Before you say something like this, go teach for a year in a typical public school, and let me know how you feel afterwards. If you haven't, then it's best to refrain from speaking about things you don't have a clue about. I taught 8th grade history.

You want an example of how you can get eaten alive because of students, "hapless: school administrators, and idiotic parents in one example? How about when a parent fights tooth and nail with lawsuits to keep their kid from being suspended by blaming his kid's severe ADHD for why the student constantly distracts other students and disrupts the class? Parent refuses to make the student serve detention, administrators suspend as much as they can, only to get overruled by courts, who put the kid right back in your class. Administrators are doing everything they can legally, and you know if you send the student to the office, you'll get to go to the 15th parent conference, or 2nd or 3rd legal hearing about this one kid out of 150 you teach. This is on top of lesson plans, grading papers, dealing with other problem students, idiot parents, etc.

>> ^chilaxe:
You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?

@dystopianfuturetoday

"Teaching not difficult or stressful? ... If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?

"Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate."

So you're saying liberals are generally anti-intellectuals who dislike open discourse. Fair enough.


*Update* Please downvote this comment if you're intellectually petty.

Have you met any of the current generation of school kids? They are on a different level of trouble and disrespect than my generation was, I don't know about you. It sounded to me like most (if not all) of your teachers had already been eaten alive by students/teaching and had given up, sadly. They should have been let go.
On another point, does this mean you admit a severe lack of education? That's what it sounds like you're saying here.
>> ^blankfist:
I can't remember a single teacher that brought their "A" game. Not one. And surprisingly not a single one of them was "eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Teaching not difficult or stressful? Teachers don't need to bring their "A" game?
When I call you clueless in the next sentence, please don't take it as 'anti-social sniping', take it as a simple statement of fact.
You are clueless on seemingly every facet of the topic of education. I've done much teaching in my life: public high school, college ensembles, private lessons, section coaching, master classes, summer camps and substitute teaching. Speaking from experience, some of those jobs are easy, but there is nothing easy about public K-12 teaching. If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order). Teaching is actually more difficult for bad teachers, which is why 50% of teachers quit within the first 5 years of their career. I don't imagine business intimidates that many MBAs away from the profession.
My dad was a business man as well as a teacher, so I won't dispute that running a business is also difficult.
Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate.


It's shit like this, DFT. (emphasis added below)

That aside, being an educator is a noble profession. Certainly like any job if you care you make it more difficult for yourself - if you don't then you make it easier. But being a salary employee isn't even in the same ballpark as owning and worrying about your own business. There's very little risk in clocking into a teaching job. And yes grading papers over a TV dinner is probably not fun, but stressful? Nay.

Seeing how you gave your own circumstantial evidence, I'd like to do that as well. My high school teachers were largely a joke. Ms. Williams was a rather large lady who taught my junior and senior year English. She started both years telling us how much she despised teaching grammar, so she didn't teach it. She promised we'd watch lots of videos though, and we did. Terrible waste of time.

It took Mr. Wright nearly a year to teach us the fundamentals of writing a check and balancing our checkbook. He spent ten minutes in class every day, then assigned us busy work while he left for the rest of the period to smoke in the teacher's lounge. True story.

Mr. Amos never taught us anything in our Marketing class. He was in the classroom maybe an eighth of the year, and we didn't do a single lesson plan except when there was a substitute teacher. Mr. Dismuke was quite brilliant as a Mathematician. But his oratory skills were as engaging as a 1960s robot, and most kids barely passed or failed his courses. Mr. Qualls was there to produce high school plays and nothing else. It was great for you if you were in one of his plays, but if you weren't you spent the period in a classroom by yourselves doing absolutely nothing. Mrs. Ruth always thought I was drawing hidden satanic messages in my art class, so she would take it upon herself to "censor" my art. That is she would paint or mark over it. Mr. Maynard told me once he didn't like me, and once he refused to hand a test out to me because he was sure I'd fail it anyways. He gave me a zero and I eventually failed his course. Mr. Davis let us sleep in his class. Mr. Williams used to let the underaged girls massage his shoulders during class. Etc. All true stories from my personal experience. And I could go on and on.

I can't remember a single teacher that brought their "A" game. Not one. And surprisingly not a single one of them was "eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

Teaching not difficult or stressful? Teachers don't need to bring their "A" game?

When I call you clueless in the next sentence, please don't take it as 'anti-social sniping', take it as a simple statement of fact.

You are clueless on seemingly every facet of the topic of education. I've done much teaching in my life: public high school, college ensembles, private lessons, section coaching, master classes, summer camps and substitute teaching. Speaking from experience, some of those jobs are easy, but there is nothing easy about public K-12 teaching. If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order). Teaching is actually more difficult for bad teachers, which is why 50% of teachers quit within the first 5 years of their career. I don't imagine business intimidates that many MBAs away from the profession.

My dad was a business man as well as a teacher, so I won't dispute that running a business is also difficult.

Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate.

>>> ^chilaxe:

@Ryjkyj "If it's any consolation, I also upvoted your original comment. "
Yes, I did notice

@dystopianfuturetoday
If the NYT is correct, a 14% reduction in salary suggests they're getting a good deal when you consider that they chose such an easy, low-stress job. People with similar education levels like MBAs tend to work 60-80 hour work weeks, don't get summers off, and their job is substantially harder, in which you'll be eaten alive if you're not constantly bringing your 'A game.'
An MBA can do a teacher's easy job, but a teacher can't do an MBA's difficult job, and that, combined with that everybody wants to be a teacher, makes a pay cut expected, even if the pay cut is larger than 14%.

DFT, good intellectual debates shouldn't bother us so much that our comments need to be filled with anti-social sniping

@Ryjkyj "If it's any consolation, I also upvoted your original comment. "

Yes, I did notice



@dystopianfuturetoday

If the NYT is correct, a 14% reduction in salary suggests they're getting a good deal when you consider that they chose such an easy, low-stress job. People with similar education levels like MBAs tend to work 60-80 hour work weeks, don't get summers off, and their job is substantially harder, in which you'll be eaten alive if you're not constantly bringing your 'A game.'

An MBA can do a teacher's easy job, but a teacher can't do an MBA's difficult job, and that, combined with that everybody wants to be a teacher, makes a pay cut expected, even if the pay cut is larger than 14%.



Good intellectual debates shouldn't bother us so much that our comments need to be filled with anti-social sniping

This intellectual area is really not as simple as it seems. For example, let's look as critically at that NYT article as we would at articles that we disagree with:

"Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education... This prices teachers out of home ownership in 32 metropolitan areas, and makes raising a family on one salary near impossible."

1. The NYT authors are comparing teachers' salaries to people with similar levels of education, like MBAs. What is ignored is that MBAs often regularly work 60-80 hour work weeks, they don't get summers off, and their job is substantially harder. The reason why there's such high demand for jobs as a teacher despite the 'mammoth' 14% pay cut (according to this article) is because in addition to lesser hours, much of which like grading papers can be done at home, the work is relatively easy compared to working in high stakes, high stress business environments in which you'll be eaten alive if you're not constantly bringing your 'A game.'

2. So teachers have difficulty owning a home in a nice part of town and raising a family without a spouse who's also working? Of course... everybody does. 14% is a very small disadvantage (assuming the NYT's number is correct). Here in San Francisco, most people can't afford to live in San Francisco, particularly if they're a single parent raising a family, so they live in the cheaper surrounding cities and commute to work. The NYT authors are horrified.


If this is how the NYT authors operate, there are probably countless weaknesses in their intellectual accuracy.

>> ^Stu:
Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems.


You might be technically correct considering the amount of insects in the world, but I doubt that's true for the larger animals we usually eat.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pain_in_animals1

The mirror test huh? Besides humans the only ones who pass the mirror test are the great apes, which thankfully are the same order as humans so we know you aren't a cannibal. That leaves the other 18 orders of animals in the class of mammalia free to eat including veal, lamb, dogs, cats and every other pet you can conceive of. Well, except monkeys and I knew a guy with a pet monkey but it's rare so we won't put them in the pet category. So the mirror test is a pretty shitty test of what someone will or won't eat.

You just sound like another PETA member trying to convince billions of people that we aren't the top of the food chain and we should care about what we eat. Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems. You can believe and preach what you want about cruelness to animals. Either way it is still going to be eaten.

Even still, crushing an animal to death and having it die in seconds in your mouth as compared to being boiled alive over minutes is still less cruel. You should think of the alternatives of how the animal might die before you say eating it alive is cruel.
>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.


Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.
It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.



Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.

It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

I saw this guy when he had just taken over the web a few years ago, at about 1am in a booze-filled room in Melbourne. I was expecting him to get eaten alive by boozed-up Aussies, but he totally killed. He ruined a few hecklers on the way. I was pretty impressed.

What puzzles me about this is how Google had been buying up alot of dark fiber back in the day (remember then?) they could be their own ISP practically and avoid this mess. As far as the FCC and censoring you can blame organizations like the American Family Association and the like for organized "outrage" spam. Who is to say Google won't eventually cave to the same demands? A few years ago if you wrote how Google was going to be dealing against net neutrality you would have been eaten alive by fanboys.

Either way this is worrysome if it gets to the point you have to pay extra to use the "rest of the internet" thats outside of the Google domain. The "we wont do this, pinky swear" clause of vagueness reeks of what we saw in the 90s.

This all comes from an industry we as a country paid billions for from the same time period and now the providers want to eat their cake and have it too. Perhaps this is the end result of over a decade of overselling bandwidth.

I remember when using a fat connection back in the day (> 10mbit university, 1999) the Internet seemed almost instantaneous compared to dial-up. Now if you try to actually use your connection the result is "lol, psych" and the provider thinking you are a bandwith hog.

<sarcasm>I can't wait till I have to pay the Netflix bandwidth surcharge fee of $5.99 per gigabyte along with the Potential Pirated Content fee at $19.99 per gigabyte and Just Because You Have No Choice fee of $49.99 per month</sarcasm>

yeah,im with ryj on this.
the girl is fucking ELEVEN years old!
what the fuck is she doing on :
1.a webcam
2.4chan
3.talking about taking a glock and making a brain slushy.
4.posting nude pics..(really? REALLLLLLY?)

and then the father comes on TV and acts like he and his daughter are victims?
yeah..his daughter is a victim of him being a total twat of a father.
we are only children ONCE.
innocence will be ripped from every child due to the very nature of life but it is the fathers duty to protect his children and allow them to BE fucking children as long as possible.
his daughter was being eleven years old and was pushing the boundaries and doing her damndest to appear older and more experienced but in actuality having the opposite affect.her life experience is based on rap music and MTV and it showed and she got eaten alive for her obvious bullshit.
and where was her FUCKING father??
god i want to punch that fuck in the face....
acting like he gives a shit.
fuck you buddy.
you only started to give a shit when it became inconvenient for you to even fucking notice your daughter was having trouble....
a trouble that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
fuck him...
fuck him in the ass with a razor blade dildo.
to borrow from rougy...
he is a cunt.

>> ^gwiz665:

It's a word. It's even a written word. I don't see the harm.
Graphic content sure, sexual content sure, but words? We're not sfw'ing the comments either... fuck fuckety fuck-fuck-fuck. If you want your kids to use the internet unsupervised, be grateful we're as sfw as we are, and pray your kids don't go to encyclopediadramatica, rotten, b0g, 4chan or any of the other NSFW-fests.
You're not forcing them to learn it by having "I'm a motherfucker" on a t-shirt here - you can tell them, "that's a swear word, please don't use it in public or at all.. it's not nice" and that should be it.


I was going to totally disagree with this, but then I realised that if you want children to browse through the sift, t-shirt ads would probably be your smallest concern. SFW means safe for work and in no way means a video is suitable for young children. Two examples of videos that are not marked as NSFW:

Uncle Chuck Had His Eye Removed
Oh the horror, the horror! Snakes and Fishies eaten alive!

Edit: Acutally nevermind this comment. I see the actual issue was showing someone a specific video without offensive ads showing up on the page.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Is that the wasp that lays her eggs in the spider?


It's worse than that, there are over 30,000 species of parasitoid wasps. That spider is already brain damaged, and is going to be eaten alive over days; only allowed to finally die when the baby wasps burst out.

Charles Darwin saw them as evidence that there cannot be a benevolent god.