Thanks

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
Ha! Gold. *quality

http://videosift.com/video/Nicolas-Cage-Wicker-Man-mashup

asstastic>> ^ant:

(_|_)

Your video, Nicolas Cage's Agent, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

>> ^kymbos:

200 views and 3 votes!?!?!??
What is wrong with people?


I'm constantly mind-boggled by the view-to-vote ratio on sifted (and especially unsifted) videos as well.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Kick Ass, Big Daddy, Slaughter' to 'Kick Ass, Big Daddy, Slaughter, nicolas cage, batman, drive' - edited by gwiz665

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Kick Ass, Child, Slaughter' to 'Kick Ass, Child, Slaughter, righteous, fps, chloe moretz, nicolas cage' - edited by gwiz665

>> ^MaxWilder:

LarsaruS, you are ignoring context. This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate. When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner. It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be. For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested. GeeSussFreeK's example above is funny because of how totally inappropriate it would be in school.
It doesn't matter whether it is a hypothetical. The context implies approval of the activities specified.


Ok, I have a couple of issues with your post.

1: "When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner".
1.1: No, that does not have to be the case. I never considered word problems in any lesson as something I might have to do in real life (anecdotal evidence but still). There is a skill called critical thinking, you use it to see what the lesson is about, here angles and probably Pythagoras, and learn that not just what the problem's solution is. That way you can apply what you have learnt on many things as you get the principle for how to solve all similar problems.


2: "It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be"
2.1: Umm, what? Not being able to use immoral acts as content of school lessons at all? Seriously? And who decides what these immoral acts are? (Hint: lobby groups) For some being homosexual is an immoral act as it is a choice/lifestyle, ergo no teachers are allowed to talk about HBTQ rights. Equality is therefore gone in school education. For some talking about evolution is immoral so good bye science. The list goes on. If you have an "Immoral list" you can always add more things to it as you see fit until only the things that the people in power wants to be taught can be taught and in a couple of generations all other knowledge will have vanished as the people who learnt it die off.

Also school is to prepare children for adult life. Adult life is filled with "immoral" actions and people. Sending kids out into the real world with a distorted world view is the most immoral act I could ever think of as they will be completely unprepared for real life and hit a lot of pitfalls that otherwise could have been avoided. "Everybody in the world is super nice and you are super special too!" so go with the man who has a rabbit in his cellar that he wants you to see...

2.2: What about classes about law or history? Lessons where criminals, or criminal acts, are discussed would have to go. For instance, lessons about the eradication of the Native Americans would have to go, No Nürnberg trials, no Pearl Harbour or nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the list of things which can be considered immoral or that contains immoral acts is endless. We are a violent species.


3: "For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested."
3.1: Kids and food problem: See this.
Also it is simple arithmetic. Example: "You have X food and Y people. Every person Needs Z food per day and you can add F food per day that can be harvested from your farms. How many people can you have without them starving?" What is the problem with a problem like this? Basic civilization survival is based on this formula. Natural resources - consumption/person = Sustainability/Starvation

3.2: Slave problem: Obsolete as slaves are inefficient compared to modern automated machines. Who would use slave labour when you could use a robot that never fucks up (unless you use Windows ofc.), never needs to sleep, never demands pay and never complains? Technological progress FTE (For The Emancipation )


4: "The context implies approval of the activities specified"
4.1: What context and why would it imply approval? That it was a lesson in a school? So if I bring up the attack on WTC in a lesson and how it was executed it means that I approve of the actions? (I guess that Nicolas Cage and a lot of other people who were in the movies about the attacks all support it then?) If I let my students calculate the forces that were subjected on the buildings from the planes mass M and its speed V + the force of the fuel exploding or the McVeigh bombing and the force that X amount of explosives generate I approve what they did? I abhor all use of violence but if I use these examples I approve of them? That makes no sense to me.

One of the best things you can do as a teacher is to ground your lessons in reality and real life events as that increases the motivation and curiosity of the students IMHO.


5: "This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate."
5.1: As a teacher, no matter what your subject is, you have to be able to lead discussions on tough subjects as students can come in from recess and something horrible has happened and they need to process it and be "debriefed", think every classroom in the US the hours after 9/11 or after Columbine. If a student is assaulted/gets hit by a car/whatever you have to be able to have a discussion about it.

5.2: If a meaningful debate emerges from any lesson that interests your students you run with it. Simple as that. Learning and developing a lust for learning is the main goal of any teacher worthy of that title in my book.

Wow, that was a serious wall of text. Congrats on getting through it!

*edit for getting the + to show... forgot to put in extra blank spaces...

Once upon a time, Nicolas Cage was good. Very good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bad Lieutenant, Port of Call, Nicholas Cage, Werner Herzog, improvisation' to 'Bad Lieutenant, Port of Call, Nicolas Cage, Werner Herzog, improvisation' - edited by burdturgler

Tags for this video have been changed from 'leaving las vegas, nicolas cage, elizabeth shue, michael figgis, john obrien' to 'leaving las vegas, nicolas cage, elisabeth shue, michael figgis, john obrien' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'leaving las vegas, nicholas cage, elizabeth shue, michael figgis, jon obrien' to 'leaving las vegas, nicolas cage, elizabeth shue, michael figgis, john obrien' - edited by calvados

Man this was a fantastic film. It seems so long ago that NICOLAS CAGE DIDN'T SUCK DONKEY BALLS!

The last Nicolas Cage movie I actually thought he did a good job in was Adaptation.