "trial" phase myself, right? It shouldn't be about making kids who already know what they want waste their time while my kid sits there overthinking whether they should sign up or not...
And for my little one, it wasn't about being forced at all; she knew exactly what she was getting into and embraced it just like she did with math, English, and everything else....

Besides, religious education isn't a mandatory subject in American schools anyway, right? Nobody is forcing you to enroll your kid in religion class in first grade. You could literally just ask the instructor if the kid could sit in for a few school hours just to see if they're into it, and if they decide to commit, they can officially start the following year...

James Alvarez2 said:Alright, fine, whatever, but why is there no option to just quit?
Like, you aren't allowed to just walk away from basketball if you realize you're actually more into tennis?

Look, I don’t force my kid into anything, but I also refuse to let her just drift through life like some headless chicken wandering aimlessly around. If she sets her mind on something, she’s going to see it through to the bitter end before she’s even allowed to think about walking away. To me, this constant hopping from one hobby to the next, jumping from activity to activity without ever sticking the landing, is just a massive waste of time—honestly, I think it’s how you actually end up messing up your kid's head. You know the drill: today she doesn't want to go to Sunday School, tomorrow she’s over the after-school programs, the day after that she’s refusing to go to class... where does it stop? Where does that even lead us? Now, don't get me wrong, I’m not claiming to have all the answers or saying my way is the only way to raise a human being, but here in the States, this approach really works for us. It’s what we’ve always done since day one, and we’ve never run into a single issue with it. Then I look at my friend's situation, and man, it's a different world. Her house is basically a warehouse filled with soccer jerseys, gymnastics gear, art kits, and every gadget imaginable, yet the kid loses interest in everything after maybe three days. He's only in second grade and he's already acting like school is beneath him because nothing catches his interest anymore; he’s practically begging to stay home every Friday for a long weekend. It’s just wild to watch.

I don't know about you guys, but I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for what feels like an eternity, just trying to make sense of everything being thrown our way lately. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're all just collectively spinning our wheels while the world moves at a hundred miles an hour? Honestly, I can't tell if I'm just overthinking things or if there's actually some kind of pattern emerging here that everyone else is somehow missing. Does anyone else get that weird, nagging feeling that we're all just reacting to the chaos instead of actually navigating it? It's exhausting, really. I mean, how are we even supposed to stay grounded when the ground itself feels like it's constantly shifting under our feet? I'm just curious if anyone else is feeling this specific brand of existential burnout, or if I should just go grab a massive coffee and pretend everything is totally fine. kaže:
Not really, though. If you actually look at what they teach in Church, it’s basically the exact opposite, and from a strictly theological standpoint, the whole idea that non-believers are headed for hell definitely holds water. But honestly, whatever... my daughter just thinks the whole thing is hilarious anyway. 😉

I mean, honestly, isn't it obvious that every single religion out there is supposed to be teaching kids how to actually respect one another? It’s right there in the core of it, isn't it? But then you have these total weirdos—these absolute creeps—who spend all their time scaring people by dragging up some twisted, evil version of God just to threaten them with hellfire. Like, seriously, why would anyone even go there?😉

Michelle Nelson4 said:What kind of "distortions" are we even talking about in other disciplines? I mean, once you accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in physics or move into non-Euclidean geometry in math, things get complicated too, right? 🤦
Most academic subjects are—believe it or not—grounded in hard facts, rigorous science, and empirical research. Religion just doesn't operate on those same foundations. The end.

You’ve gotta be kidding me, right?😉
History is supposedly founded on hard facts... and all that jazz? Especially more recent history?😁
Like American English, where they seem to tweak the style guides every single year?
Or biology and physics, where they're constantly dropping new theories on us?

By the way, principles and theories aren't "facts"—Heisenberg or non-Euclidean geometry could be totally debunked next year for all we know.
And it took over a century for non-Euclidean geometry to even get accepted, effectively challenging Euclidean geometry; so why on earth should we assume that some other set of rules won't just come along tomorrow and flip the script again?

Also, how can you be so absolutely certain that God doesn't exist and that everything taught in religious studies is just empty talk? Has science actually proven that God isn't real?

Susan James said:It just occurred to me while I was thinking about school schedules... for those of you who enroll your kids in religious education classes... do you actually frame it as an elective? Like, do you explain to them that alongside their mandatory core subjects, they have the option to take an elective course centered around your faith and values
Do you make sure they understand it’s a choice? That while math is a requirement, this particular subject is something they get to decide on—whether they want to participate or not?

Honestly, before I signed my little one up for her religious studies at school, I made sure to ask if she actually wanted to go, much like how we handle after-school activities or any other extracurricular stuff. I gave her a rough rundown of what she’d be learning and emphasized that if she chose to do it, she couldn't just quit halfway through... just like how she has the choice to opt out entirely, which would mean getting home an hour earlier since it's during that last period of the day.😁

Jason Ortiz5 said:So, you get an F for insulting a friend? Maybe that only applies if you're insulting someone else in the congregation. 🤔 Or is saying "you're going to hell because you don't believe" considered constructive criticism? 😛

Look, anyone judging people based on their faith isn't actually practicing that faith, just like someone shouldn't be picking their friends based on what they believe... that's pretty much the golden rule in every religion, isn't it?😁

Chloe Roberts2 said:I mean, they clearly didn't realize that showing up to Mass would actually impact their kid's grade, so—get this—now they’re just pulling them out of the class altogether.

😲

You really can't compare standard academics to religious studies.

Surely a parent can tell their child, "Look, if you aren't feeling the choir practice anymore, you don't have to go since it isn't mandatory, but you still have to show up for school."😕

So, get this—apparently, showing up to Mass actually counts toward your grade in church religious ed classes, but it doesn't mean a lick to the school system? Like, seriously? Even though they’re both technically "religious education," there's absolutely zero overlap between the two... it’s like they’re living in two different universes or something. Why does one care about your attendance while the other just couldn't care less?
Quincy:

😲 I mean, honestly, can we even put school and religion in the same category? It’s like comparing apples to oranges, right? You’ve got your standard academic curriculum—math, science, history—which is all about facts and logic, and then you have religious studies, which is an entirely different beast altogether. They operate on completely different wavelengths, so trying to weigh one against the other just feels totally off base. Why would anyone even try to make that comparison? School is mandatory, period. It’s that one universal equalizer where it honestly doesn't matter if you're a devout Muslim, a hardcore atheist, a lifelong Christian, or just someone who couldn't care less about religion if your life depended on it. It's just the baseline for everyone, right? That’s also the spot where you pick up all those actual scientific facts, you know?

Oh, give me a break! Seriously?😁Look, religion class is just another credit on the transcript, plain and simple. You want to talk about whether it’s "equal" to something like math? Just try telling your kid they don't have to show up to religion class and see if the school lets them slide with an unexcused absence. It’s a requirement, isn't it? And if that kid finishes the year without passing, well, that’s a failing grade on their record just like any other subject. So, does it really matter how you categorize it when the consequences for skipping or failing are exactly the same as anything else on the schedule?😁

Quincy:

Religious studies classes are basically just a playground for teaching baseless theories and drilling kids on the idea that they need to go out there and "spread the faith," which is really just a polite way of saying they should be badgering people into converting.

Honestly, if you think about it, theology is kind of just like history, isn't it? It’s basically this massive collection of narratives that might be absolute truths, or they might just be nothing more than unproven assumptions floating around in the ether... who's really to say?
And honestly, if there’s any kind of twist or distortion happening at all, isn't it just baked into the very nature of every single thing we look at? It’s like, you can try to find something pure, but if a little bit of warping exists, doesn't it just seep into everything else too?

Quincy:

I mean, isn't it about time we started asking if a person actually has the right to just stand up and say, "Look, this whole thing isn't mandatory, so I'm officially opting out"? Is it really that much to ask? 😕

Look, nobody's disputing that you have every right to speak your mind—no one’s even going there. I was just trying to get at the bigger picture here... what kind of message are we actually sending to our kids by doing this? And honestly, what happens when tomorrow that same kid walks up to us and says, "Yeah, actually, I'm done. I don't want to go to school anymore"? What then?

James Alvarez2 said:Being a believer doesn't mean you're glued to a church bench every single day. There's no rule saying you have to hit mass daily. It mentions honoring the Lordly day. That's Sunday. If you can't make it Sunday, go during the week. Shorter service. Or just wait until next week.

If someone is labeling your kid an unbeliever just because you aren't constantly at church (which is honestly ridiculous), then that person isn't playing with a full deck.

I mean, sorry, but if that's the case, then most of the priests who refuse to let kids take communion because they missed the 9 AM Sunday service must be out of their minds too, right?😉

I mean, yeah, I totally agree—being a true believer isn't about being at church 24/7, but it seems like most priests nowadays don't see it that way.

Of course, I'm just talking about my own local parish here...

Susan James said:So, I think that's perfectly reasonable.
If you don't even understand the core tenets of your own faith, how can you meaningfully participate in the sacraments?
It's just being honest about it.

(Though, I do worry that some people might receive them regardless of their knowledge, simply because the parish wants to keep their numbers up.)😢

I’m starting to fear that the actual foundations of faith don't even exist anymore; everything just seems to shift depending on which priest you happen to be dealing with at the moment.😁....

Kids get baptized basically because their parents want them to, and first communion at that age is pretty much driven by parental willpower too, so why should we even bother pushing these rituals on them?....I don't know, but in my book, wouldn't it be way more effective to actually try and make the faith relatable to kids during those years? Because otherwise, none of this stuff is going to matter unless it becomes their own personal choice later on...
Take my little girl, for example—she won't head to church on her own since it’s not exactly a walk in the park to get there, and look, I’m not exactly a devout regular who's sitting in a pew every single day... does that really mean the church automatically brands her an unbeliever based on my lifestyle and shuts the door on her ever finding her way to faith, even if she’s actually super interested in it herself?
Besides, isn't that whole setup kind of a massive contradiction to what the church actually preaches?

Susan James said:Honestly, I think religion classes should be for whoever truly wants to be there—people who have an actual interest and understand why they're attending.
The mindset of "everyone goes, so everyone has to go" doesn't really align with actual faith or even common sense.
It makes me quite sad to see kids being forced into church. They have to be pressured into it; I've even heard people say things like, "Just do this while you're young so you can get married in a church later" or "Do this now so you don't have to deal with it when you're older."🤦)

And it really doesn't.
As soon as you introduce grading and testing, it stops being about living a faith or finding joy in spirituality every day.
Once parents realize this, they'll stop enrolling their children in school-based religious programs altogether.

The more I think about it, the more I feel these classes exist simply because parents choose to send their kids there.
It's not because the system is inherently necessary.
I find myself feeling more frustrated with other parents than with any government agreement, teachers, school boards, or agencies.

The more I reflect on this, the less respect I have for parents who outsource such a fundamental thing as spirituality to an institution—especially one that will likely claim it has lost its ability to provide moral guidance at the next opportunity.

.
I mean, look, church religion is all about evaluation, right? Like, if you don't know the specific verses or you skip communion or confirmation, you're basically out in the cold—kind of like how you can't get into certain clubs unless you've got enough social clout for those Sunday services...😉 whereas what they teach in public school is more about the basics of faith mixed with just being a decent human being. In elementary school, nobody is going to fail you just because you haven't memorized a prayer yet, but trust me, you'll get flagged in a heartbeat if you start acting like a jerk or swearing in class.
Quinn:

I've been thinking about this more and more lately, and honestly? Religious ed stays in the school system only because there are parents who choose to send their kids there. It's not because the system itself is actually good. I find myself feeling way more frustrated with other parents than I do with the Vatican agreements, the teachers, the school boards, or the government agencies.

In my book, having religion in the school curriculum should be about introducing kids to spiritual concepts and teaching them how to treat the people around them with basic respect... and honestly, I wouldn't even mind if they touched on a bit of different faiths too.
But church-based religion? That's almost exclusively about rote memorization of prayers and songs just to make sure the congregants look "devout" while they're inside the building, without any of it actually carrying over once they walk out the doors.
I signed my little girl up for the school program, even though I'm still undecided about whether she'll attend the church sessions... First Communion and Confirmation aren't really my priority, especially since I've seen how much kids get pressured and bullied through faith in those settings.

Larry Walker24 said:Wait, there's actually such a thing as a kids' Mass?! Never heard of that. What's the big difference?

Oh, yeah, but usually only leading up to big holidays like Easter or Christmas, or during those kid-focused blessings... Though, let's be real, it's pretty much the same as a regular service, except the priests smile at the kids a little more. Although, in some parishes, they just call the standard Sunday services "children's Mass" when all the kids getting their first communion or confirmation are required to show up just to collect their little trinkets and rewards...😁

rowdypanther12 said:I can't speak for smaller towns, but I see how things work here in Washington, D.C. In more rural areas, people probably go to church just because it's expected—it's almost a scandal if you don't. You see those older folks get all worked up when they try to tell the kids they have to show up on Sunday.

The truth is, kids only really have to deal with Mass on Sundays during 3rd and 8th grade for First Communion and Confirmation, mostly just so they learn how to actually behave in a sanctuary, right? For any other grade, nobody’s forcing them or even checking to see if they showed up.
Plus, parents can totally coordinate; they can take turns every Sunday, so one parent picks up the kids and drives them to service while the others stay home—nobody expects every single parent to be stuck in a pew with their kids every single week.

Anyway, I honestly don't get parents who go out of their way to enroll their kids in religious education classes and then suddenly find it such a massive chore to drive them to church, or worse, let them drop out of the program the following school year... I mean, what kind of message does that even send to a kid? If they decide they don't want to go to school tomorrow, should they just quit their entire education altogether?🤷

driftingskipper30 said:My intention here was to deconstruct that tired old stereotype regarding the divide between the rich and the poor. Now, obviously, that distinction doesn't truly exist in a cosmic sense, but let's be honest with ourselves... we all tend to view the world through that lens. It's part of our human frailty, I suppose...
But, before we even think about it, we're much more likely to believe in the spirituality of someone who's struggling than someone who's affluent. Why is that?
It's simply because this world is fundamentally material. I guess only the truly brave will choose to let go of material pursuits, and—if we're being even bolder—it takes an even greater kind of courage for those who actually hold better positions and enjoy more advantages—those we label as "poor"—to do the same...

Personally, I don't really see it that way...
If you ask me, the real yardstick for a person's spirituality isn't how much they bow down to others, but whether they actually take care of the basic things they have, like pulling up a blanket when it gets cold.

And let's be real, courage doesn't have anything to do with walking away from your possessions; you just need to find yourself in a situation where you finally realize how utterly worthless—and frankly, how toxic—that material junk actually is.😉

Tyler Nelson said:I jumped into this whole journey just over a year ago. I’m still pretty much a rookie, but I’ve been moving through the stages fast enough to make my head spin.👍
During one meditation, I picked up the name of my guide—Gulfart. I tried digging into what that actually means, but I hit a bit of a dead end. If anyone out there knows the symbolism behind a name like that, I'm all ears...
The real game-changer for my awakening was this reconnection experience; it totally blew my mind and completely flipped my perspective on everything!

Honestly, the name itself and what it means isn't even the big takeaway here; what really matters is the actual presence of the figure and everything tied to his essence... just pay attention to that, you know? That’s how you’ll actually learn way more about yourself.

driftingskipper30 said:There’s this old way of thinking—maybe it's a bit cliché, I guess—that suggests the less you possess, the richer your spirit becomes.
I mean, poverty is just a lack of material stuff, right? It doesn't necessarily mean someone is spiritually bankrupt...
In fact, it's often true that people who have next to nothing—or absolutely nothing, really—possess far more soul than those struggling to stay afloat amidst massive wealth.

But—and this is a big "but"—can we actually discuss those rare (well, conditionally rare, I suppose...) instances where wealthy individuals are also spiritually profound?
Having money doesn't inherently preclude spirituality... Of course, it can certainly mask it, but the question always comes back to the individual; do I actually have a soul?

And of course they can...
The elite can absolutely be soulful...
Could they even possess more spirit than someone with fewer resources?
Yes, they could.

So, why is it that we constantly view the upper class as something that somehow insults the very idea of the spirit?
Well, it isn't a rule that spirituality belongs exclusively to those with less money... it's just an observation, perhaps.

Actually, self-aware wealthy people might even have a better starting point... They might find themselves with more opportunities to explore the spiritual realm simply because their resources aren't limited... They can travel the world, for instance.

Honestly, this way of thinking isn't actually about spirituality at all—it's just materialists looking for an excuse😁
to claim they're being spiritual. You don't need to be loaded or broke to find enlightenment; you just have to be a human being who lives with two simple truths in mind:
1. You didn't bring a single thing into this world with you, and you aren't taking any of your possessions with you when you go.
and,
2. symbiosis
😁

Mark Wood76 said:We don't actually suffer because we attach ourselves to things; we suffer because we desperately want those things to stay exactly the same. But let's be real—change is the only thing we can actually count on.
We spend our lives trying to grab the steering wheel, convinced we can make the world spin exactly the way we imagined it. We claim this freedom to bond with people or objects, but if that connection isn't a two-way street—if it isn't mutual and freely given—then we aren't really connecting at all. We're just trying to force our own will on the world. And that’s where the heartache starts, because suddenly we're trapped in a tiny little bubble of our own making, which completely defeats the whole purpose of reaching out in the first place.

Hmm, when it comes to people like that, you have to wonder—are they truly aware of how temporary everything is, or is it more of that specific kind of "religious" detachment? You know, that whole "God gives and God takes away" mindset? I remember hearing a priest tell a couple a few years back, while they were dealing with a really sick kid, something along the lines of, "There's no reason to weep; this child is simply returning to God, to His Father. You aren't really the parents, just the temporary guardians God entrusted this soul to for a little while."😲

Anyway, I'm totally with WatchmanMNE on this one—attachment isn't what causes the suffering; it's that desperate need to feel like we have everything under control.

wanderinggardener12 said:It’s clear you aren't actually reading the arguments; you're just typing. We are discussing a systemic failure to teach and evaluate functional competencies—things like logical reasoning, critical thinking, abstraction, and generalization... (and before you start, I am not talking about learning to knit or building scale models here...) as well as essential skills like literacy, verbal communication, motor skills, and social intelligence.
How can one possibly measure the development of these complex skills through mere numerical grades? At least not in any capacity that isn't fundamentally flawed.

It's way too hot out to be just typing away without actually reading anything first.😁
I honestly can't agree that everything is being systematically ignored, especially generalization—if anything, I think we overemphasize it too much... as for logical and critical thinking, maybe the current curriculum just doesn't carve out enough space for them to really breathe? If we tried to force all that in right now, it would just be a complete mess... because, like I said before, our whole American school system is built on this "move through the modules" training approach.
And let's be real, none of that stuff is even particularly vital preparation for the real world (in my book), nor is it something today's kids are actually lacking...
To me, actual preparation for life—literally preparing them for life—was what those old-school shop classes and home economics courses used to be... they actually equipped kids from a young age to be useful for *something*, unlike today, where kids graduate completely helpless and unable to handle any kind of real work or independent living...
As for descriptive grading, sorry, but I'll say it again: in a system like ours, I think they'd do more harm than good. Sure, maybe they could describe a kid's skill development a bit better, but if that development isn't aligned with the required curriculum, then in the long run, it's totally irrelevant and actually hurts the student... if we're going to introduce that kind of thing, it should be in high school or college where those specific skills actually matter for their future career paths, not in elementary school where they're still just learning the basics.

wanderinggardener12 said:Of course there’s a connection between the two. I really don't have the energy to provide an exhaustive breakdown here; if the link between the curriculum and grading scales wasn't clear in my last post, I suspect a deep dive into how they intersect won't do much good either. Still, I can't just let it slide without mentioning that the current curriculum completely overlooks the integration of functional outcomes and developmental milestones. It all circles back to our broken assessment system, where formative evaluation is either treated as a superficial afterthought or ignored entirely.
The boss is where he should be and the station is right where it belongs, but it seems to me you’ve boarded the wrong train entirely.
Education and training—whatever you want to call it—ought to serve the purpose of sustaining life itself; there really isn’t much debate to be had there. However, preparing a child for the world shouldn't be synonymous with recruiting future cogs for a globalized machine that recognizes nothing but the bottom line. I have made my position on this quite clear. I will never view my own children, nor those entrusted to my care, as mere instruments to facilitate someone else's gain. Should they be required to perform tasks they dislike or find difficult, then yes, they certainly ought to learn how to persevere; but to teach children to engage in meaningless, lifelong drudgery simply to satisfy the whims of future employers, all while stifling every other facet of their unique personalities? To me, that feels like nothing short of violence.
It all circles back to the core issues: the curriculum, the actual lesson plans, and those outdated textbooks, not to mention the entire grading system used in our elementary schools. Is it any wonder things feel broken when the very foundation of how we teach and evaluate students is so fundamentally flawed?

Honey, if you've got such a massive problem with the curriculum and the way it handles instruction and training, why not take it up with the Department of Education? They're the ones calling the shots on stuff like that. Besides, you say you're a teacher? That's great! That actually gives you more leverage to go in there and make a difference... personally, I think letter grades are totally fine; I have zero interest in hearing endless praise about my kid, and I definitely don't want to see important issues swept under the rug just because someone prefers descriptive feedback over hard numbers.
And let's be real, school isn't "preparing kids for life" anymore; those days are long gone when kids used to learn how to cook, sew, or build useful things around the house. So, please, stop talking nonsense—as a teacher, you should know better than that... and besides, as a teacher, you're obligated to follow the state-mandated plan and program if you actually care about these kids, because their future education relies on that standardized knowledge, not on whatever individual philosophy a certain teacher decides to follow.

wanderinggardener12 said:It pains me to have to say this, but this kind of hollow reconciliation—this way of making peace by simply sacrificing the youngest among us, and even the adults, to the grind—is exactly how the system manages to stay so stagnant, so utterly senseless, and so profoundly cruel.
If you really want to go down this road, let's be honest: there is no numerical grading system in an adult's life—well, unless you’re counting the high-stakes world of Wall Street or those shallow social circles where people rank others like they're reviewing a menu. In the real world, we navigate friendships, love, our homes, family dynamics, the chaos of daily events, our own emotions, health, personal growth, and our careers using descriptive nuances, not digits. So, what exactly kind of "preparation for life" are we talking about if children are fed feedback consisting solely of a number, often stripped of any actual context or explanation? Schools try to use these grades to prep kids for professional accountability, but that is such a tiny, narrow slice of the vast reality awaiting them. Someone might graduate as a straight-A student in the corporate ladder, yet when they face the messy, complicated web of human relationships in their private lives, there won't be a scorecard waiting for them. Life isn't a multiple-choice test; it’s far more intricate than that. You’ll find yourself receiving praise and criticism simultaneously, or being met with a demand and a compliment all in one breath. How can a single digit possibly prepare anyone for that level of complexity?
As both a mother and an educator, I find myself staring at certain assignments and wondering if we’ve collectively lost our minds. Occasionally, a teacher hands out something that is just plain nonsensical—an exercise that lacks any real substance or logic. If it happens once in a blue moon, fine; you shrug it off and move on. If it happens five times, well, maybe it's just a bad week. But when you realize that this kind of intellectual emptiness has been drilled into a child's head year after year, doesn't it make you wonder what we are actually accomplishing? Are we really going to sit here and pretend that brainwashing a kid into accepting mediocrity is somehow part of a legitimate education?
I know this one teacher who spends the entire four-year elementary school stretch forcing her students to color things in; every single assignment seems to require some sort of coloring task for their homework. It’s reached a point where a kid is spending roughly thirty percent of their time at home just coloring away. Honestly, if I were a parent in that classroom, I don't think I could stomach it past first grade—maybe even sooner than that. And please, don't even start with me about "developing fine motor skills."
Once you’ve reached adulthood and realize your employer is assigning you tasks that border on the absurd, you’re faced with a rather grim crossroads. You find yourself trapped in a cycle of pointless errands—transcribing data that’s already sitting right there in the spreadsheet, driving across town to the courthouse just to drop off a single document, racing back to the law firm, only to be sent right back out again when a simple errand could have been handled in one efficient trip. Or perhaps it’s even more surreal, like being forced to spend two weeks working alongside contractors on the boss's new suburban home, despite the fact that your actual training and expertise lie in an auto repair shop. When life becomes this disjointed, you really only have two choices: do you swallow your pride and endure the nonsense just to ensure the paycheck clears, or do you walk away entirely? Is it better to quit and take a job as a delivery driver, even though you were trained as an attorney, or perhaps pick up a hammer as a mason, even though you’re meant to be under the hood of a car? At what point does the dignity of a career become worth less than the sheer absurdity of the daily grind?
When you're just a kid, you don't really have a choice in the matter. If you happen to have parents who spend every single day drilling into your head that you need to be compliant—that you have to perform these utterly mindless tasks just because some teacher at school demanded it—you’re essentially being groomed to become an adult who functions as nothing more than an excellent little slave.
I’m not suggesting that a parent should go to war over every single assignment that seems irrational (after all, some things that look pointless might actually serve a purpose, or perhaps it was just a one-off moment of stupidity from the faculty), but if there is a persistent pattern of turning children into obedient drones who lack any sense of critical thinking, then in my view, we are looking at a form of systemic abuse that a parent is obligated to address.
And what happens if the child possesses a slightly stronger personality? What if they intuitively sense the injustice behind these arbitrary demands, yet they end up receiving failing grades, and you—their own parent—simply advise them to stay submissive at all costs? What exactly are you doing to that child's soul?
Standardized molds and rigid structures have their place in certain aspects of upbringing, sure, but where are all the other dimensions of development?

🤣What does letter grading even have to do with the actual curriculum?... or even more so, how does it relate to parents and the way they approach teaching their own kids? 🤷
It's not just that you completely missed the mark with the boss, you totally missed the mark with the whole station too... 😉
Seriously though, why don't you try to figure out what your actual issue is first? Is it the grading system? Is it this idea of learning through rote memorization instead of actual life lessons? Or is it the parents who refuse to teach their kids that while they have their own way of doing things, there are actual societal norms in the world that they're eventually going to have to deal with? 🤷

rapidbear65 said:I'm right there with you, colleague. These so-called scientists can spin the same event in a dozen different ways, sneaking their own biases into any part of the story that isn't fully explained yet. Like, take an atheist who suddenly recovers from a terminal illness—would they see it as a gift from God, only to die in a car accident shortly after? Was the healing meant to lead them to God's love before they passed, or was the sudden death some kind of punishment for a sin? Honestly, stuff like that just leaves me totally lost...

Personally, I don't think whether someone is an atheist or a believer even matters in these scenarios, you know? And I definitely wouldn't call death a "punishment" for sin, because really, who gets to define what sin is anyway? Do murderers, rapists, or thieves all drop dead young, or do they live to be old and gray? Do believers actually live longer than atheists? I wouldn't bet on it.😉
Looking at people who experience these kinds of moments, I almost get the impression they've been handed a second chance to finish whatever it is they started—or maybe failed to start—and now they really need to see things through to the end.🤷

Look, as a person, you rarely encounter something this truly "miraculous" within your own family or even your immediate circle. It’s honestly hard to wrap your head around the idea that these kinds of miracles actually happen, but once you witness one with your own two eyes? Man, all that so-called "science" starts looking pretty ridiculous. All those endless ramblings and repetitive mantras about things they don't actually care about scientifically—not that they even understand half of what they're talking about—but hey, it’s important to them to keep their mouths moving just so they can pretend to be the smartest people in the room, right? And let's not forget that this whole version of "science" is totally subjective; depending on whoever is standing behind the podium, they’ll either hail these wonders as breakthroughs or spit on them in an instant...

analogseal18 said:

says: It is frankly delusional to expect some specialized "test prep centers" to ready children for their SATs regardless of what they actually absorbed during their years in the classroom. nosorog, do you truly believe that a child can somehow compensate for twelve years of academic development in a mere three-month sprint? In my estimation, the preparation for writing an essay on a standardized exam should effectively begin with simple composition exercises in elementary school. Anyone who posits that a student can be fully prepared for national exams in just ninety days likely views such tests as nothing more than a rote memorization of facts—something that can be crammed into the brain through intense, short-term grinding. But that is not what these exams are. I could speak at length about the English language portion, which is designed to test comprehension and analytical skills far more than any collection of static, factual knowledge. What these prep courses offer is merely the opportunity to review material (assuming one possesses enough self-discipline to have learned it initially), perhaps clarify certain points, or build upon existing foundations; they are by no means a substitute for the entire educational journey.

Furthermore, they are not replacements, but rather a systematization of what has already been acquired. For instance, while certain vocational schools might not focus heavily on essay writing, if a student actually uses their intellect—meaning they are literate in English and possess a strong command of a second language—they can utilize these prep sessions to learn how to structure an essay and receive specific instructions on how to execute a particular task.

Who is ultimately to blame for the declining knowledge levels among graduating seniors? It is the parents and their immediate social circles. They fail to demand critical thinking in daily life; they discourage reflection on the phenomena and events surrounding them, instead filling their children's heads with the mantra that "there are no rules, everything is random, it's all just luck." Well, let me tell you, luck and randomness will not help you calculate the angles of a trapezoid, which was certainly required on this year's exam!

Education is not confined to the walls of a school or the memorization of a curriculum; true education requires one to keep their mind engaged and active throughout the entire day.

Man, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If anything, it's the schools that teach these kids not to think for themselves, forcing them to believe that the only thing that matters is what's printed in some textbook—definitions that, half the time, have zero connection to real-world phenomena or anything actually happening around them. The curriculum they serve up to these kids is just mind-numbing and totally alienating for most of them, but hey, who cares about that, right? As long as someone's lining their pockets with textbook royalties, the job's done.🙄