If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local6)   Teacher gives anti-Bush vocabulary quiz. Hilarity ensues   (local6.com) divider line 307
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

32041 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2005 at 11:47 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



307 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-26 07:25:55 PM
I hope other questions on the quiz were "worse" than the example presented in the article...

Well, I hope the grammar was better...

/sucks at grammar
 
2005-11-26 07:57:13 PM
cuibono

Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned.

The only useful thing to come out of this entire thread is your detailed explanation of why "whoever" is the correct word to use in the reporter's sentence. Thanks! I learned something today.

(Diagramming the sentence would be really cool, too.)
 
2005-11-26 08:10:16 PM
Remember when this was a thread about a teacher?

Continue with your partisan hackery and grammergasms.
 
2005-11-26 08:15:57 PM
boobsrgood
Remember when this was a thread about a teacher?
Continue with your partisan hackery and grammergasms.


You mean that point somewhere between when it was Greenlighted and the Boobies went up.

You mean that time?
Heh.
Welcome to Fark.
 
2005-11-26 08:17:53 PM
boobsrgood
Remember when this was a thread about a teacher?

Continue with your partisan hackery and grammergasms.


You mean that point somewhere between when it was Greenlighted and the Boobies went up.

Yep.
Welcome to Fark.
 
2005-11-26 08:20:03 PM
Ok what the hell..


I type out Boobies.....and the word Boobies shows up.

I think something crawled in my computer.
Probably a midget.

I need AntiMidget Software.

Seriously WTF???
 
2005-11-26 08:20:49 PM
GAHHHHHHHHH Boobies=BOOBIES
 
2005-11-26 08:21:36 PM
GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH loosing my mind.

1ssstttt----p05t
 
2005-11-26 08:22:21 PM
The vocabulary problem was not exactly biased against Bush. Even Bush supporters are going to have to acknowledge that Bush is often perceived as a dim bulb because he is not a very good public speaker. It's not bias, if it is the commonly held truth.
 
2005-11-26 08:22:34 PM
cant type those words on fark
Boobies=Boobies
 
2005-11-26 08:23:20 PM
lexlamman

Implying that "[charming] the below-average mind [ensures] Republican votes" is not teaching "reason, knowledge, logic, and wisdom." You could argue that the statement is true, but its support is circumstantial at best.

/MF is the Garfield of conservative comics.
 
2005-11-26 08:27:43 PM
Prob not a good idea on his part although I don't blame him... have YOU ever tried to write test questions without getting bored as all hell?

Would have been funnier had they been mathematics story problems: If tax revenue is ___________ for the us and Bush's tax cut is ___________, but spending for the war in iraq, the war on terror, the war on drugs (ad nauseum) is _____________, how farked are we?
 
2005-11-26 08:28:58 PM
AuntNotAnt

I never did imply that the below-average mind has anything to do with Republican votes. You said it, not me.

I said that most teachers were liberals. I also said that both major parties haev their share of bucktoothed ignorant morons.

If you are attempting to represent the Republican party is a more 'reasonable, logical, knowlegable, and wise' manner, you are failing miserably. In fact, you are making conservatives look like bigger asshats than they already are.

Subversive

Hit the metaphorical nail right on the motherfarking head.
 
2005-11-26 08:35:38 PM
lexslamman

No, you didn't say it. I didn't either. Bret Chenkin did. RTFA!
 
2005-11-26 08:38:53 PM
Subversive
The vocabulary problem was not exactly biased against Bush. Even Bush supporters are going to have to acknowledge that Bush is often perceived as a dim bulb because he is not a very good public speaker. It's not bias, if it is the commonly held truth.



Right, however people then take inability to speak in public and automatically inject a belief of stupidness.
This is not necessarily true. Its like saying that a person that stutters is stupid because they stutter.
Neither necessarily has anything to do with the other. Some people just get flustered speaking in public.


If you want to call the guy stupid, point at Iraq and the major lack of planning. That at least has a bit more content to it.
 
2005-11-26 08:41:15 PM
Some people just get flustered speaking in public.

And therefore shouldn't be in a position where precision language is INCREDIBLY important.
 
2005-11-26 08:51:56 PM
Aias
And therefore shouldn't be in a position where precision language is INCREDIBLY important.



I wouldnt go that far.
I would say expect to be ridiculed tho.
Right or wrong it'll happen.

Remember the whole "I inventer the internet"(right wrong true or not, doesnt matter its only an example) thing?
Everyone is gonna fark up once in a while, simply expect to be made fun of because of it.
Yes this includes being called stupid.
However there are people that actually believe this.
So again we are back to the percieved idiocy of people that stutter.
 
2005-11-26 09:16:00 PM
Compare Abraham Lincoln quotes to GW Bush.
You couldn't really. Because the former is so intellegent and the other is hardly even qualified to ride the short bus.

He's the best we got for the past 5+ years? What a joke.
I'm glad I'm not living with the shame that I voted a retard to be US president... TWICE!
SHAME on you voters!

From Lincoln to Bush... Why has standards dropped so far?
 
2005-11-26 09:30:41 PM
"And therefore shouldn't be in a position where precision language is INCREDIBLY important."

Were you trying to be sarcastic? You know, like using a "Bushism" to mock Bush's lack of public speaking skills?

/pot calling the kettle a dumbass
 
2005-11-26 09:36:10 PM
Aias: And therefore shouldn't be in a position where precision language is INCREDIBLY important.

Ahem.

That should be "precise language".

You are welcome.
 
2005-11-26 09:37:33 PM
I'm sure it has been said already (didn't RTFT), but it's BENNINGTON. I think you have to show your Socialist Workers Party card to buy a house there. What do you expect?

/surprised some kid complained
 
2005-11-26 09:41:56 PM
T.Durden

And another thing; those English teachers who are trying to batter their students into believing that Shakespeare and Chaucer are better authors than Stephen King and Michael Crichton, how dare to share your beliefs about a subject that you are responsible for teaching. Maybe some child's mom or dad really like "The Pelican Brief"; how dare you try to indoctrinate them into believing that "King Lear" is a better piece of literature. You must remain unbiased whether you are discussing "The Canterbury Tales" or "Children of the Corn". Damn teachers, actually trying to get students to think!!


Calm down bucky. For the most part, the English teachers have degrees in English, which means they have spent thousands of dollars learning about historic literature. They believe these texts to be superior literature: and they are. Now, they are not the most popular literature these days (if they were, you'd be able to buy them next to the rest of the current popular literature at the grocery store, next to hallmark cards)...but that is another topic. If a kid goes through high school and reads Crichton and never learns about Shakespeare...they're kinda missing something fundamental about our literary history. So, I'm sorry you hated Chaucer, but it's part of a well-balanced lesson plan.

/go chill out...really. It's just a book.
 
2005-11-26 09:45:24 PM
From Lincoln to Bush... Why has standards dropped so far?

Because our children isn't learning.
 
2005-11-26 09:48:32 PM
 
2005-11-26 09:55:54 PM
Nekron99

Mallard Fillmore is NOT a "conservative" comic strip, it is a LIBERTARIAN STUPID AND HUMORLESS comic strip.

it's neat how you can substitute one for the other so often.
 
2005-11-26 10:15:26 PM
The only useful thing to come out of this entire thread is your detailed explanation of why "whoever" is the correct word to use in the reporter's sentence. Thanks! I learned something today.

Excellent, I started something that someone found useful. I take credit for everyone else's detailed explanations! Yoink!
 
2005-11-26 10:15:46 PM
Where are the Trolls? I can understand why Weaver is silent, seeing as how he's had his 4$$ paddled on every thread he's been on during the last week, but where are the other Trolls? I figured they would have been on this thread like white on rice.

/oh well
//continue please
 
2005-11-26 10:23:15 PM
Barbecue Bob

Not as far as you think. Lincoln's image has been romanticized. Admittedly, if he wasn't smarter than Bush is, he was certainly a better speaker, but the differences all but end there.

Lincoln dealt precariously with the 4th amendment for security reasons. His election was strongly disputed, insomuch that I'd imagine that if transportation had been as easy, and the population as big then as it is now, he would have attracted similar protests. We think of the Civil War as a struggle against slavery or at worst, a struggle for democracy, but the differences between the North and South didn't end at slavery; there were four slave states in the North. The secessionists had a radically different culture from the North; the war was perceived as tyranny. Ignoring even this, Lincoln himself was undecided on slavery, and even defended it at times. His opposition to it was political at every juncture. We haven't fallen as far as many think, albeit because we never had that far to fall.
 
2005-11-26 10:38:03 PM
I think that Mallard Fillmore is more like the conservative/libertarian version of Doonesbury.
 
2005-11-26 10:39:46 PM
Guido, that message of yours smacks of trolling.
 
2005-11-26 10:40:49 PM
Where are the Trolls? We've been busy enjoying our Thanksgiving. We do have real lives outside of Fark, you know.

OK, let's see ... I just don't understand what the fuss is all about. Plenty of grammer education potential in those Bushisms.



/Bush supporters are probably mad now that it's SO obvious they goofed up in 2000 & 2004.
//Praise God for presidential term limits.
 
2005-11-26 10:44:22 PM
The History Channel has been doing a pleasing series about the presidency and all who have held the office.

Watching it, you learn that they were (In one way or another) all screw-ups.

In short, they're human.
 
2005-11-26 10:49:04 PM
kevlar180--A teacher who shares their views of politics is doing their job, if they're also getting you ready to defend your own ideas and thoughts. That's part of the point.

That we have gotten rid of Civics education, in a seeming culturally sucicidal urge remove anyone's very thought of discomfort, teachers are increasingly on the line to help develop some kind of critical thinking skill set for our youngest of citizens.

When a teacher gives their full support behind the Administration and doesn't question, giving their tacit approval, they teach you nothing, save how to be herded along and accept the offical line. That was part and parcel of education for a long time, and still is in many districts. When you have teachers who challenge you, and force you to defend your ideas, or challenge you and you change your ideas, that's called teaching.

If your political stance can't stand to be challenged, then you are too delicate a hot house flower to survive in the real world. If your ideas are too fragile to stand to some scrutiny, and that means on any side of a political camp, then you might want to address the issue and examine the flaws in your thinking, or your arguementation. Either way, you are learning something important.

Then again, if we had solid Civics education, we might be able to do better at developing a better model for critical thought in political matters.
 
2005-11-26 10:51:33 PM
#37: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your (family, table)."

Which one did Bush choose?
 
2005-11-26 10:55:02 PM
hubiestubert, here's a radical new concept in child developement;

PARENTS


A student is in English class to learn correct English. That's it and that's all.

The rest of the stuff is for the parents.
 
2005-11-26 11:50:48 PM
unstoppable_voice

Wrong. A student is in school to learn how to learn. There is nothing wrong with interdisciplinary education. It is entirely proper to learn political and social consciousness in English class.

When both parents have to work 40+ hours a week, they don't have the time to teach their kids much.

You view points are becoming unreasonable.
 
2005-11-27 12:32:31 AM
Tamarah, I would like to invoke Apocalypse Now if I could:

"I love the smell of my comments in the morning. They smell like . . . like sarcasm".

//Sarcasm smells like victory
 
2005-11-27 12:37:03 AM
AuntNotAnt

I was mostly refering to speaking/leading ability. However, as you've pointed out the ironic fact, it's even more sad to note that we have fallen at all sence the days of slave ownership.
 
2005-11-27 12:46:58 AM
lexslamman

There's nothing wrong with interdisciplinary education. There is, however, a difference between education and propaganda. You say that reason, logic, knowledge, and wisdom support liberalism over conservativism. Then properly educated children will inevitably become liberals. So be it. Let's look at the statement, however:

I wish Bush would be coherent for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring [sic] him Republican votes.

This statement fairly clearly makes the following assumption:

IF one charms the below-average mind, THEN she is ensured Republican votes.

(Or "there are theories" to such an effect, but that's just doublespeak.)

Now, we'll go with the almost-undisputed premise.

IF one gets the votes of a certain demographic, THEN she has charmed that demographic.

By extension,

IF one is ensured Republican votes, THEN she has charmed Republicans.

Ceteris peribus,

IF one charms below-average minds, THEN she charms Republicans.

Restated, Republicans are charmed by that which charms below-average minds. Unless someone can come up with some trait of below-average minds, this is saying that Republicans are stupid, and I really shouldn't have had to spell it out like that. This is stated without proof, except for, needless to say, the circumstantial evidence that Bush is not articulate, and the unproven innuendo that this is an intentional attempt at swaying below-average minds, i.e. Republicans. This has simpler alternate explanations, so by Occam's Razor it does not constitute a strong piece of evidence.

Therefore, this piece is stating that Republicans are stupid without strong evidence or any alternate viewpoint (except after prompting). This is not acceptable. Education educates in facts or opinions on strong authority. When there are competing authorities, and in politics in general there certainly are, one cannot teach that with which a major authority does not agree without teaching that authority's counterpoint.

That logic does not apply to evolution because those who seek to have evolution removed from the classroom are not authorities on the subject, inasmuch as it is not inherently political.

Then what is it acceptable to teach in terms of politics? It falls into three categories.

1: That which is undisputed.
Lewinsky gave Clinton a blowjob. No WMD's were found. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. George W. Bush used to have a drinking problem. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Opinions on these things notwithstanding, almost anyone will admit them. If politics are to be taught, these things should be taught.

2: That which is rumour, with the caveat that it is only rumour.
Oswald didn't act alone. George W. Bush still has a drinking problem. Saddam had WMD's and got rid of them. The missing minutes were Alice's Restaurant. Bush knew everything. These things are rumoured, and there's evidence for them (some more than others), but it's not really a significant portion of either camp that believes them. (Significance defined by prominence, not percentage.)

3: That which is disputed, with all significant sides of the dispute.
Roe v. Wade was il/legitimate, and abortion is a fundamental women's right/unfeasable to illegalize/malum in se. Gay marriage is good/bad. The government should insure no one/only the poor/only emergency cases/everyone. The death penalty is cruel/necessary/just. WMD's notwithstanding, the Iraq war was a grave mistake/a fortunate accident. Globalization is inevitable/dangerous/bad in itself but a step towards the proletarian revolution. Pit bulls are harmless/too dangerous to allow/dangerous but not worth banning. Sex education should be mandatory/elective/not in schools and ATM/encouraging/tolerant/just the facts/not in schools. All of these positions have strong followings and should surely be taught.
 
2005-11-27 01:13:34 AM
Therefore, this piece is stating that Republicans are stupid without strong evidence or any alternate viewpoint (except after prompting).

So what? We also teach that America is the greatest country on earth without strong evidence or any alternate viewpoint.

Actually, if we REALLY want to be teaching our kids well, we'd be telling THIS to them:

http://www.slate.com/id/2130884/nav/tap1/
 
2005-11-27 01:37:35 AM
Our Bush needs a Brazilian.
 
2005-11-27 01:56:15 AM
Stealthdozer: Our Bush needs a Brazilian.

First, he wants how many is a brazillion.
 
2005-11-27 01:59:16 AM
"This is dumb. What is wrong with it? And if the Conservative teacher wants to put a question that says, "Evolution is just a (theory, way to make Bevets angry)," then that should be allowed as well."

No you are dumb. A teachers job is to teach. Not browbeat his/her students with his/her political views. Our tax dollars are not spent so these idiots can brainwash our children either way.
 
2005-11-27 02:00:15 AM
So what? We also teach that America is the greatest country on earth without strong evidence or any alternate viewpoint.

And that's a good thing now?
 
2005-11-27 02:15:58 AM
Mija

Actually, that is exactly what your tax dollars are spent for. If you don't like it, pull your kids out of school so they can die stupid and alone.
 
2005-11-27 02:17:20 AM
AuntNotAnt

No, but I see no rush to change it. Teachers need to have leeway in the classroom to discuss their opinions and viewpoints with their students. A few humorous questions on a quiz that have fun at the President's expense is hardly browbeating, indoctrinating, or brainwashing students. Get over it and stop whining.
 
2005-11-27 02:56:39 AM
Whining? Would you allow the following question?

"I wish the Democrats were less (pretentious/amoral) because some people feel that they're making the New England states seem stuck-up."
 
2005-11-27 02:57:54 AM
And what do you mean, you see no rush to change it? Not a day goes by without someone pushing to eliminate the ethnocentricity in our history courses.
 
2005-11-27 05:12:19 AM
Mija

Actually, that is exactly what your tax dollars are spent for. If you don't like it, pull your kids out of school so they can die stupid and alone.

Actually, no, that is not what tax dollars are spent for. Teachers cannot endoctrinate students with political beliefs. This is not Iran or Iraq. Furthermore, my son was homeschooled and graduated two years early. He is now in college. Not likely at all to be stupid or alone. So suck it moron.
 
2005-11-27 09:32:09 AM
For those of you who are upset about a teacher presenting a humorous view of politics, how in the heck are kids supposed to learn about politcs? Their parents? Just magically blossom into civic minded thought like mushrooms?

Nope. That's not how it works. You learn by watching those around you. If a teacher is holding some strong opinions, and encourages you to examine issues, and form your own, that's part of the process. But part of that process is recognizing that you have to take a stand on an issue, to take it to its conclusion in actual political action, not just formulate opinion and sit on it.

It's being a role model. That's in part, the teacher's job. A teacher that doesn't read, is a piss poor teacher. Same with a teacher who is neutral on issues of politics.

That doesn't mean that a teacher demands that their students emulate their opinions, but formulate their own. You give them the tools to do it on their own, but you have to give them a model and you have to be honest with your own politics.

Since when did America become home to such a race of whiners who can't stand to be challenged or discomfitted for a moment? Where did this sea of political crybabies come from that can't stand one side or another? Where did the concept of debate and arguement go?

THIS thread itself is the reason why we NEED Civics education again. Strong, fair, and every citizen knows his or her rights and responsibilities, and given the tools for discerning when they are being shaken down.

This is not a Red State or Blue State sort of debate. It's a debate about giving our children the tools not be fettered by idiots who haven't the wit to understand what's at stake, save their own comfort and a false sense of security. It's a debate on whether or not we want to raise a generation of nodding mouth breathers who won't challenge their elders, or actually join society in thinking, and coming up with real solutions, not stop gap, feel good, status quo reinforcing measures that only manage not solve the problems facing us as a nation.

Mealy mouthed windbags who haven't the political courage to even see their children become actual thinking creatures, endowed with enough reason and given the tools to actually wade through the political waters without being led by demogouges. Better we should raise generations of sheep, easily led, not challenged, not fettered with anything resembling critical thinking?

I weep for this nation, and the puling cowards who would rather shackle themselves to the stupid and unimaginative than take up real thought and challenge. Cowards and idiots.

This is why I vote. This is why I remain a Republican. To stem this tide of mediocre thought and spinelessness that has infected the GOP, that infects the DNC, with sheep who have naught but their own agendas, and no vision for anything save their own comfort and tiny windows to the world.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report