I have a lot of love for Bill Nye, but it's not fair to put him against Newton. Bill's a smart guy, but Newton's a freaking genius.

I'm not all for the Common Core because I've decided that teaching is an imperfect duty ( http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/rlee/intrau04/oh/k-perf.html ).

What I mean is, the flexibility required of the duty of teaching makes it so hard nosed data collection is never going to accurately reflect the quality of the teaching being done. Therefore, the standardized testing that goes hand in hand with the common core should be abolished.

I have a student right now who can't stop his limbs from going numb and needs to constantly leave class because of some scary combination of ADHD meds and energy drinks he took. I've spoken with mom and the nurse, given him assignments, but beyond that there's not much I can do to reach out to this student. It is not fair or right that my pay be tied to a student(s) in a bizarre situation beyond my control.

And yes, I could be a teacher from pop culture films that follows him home and just mentors this kid, but this student is not alone. I've got literally 150 students all with unique problems and baggage. I get them for 5 hours a week (when they are actually there) and they spend the other 163 hours of the week doing who knows what.

THAT SAID

This video, however, has obvious motives besides just abolishing the common core. Sex education SHOULD be a part of the curriculum and states that adopt sex education tend to have the lowest incidents of teen pregnancies. Mississippi teaches their sex ed classes by passing around peppermint patties (yes, really: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/02/nation/la-na-ms-teen-pregnancy-20140403 ) and, not surprisingly, has the highest incidents of teen pregnancy.

Get it through your fucking skull, religious nuts. Teaching sex ed PREVENTS kids from having sex, not the other way around.

Common core is certainly not something positive that's happened in the education system in the past year, but I'd still take it over what some jesus cheerleaders want to replace it with.

This is an amazingly informative infographic, but it's a little hard to appreciate it when we're spoiled by so many amazing visualizations nowadays. It's not fair to compare them - the greatest infographics of today stand on the shoulders of yesteryear's innovations, of course - but really, this kind of ingenuity impresses me so much more: https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/434407260890992640

If a wedding photographer said YES I will do your photoshoot and then showed up to the wedding they still have to do the shoot. Its their job to perform the shoot because it's not fair to the couple to have NO photographer once the wedding starts.

I have creative pursuits. If someone told me to make a song about hating cats I'd be like "sorry I can't I love cats".

It's not about hiding behind religion for me it applies to anything I don't believe in or like or whatever. As an artist I shouldn't be forced to do something with my pen, camera, note, paper, whatever I don't like or agree with.

You seem to have a lot of hate in your heart dude.

Where did I infer that; ""shit works okay, why should we bother trying to do better?" Nowhere. You appear to have missed my comment; "But we are getting there." Which, obviously, implies things are being done.
As for your patronising; " When you have seen enough information/had enough experiences." Not that it matters, but I have been around the world 3 times. I have seen - first hand - the sad state of some countries and try to do my bit.
FYI, technology and healthcare DOES actively reduce abuses. Also, we source from cheaper countries so that our goods are cheaper. Does that include bad working/remuneration packages? Sadly it does. But fair trade agreements are starting to tackle the issues. As badly off as some workers are, do you propose that we don't deal with the companies that exploit them? That would not be in their interest as they would have no income at all. And it would not be in our interest as we all like affordable goods. In that regard you are right, we are ALL complicit, but then we are all after making our money go further for our families.
Life is not fair my friend but, as I said, we are getting there.

@bobknight33 it seems your viewpoint rests on the fact that minimum wage should be an "entry level wage where one can better oneself [..] to ask for a higher wage."

At least in my country, a lot of the time the vast majority of jobs vacancies are in places that deal with minimum wage - fast food, supermarkets, that kind of thing - because they usually deal with the "basics" that people can't do without. Hence basic, menial and minimum wage for minimum stress at work.

The people who are in better jobs over here have seen a lot of similarly positioned people get sacked so they know they've got to keep hold of their job. Everyone's been cutting back, there's less jobs, and those jobs are tightly held by people with better experience. And then, when better jobs become available, you have lots and lots of low experienced workers applying alongside a select few who used to work - who's more likely to get the job?

Finer points aside, i'd love everyone in the thread to agree that there are a whole bunch of people spending a whole lot of money at walmart - and every other scary-large company. If that money is not cycling around between people then it's stagnating somewhere and doing nobody any good.

Take soccer here in england for example. Soccer players are paid something like £20 000 per week at every top team. A lot of them are actually between £40 000 and £120 000 per week but let's talk approximate. Now look, we should all be able to see that a person couldn't possibly hope to spend that much money. If you want to go to a match, let's call it £40, 60 000 people are giving £40 to go and watch, so that's £2 400 000 and let's say it all goes on wages. Well what's happening is this entire wad of cash is ending up sitting in a bank account somewhere, because this guy can't physically go out and redistribute this cash, spending his money in the normal way and keeping the economy moving and the money spreading.

It's not just footballers and i'm sure we can agree to some extent that this can be seen in a lot of places - a select few are in positions allowing them to amass huge fortunes they can't possibly use.

"Trickle-down" has not worked, it isn't trickling anywhere, they've got the cracks sealed up. Maybe we should be thinking about "trickle up" - if cost us less to watch a soccer match, metaphorically speaking (as in cheaper bills, higher wages, less stagnation at the top), maybe people might feel less stressed, less scared, more generous, more free, the world might be a better place so that services would be better, people would be more dedicated at their job to improve because they stand to earn more, less stress less violence, more money less crime, etc. Is there something to that perhaps?

The problem is it's hard to interject whilst it's all ongoing and say "you're taking this cut, you're taking this cut, all this money is going here, just trust us the world will be a better place." It's not fair to suddenly tell people what they do is only worth half of what it was yesterday. But between the top and the bottom what you have is a rich billionaire smoking a cigar whilst some child in the poorest neighbourhood is sat in 5th-hand-me-downs on a filthy carpet listening to his mother selling her body? That's a guess, i don't know how to best represent poverty, but take any example you like. If the rich person was stood directly next to the baby he'd probably feel outraged and help, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that stand between him helping every baby that is every born in the future, because warlmart suddenly can afford to double their lowest wages by halving some of their highest.

To conclude - i don't think minimum wage is as you suggest.

Oh come on, that's not fair.

He's absolutely that stupid.

All right, so I just went back and read my earlier reply to this, and I think it got a bit too harsh at one point (it was very late, and I was very tired). Sorry about that.

And I'm really sorry about your mom. Seriously. It fucking sucks in so many ways, and nobody should have to go through what you, your mom, and probably many others around you went through due to one horrible sack of shit.

However, it's still only anecdotal. Just like you claimed that the issue shown in this video might individual rather than systemic, and that women as a whole shouldn't be blamed for the actions of one woman.

But that's exactly the kind of judgment you are passing on men.

I mean, conversely, I have my own shitty-ass stories of abuse ...except the villains in all of my stories just happened to be women (no male teacher ever abused me in any way). But I don't necessarily hold that against women as a gender. Sure, I think it might've been exacerbated by the fact that the school system is heavily dominated by women who, when they are pushed into a corner by the incredibly bad system they're stuck with, just have a harder time understanding and relating to young boys than they do young girls. But I don't go on masculinist rants claiming that I was somehow systematically oppressed by women as a group, because that is just crazy-talk (and no, I am not a masculinist, or even MRA (partisanship is for fucking CHUMPS, and I am no chump)).

However, the fact remains that you've brought nothing to this conversations except belligerently stated opinions which you refuse to back up when asked to do so. That's not fair to the people who are talking to you, and it certainly isn't fair to you yourself who is made to look like an idiot because hey; stupid is as stupid does.

If you engage me in a conversation and are able to back your shit up, I will gladly give you the time of day. I may not agree with you - in fact, it's possible that my disagreement will be downright vehement - but I'm going to review your statements and your sources seriously and respond to them (somewhat) seriously.

Unless they are TOO stupid, in which case it is possible that I will point at you and laugh.

If I think your arguments are sound, and believe me when I say that I am fair in this because I push myself hard to stay rational, I will actually tell you that your arguments are sound. And if you actually manage to prove me wrong, I will literally tell you that you proved me wrong. It has been known to happen (exceedingly rarely), and I always manage to stay upfront and honest because the only thing that really matters to me is the truth.

So please don't fucking bail on an argument like that again, because it drives me up the fucking walls.

Yeah Bush was a piece of shit and a war criminal but during the Oblamer Administration all you heard about was threats of violence and rape to women all over the internet including to Hollywood stars as well as a 15 year old girl being attacked by a teacher for a Romney shirt, and vandalism to and old couples homes and now you libtards have proven you're mostly a bunch of badasses to little 5 year old children. that wanted the Muslim Brotherhood supporter out of office too. So say what you will the Obamanation and the Bushfire both belong in Gitmo and you can all kiss it.

Either way this episode pissed me off, the producers had no right having them do this crap. I saw it just a couple weeks ago and (I know it's an old episode) but I sent a pretty blatant E-Mail about how messed up that was. That crap right there should not have happened, it was not fair to the image of our country nor was it fair to put them out there on basically what was a suicide mission. Jeremy is the one that created Top Gear and got it back on air and I think it's about time they allow him to have more say in how it gets run.

I'm torn by this. It's a fantastic poem and an obviously heartfelt performance, but in many ways I think the girl was right when she said she shouldn't have let him get so attached to her.

Yeah, it's sad and he clearly loves her, but it's not fair on her either. He has loaded all these expectations about his life that only she can solve, and it's way too much pressure to put on someone. It's the very definition of an unhealthy relationship.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

Hey, that's not fair. Training Day stands out as a film because of his complete change of type. I keep watching his films hoping for others.

His best role ever was in an interview with tubes on soccer am. Check out that bad boy!

A gay couple living in a society that acknowledges that that being gay is wrong. What do you expect? America to bend over its moral standing for a small % of the population?

Sure lets get right on it. While we are at it ( rewriting morality) lets sanction pedophiles and murdering and alcoholics. After all they were born that way. Right?

Grow up . Accept the fact that life is not fair and it not meant to be fair.

Hey, stop using big words. It's not fair to the Republicans.

True. Not fair to just single one out