Don't need to add the "sarcasm" check though. You, no, WE better mean every word of it.

I had a raging LMAO moment reading what BS that Hungary's Viktor Orban's said at Dallas' CPAC yesterday: "A Christian politician cannot be racist."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62431415

Right.... it's exactly racists, far-right fanatics like these people that organized religions of any significant size should be eliminated in the eye of a decent person, reglious or not.

Even though the current Pope Francis (very progessive for a Catholic) recently came up here in Canada for a “penitential pilgrimage” to say "sorries" to the natives that were forced into boarding schools for decades that tried to erase their history, culture, language, ripping children away from their parents by force and caused thousands upon thousands of unrecorded deaths, his actions & tangible response for reparation & restoration amounted to very little. He didn't have the courage to call it a genocide in public, but caught saying so in a hot mic in his plane ride back to Italy... NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

I recall questions like that on the sat. I also took it in boarding school…but in Hawaii. We had an SAT prep class where I brought up questions where two or more answers were technically correct, and I’m sure they warned me more than once that I could sabotage myself if I wanted to, it wouldn’t bother them one bit, but they were looking for the closest, least inclusive answer. I did manage a 1290…not great, but not terrible (unless you ask my parents, who both scored 1580)…I guess maybe I listened for once.

It was a mock American SAT exam (although I'm a Canadian, and I took the test in a Canadian boarding school right at a border town on Quebec/Maine named Stanstead College). My beef wasn't really with the teacher originally, I just thought the SAT was weird to have such a math question, so I justed wanted to point out there are 2 right answers, and 1 interesting philosophical argument to be had depending of how you look at d)... about how the question/answers were flawed. But with her answer, I couldn't but sneer and thought she was just clueless (instead of both of us had a laugh at the Q... while sipping tea? Stanstead College had a very British tradition).

As she was not the dunce who drafted that stupid question, I was not going to fight her for an inconsequential demerit (on my part or SAT?), nor find it worthwhile to pursuit the higher-ups for a correction.

I had my older brother give me a Mohawk in 6th grade with scissors, it was pretty mangey.
He did it again for 8th grade but used clippers. Less mange but still uneven as hell.
My Jr year in high school I went to a preppy boarding school with an 18"+ bleach blond Mohawk, it didn't go over well but didn't violate any rules so I kept it all year.
Then I let my hair grow for 8 years until it touched my ass. I really wish I had tried another Mohawk then, but I just shaved it off when it kept trying to strangle me in my sleep even braided. It might have been taller at that point than his. Wasted opportunities.

They tried this crap in my geometry/pre trig class....they called it "proofs"....forcing us to do mental gymnastics to spread out a problem from maybe three quick steps into 20. Asinine.
My last high school math class was advanced placement B/C calculus....I never found this a bit useful, because I was taught real math. By second grade we were expected to know up to 12 X 12 multiplication tables without hesitation, if they taught us by this method, we would have been years behind.

Since next to no one today is doing even moderately difficult math without a calculator/cellphone, I can't fathom why they bother at all anymore with more than basic math skills for non math or science majors...that said, my cousin still can't add 3 digit numbers or multiply or divide at all thanks to Waldorf schools, and that's really sad.

@Payback, I was accused of cheating in trig because I refused to show my work or do homework. I was separated from the class for a big test, and my score remained an A while the class average dropped by around one full grade. I never had to do homework or show my work in that class again, but did have to separate myself for tests so the class wouldn't cheat off of me. That was in boarding school.

Proof that money can't buy rhythm.

More diversity than the prep schools I went to by far....those prices though, ouch! My parents paid $5k(day school) -$15k (boarding school) in the 70-80's and thought it was high.

There's an elite Canadian boarding school (Stanstead College) that I went to during my formative years. They admit quite few US & UK exchange students. Border agents were very friendly back in the day (80/90's). Us teenagers can just walk over to the US side by pointing and saying we're going to the groceries down the road when we check-in with the US border agents and they'd let us through. Back to the Canadian side, we just say we're Stanstead College students and they whisk us through.

We didn't carry passports. Not once did they not let us through. And I'm a visible minority (Chinese). Can't imagine they'd allow this anymore according to Mayor Dutil. Too bad...

I dislocated the same teammate's shoulder twice during American Football practices back in high school (boarding school). He's 2 years my senior & about 6 inches taller than I. 1st time's dislocation he was hospitalized. The second time around, when I pop his shoulder out, 1 or 2 seconds later another teammate popped his shoulder back in right away by rushing him. After a few screams he opened up his eyes, saw me and yelled "You AGAIN!?" I didn't know whether to feel sorry or LOL... I did both. Must have the weirdest expression on my face ever.

He was a student prefect & a very good sport. I was either #1 or 2 in art class, so I gave him my best paint work as gift to make up for it. Fond memories.

Still mad I missed them in Oakland in 87-88....and in Hawaii in 87. I was in boarding school in Hawaii, so missed the 87 and 88 Oakland shows, and couldn't leave school for the 87 Hawaii show.

Good stuff, good stuff. I hope I can catch them the next time through California....
06-07 San Jose, CA - SAP Center at San Jose
06-12 Sacramento, CA - Golden 1 Center

Lucky bastard!
I didn't live in the same house for two years in a row after 3rd grade (1980) until I bought the house I live in today back in '99. As if that wasn't enough for me to lose all my toys, when I was shipped off to boarding school my Jr year (cry a river for me, it was in Hawaii) all my stuff disappeared and no one would take responsibility for it. That was a big part of why I moved out of my mom's house before I finished high school. (I did eventually go to college and got a degree anyway).

Great article, Dft. It did deconstruct some of the faulty premises of the documentary quite well.

I think, by far, the most important factor in success in pre-college education is the family environment (income, parental support, parental pressure to succeed, at-home enforced discipline). This counts far more than teachers. Charter schools or even elite private schools aren't a cure for that (maybe boarding school or military school). The linked article gives an example:

"But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about “amazing results,” even Geoffrey Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were 50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees. This sad event was documented by Paul Tough in his laudatory account of Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, Whatever It Takes (2009). Contrary to Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t completely negate the effects of poverty."

I do agree with redsky that teachers do need to be "ranked and rated", even though this would have to be done carefully. But teachers are not the biggest problem with our academic problems. It's ultimately an increasingly anti-intellectual and lazy culture, and the bad parenting that feed into this culture.

>> ^Pantalones:
That was pretty weak. Hot sauce and a cold shower? Please, I'd have taken that any day. Y'all need to see some real child abuse before you accost this woman as the spawn of hell. She was in control of her actions and the consequences sounded like they were predetermined.
Here's a measure of rationality: you're siding with Dr. Phil.


I mentioned getting mouthfuls of fairy washing up liquid when I lied or swore as a child, but didn't mention the thick leather belt with the huge buckle my mother kept for special occasions (well, mostly when she was drunk or in a bad mood so most of the time really), or the cane that my headmaster used for giving pupils 6 of the best (even the best behaved boys and girls could expect to be caned once a month). Did I mention we were also forced to take cold showers in the morning at school? Yes, it was a boarding school but thankfully a co-ed so it wasn't all bad Must've been worse for the Eton boys! I can take it, and I reckon most people who grew up with such abuse can too. Mind you, our definition of child abuse can be very different to the extremes of abuse in some other countries.

What I find hard to decide in any absolute terms is how much punishment is necessary to make people aware of the consequences for their actions. While I would never go to extremes with leather belts or canes I think there is a balance to be found for each individual child. Having said that, some things are just torturous and really aren't necessary. Finding the right balance of unpleasantness as a consequence is something that has to be decided and warranted for each wrongful act. Premeditated consequences like this only enforce a mental conditioning that prevents the child being able to properly express himself in later life.

Side note-God, my response is long... I hate long posts and so hate my own post...

There was a time when I would have insulted you for such a... magical fairytale-type post. However, age has tempered my youthful arrogance and I will attempt to be more respectful.

You have an illusion that is polar opposite from the fanatics who propose that God is our savior and that if everyone follows his word we will all be saved… (Your argument is that the belief in God is our destroyer and that if everyone abandons his word we will all be striving for the betterment of humanity…) You assume that religion is not the excuse for war but the problem itself... If religion is truly the excuse, as I claim, there will be more wars even if religion is abolished and all the wars that have happened, not in the name and constant glorification of God, but for other reasons, will repeat themselves. If religion is the problem, as you state, then wars will dry up and poof, comfort for the world. The betterment of mankind… Um, I need to write a self-help booklet with a title like that…

Think of your ideal utopia... and now, make it real. No wars, no conflict (like trade wars, where entire areas starve out, etcetera,) on massive scales leading to the degradation of other countries. Nothing interesting for the news huh? Just a few murders and social discord now and again? Just near-utopia? No massive riots when corporations cause the subjugation and poverty of millions... No mass rape in Africa? Can someone say boring!

Sorry, I can only respect your opinion so much. I understand your opinion but think it a little wishful thinking. I wish you were right on the money and that religion was the cause, but the rose-colored glasses are not for me. You asked an A/B question and the answer is a mix of A and B-We certainly would invade another planet and try to reason with them. If our terms (The complete surrender of their finate resources and land) of reasoning failed, we would kill them all and take their resources.

Christianity was the excuse we used on the Indians not because we truly believed in god, but because A-It is a form of control and B-It makes us the savior instead of the animal. As I said before, we cannot slaughter because of greed... we need another reason. In other words, religion is a tool and if broken, we will make another one.

Let's look at some wars fought around the world and why... Vietnam? The expansion of communism (Because, we Americans could not abide our competitor actually advancing.) Iraq? Boredom and glory. Rome's barbarity? Conquest. Germany? Racial superiority. The American Civil War? Expansion of Federal powers. The hundreds of mini-conflicts between warring peoples due to poverty? Starvation. The crusades? Religion. Does religion win over in history as the leading cause? Yes. Has religion been involved in the aforementioned wars as a secondary motivator?-No, not even motivator, I mean excuse?-Yes. Germany was supported by the pope and hunted a religious people---for the resources. (Also, just because those nations I used as examples may have been supported by the religious or purported to be religious, they did not fight under the constant "support" or glorification of God. In other words, those wars were fought for religion as much as Iraq was fought because of weapons of mass destruction…)

Will there be something to replace religion on a massive scale if the excuse dies? Yes. Reminds me of the episode of South Park when the world fought a war simply because they could not agree on the name of their all-atheist nation...

We grow bored, we bomb Iraq. We need oil? We take it. We need other resources? Here we come. Government subjects massive amounts of people to poverty? We burn it down. By we, I mean humanity. Oh, Germany is certainly more reasonable than a few hundreds of years ago... cept that whole gassing incident... and I know Africa, a country that sold their own into slavery for the most part, is more reasonable... cept the whole raping and tribal fighting. You know one tribe fights another because they believe male-anal penetration is wrong? Yet male-oral is okay... and the other tribe thinks male-oral is fine, but anal is wrong… so naturally, they both have to kill each other…

So disagree, it’s your right. I just see a lot of "religious" stubbornness in your argument that is equal to the other side's arguments... You are basing your guesses of what might be; I am basing my estimations on what has been...

>> ^Shepppard:
Disagree completely.
If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.
Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.
Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.
As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.
I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?
I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."
Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

Disagree completely.

If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.

Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.

As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.

I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?

I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."

Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

I actually agree with both of you.

Canada's example absolutely shows how horrific something like this can be. It is easily one of the most embarrassing and sad pieces of Canadian history - something other countries would do well to avoid.

That said, it is despicable on the part of the Roma to not allow their children (particularly girls) to attend schools and join in wider human society. This is one of the many reasons the UN sanctioned NATO to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan - to provide people the freedom of having an education regardless of their gender, social status, religion, etc. People worldwide need to stop blaming "ancient culture" for their idiotic decisions.

>> ^therealblankman:

Just look to Canada to see how well boarding schools work as a social engineering tool used to integrate minorities into the dominant culture. We've lost multiple generations and whole families of indigenous peoples to these policies. I'm sure it'll work just as well in Slovakia.


>> ^EMPIRE:

that's not the problem. they could build all the schools they wanted, that doesn't mean their parents would let or make them attend. they actively avoid becoming a part of so called mainstream society, because of their fucking ignorant traditions.
It's a very touchy subject because Roma are definitely treated as outcasts, but they make themselves into outcasts as well. It's a vicious circle that needs to be permanently destroyed.
For example gypsies here my country wouldn't even let their girls attend school. That's absolutely NOT acceptable in a civilized nation. And when you're a lousy parent, with the excuse of a very shitty ancient culture or not, the government comes and tries to do better than you.