|
On October 03 2014 09:36 Blisse wrote:
How do you handle the inevitable students in class who always do shit like challenge the teacher's claims or ask excessive irrelevant questions or answer other student's questions in place of the professor, loudly?
It depends on what you consider irrelevant questions. But most teachers I've known love it when even just one student gets excited and engaged in the classroom and usually uses that student as a jumping off point before telling him to let others talk halfway through the class.
|
On October 02 2014 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote:What's your position on religious facebook posts? I see religious stuff on my feed... a lot... I'm not religious but I don't write someone off because they are. However I feel pretty self conscious about spreading agnostic/atheist messages even when they are (imo) less controversial. I'll provide a comparison. Christian: + Show Spoiler +Agnostic/Athiest: http://globalnews.ca/video/1592292/science-talk-with-bill-nye-the-science-guyShould I feel free to spread that type of stuff without being considered rude (or at least any more rude than those spreading religious messages)?
you answer with posts like these
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 03 2014 09:36 Blisse wrote:
How do you handle the inevitable students in class who always do shit like challenge the teacher's claims or ask excessive irrelevant questions or answer other student's questions in place of the professor, loudly?
Three different questions with different answers.
3. Answering other students' questions:
either (a) insist on a no talking without getting picked after hand-raising policy or (b) speak to the student in question about the correct way to behave in a classroom. However, at higher levels, (college and post-grad) if the student has a particular field of specialty, it can be helpful to simply demarcate what kinds of things they may address versus you. If the specific problem is the loudness or rudeness, it is helpful to address that directly. Arrogant assholes get beat up and don't get laid. Getting chewed out helpfully by a teacher is not a problem for them, and could be constructive.
2. Excessive or irrelevant questions:
If it's a good question, say "That's a good question but". Whether or not it was, go on to say: "it's not really what we're focusing on right now" or "we don't really have time to go into it right now." Then offer an alternative: "Come talk to me after class or during office hours if you want to discuss it." Remember, there is no such thing as too much after class questions unless they are talking into other scheduled blocks. The job of a teacher is always to be there for answers, especially for precocious students (which can be hard if they are obnoxious or arrogant, but it's still the goal).
1. Challenging a teacher's claims:
This is what academic discourse is. This is correct. That is a good thing, and a sign that you are doing your job properly if many students are doing it. Engage and debate if desired, but also recognize that there are often many right answers that reasonable people can hold. Getting students to debate one another is a way to handle this: "Kyle raises an interesting question. Does anyone want to answer it?" Of course, if the debate takes too much time, you can cut it off by saying: "We're out of time for this debate right now, but it brings up good issues to discuss, and you should definitely continue this discussion later."
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On October 03 2014 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Where do Flies go when it starts to rain, up in the trees or under leaves etc?
Follow up: Where do fruit flies come from, or more importantly, where do they go after I put away the fruits. Seriously like an hour after I put some fruit out they show up out of no where, but if I take it away and check later they just disappear. And I can never find any bodies.
|
good question. the moment you put any fruit in the garbage the effect multiplies by 100.
|
Confirmed missing bodies in zatic's apartment.
|
Im sorry if this comes out as insensitive, i'll edit it out immediately.
i'm just curious regarding mentally-handicapped people. how come it affects their physical appearance? If the disability is mental, how come it manifests physically?
|
On October 04 2014 11:01 icystorage wrote:
Im sorry if this comes out as insensitive, i'll edit it out immediately.
i'm just curious regarding mentally-handicapped people. how come it affects their physical appearance? If the disability is mental, how come it manifests physically?
Because not all mental handicaps manifests physically?
Because ailments to the brain that manages physical processes can have physical repercussions?
It's not really insensitive, mostly it's very misinformed.
Mental handicap does not always correlate with physical handicaps
Brain damage affects all of the brain, not just the non-physicals.
|
On October 03 2014 23:05 graNite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2014 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote:What's your position on religious facebook posts? I see religious stuff on my feed... a lot... I'm not religious but I don't write someone off because they are. However I feel pretty self conscious about spreading agnostic/atheist messages even when they are (imo) less controversial. I'll provide a comparison. Christian: + Show Spoiler +Agnostic/Athiest: http://globalnews.ca/video/1592292/science-talk-with-bill-nye-the-science-guyShould I feel free to spread that type of stuff without being considered rude (or at least any more rude than those spreading religious messages)? you answer with posts like these + Show Spoiler +
Ok now you reaaallly made me want to do that. But I'm pretty sure that falls into trolly although if TL tells me it's not I'll just blame you guys and post it anyway because it really makes me laugh.
|
if parents give birth to a child and they know with 100% certainty that that child is going to have a fucking terrible future as poor exploited labour, are the parents bad people for giving birth to a child. Are the parents responsible for the child's future? can we blame the parents?
real life example: parents of the people working in those bangladesh factory fires.
Also, is it my fault if I buy things that these factor workers make, thereby supporting the industry that causes these conditions to occur?
Also, Jessica from SNSD or Tiffany from SNSD.
|
United States41965 Posts
On October 04 2014 16:04 jodogohoo wrote:
if parents give birth to a child and they know with 100% certainty that that child is going to have a fucking terrible future as poor exploited labour, are the parents bad people for giving birth to a child. Are the parents responsible for the child's future? can we blame the parents?
Yes, but 100% certainty is pretty high. I would be surprised if poor exploited labourers couldn't find some satisfaction and happiness in their own ways. I read something a while ago that said that happiness was basically derived from a subjective comparison between the shitty times and the good times that you experience, thus allowing us in the first world to be miserable sometimes while allowing people in conditions that would make us miserable all the time to be happy. Also the chance that they have access to birth control or a pension beyond kids is pretty low so blame would be excessive.
That said I would probably advocate abortion over growing up as a child sorting through a pile of toxic scrap with bare feet.
|
you never blame the parents.
you blame the ones running the sweatshops.
|
|
|
On October 04 2014 17:39 xM(Z wrote:
you never blame the parents.
you blame the ones running the sweatshops.
Factory owners have to eat, blame the first world countries buying cheap goods.
|
On October 04 2014 17:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 17:39 xM(Z wrote:
you never blame the parents.
you blame the ones running the sweatshops. Factory owners have to eat, blame the first world countries buying cheap goods.
a meal is 10 bucks
|
ill make it a combo for 12
|
On October 04 2014 16:04 jodogohoo wrote:
Also, is it my fault if I buy things that these factor workers make, thereby supporting the industry that causes these conditions to occur?
This is a really troubling and difficult ethical problem. You will find decent, intelligent people on all sides of it.
On the one hand, conditions out there can be really horrible. The exploitation is very horrible, and very real. Our basic moral outrage should suggest a boycott.
But there are two main problems with a boycott, one practical and one moral. The practical one is how difficult it is to make such a boycott happen, which is borderline impossible. The Amish do a decent job, better than the rest of us. There are some remote and isolated traditional peoples who manage alright as well. But unless you're a subsistence farmer or hunter/gatherer, you're going to have a hard time not relying on any products made with exploitative labor. Our modern industrial system is heavily reliant on it for cheap consumer goods. The Jain saints who starved themselves to death to do no harm are laughing at us now.
But I'm a Christian, and think that how hard a moral thing is shouldn't be a part of the calculation, because God demands perfection, even though we all fall short. So let's talk about the moral problem: our system is based on this. Picking through garbage piles and people working in sweatshops are the alternatives. A lot of these places have way too many people and not enough jobs, or ways for people to create them. If you waved a wand and put every sweatshop out of business tomorrow, people across SE Asia would starve.
Now hopefully, the arc of industrialization in the West will be mirrored in those countries, with automation and workers' rights movements allowing for a decrease in horrible conditions, an increase in pay, and, gradually, a movement to an information/service based economy with industrial sector jobs increasingly performed by machines. There are economists on either side of whether this will happen.
For my part, I participate in the broken systems, but I also try to keep up with research on the industrial practices of companies I buy regularly/expensively from. Obviously as an individual consumer, it matters not a whit. But in principle, if enough people did that, it would encourage companies to (a) make it easier to find information on their practice and (b) compensate their employees fairly.
|
On October 04 2014 17:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 17:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2014 17:39 xM(Z wrote:
you never blame the parents.
you blame the ones running the sweatshops. Factory owners have to eat, blame the first world countries buying cheap goods. a meal is 10 bucks
Can't be angry that a person is forced into the work he's skilled in. Be angry at the impetus that forces him to do what he does.
|
On October 04 2014 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 11:01 icystorage wrote:
Im sorry if this comes out as insensitive, i'll edit it out immediately.
i'm just curious regarding mentally-handicapped people. how come it affects their physical appearance? If the disability is mental, how come it manifests physically? Because not all mental handicaps manifests physically? Because ailments to the brain that manages physical processes can have physical repercussions? It's not really insensitive, mostly it's very misinformed. Mental handicap does not always correlate with physical handicaps Brain damage affects all of the brain, not just the non-physicals.
Yeah, basically classic "metally handicapped" looking stuff is either a) can't coordinate both eyes very well (which is a brain thing) or b) has problem keeping his muscles in check at all times, which leads to making "silly" faces, or c) can't take care of himself very well, so hair etc...don't look to well-kept. All of which are originating from the brain, but having effects on what you view.
Of course, these are only the cases where someone "looks mentally handicapped"
|
On October 05 2014 11:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2014 11:01 icystorage wrote:
Im sorry if this comes out as insensitive, i'll edit it out immediately.
i'm just curious regarding mentally-handicapped people. how come it affects their physical appearance? If the disability is mental, how come it manifests physically? Because not all mental handicaps manifests physically? Because ailments to the brain that manages physical processes can have physical repercussions? It's not really insensitive, mostly it's very misinformed. Mental handicap does not always correlate with physical handicaps Brain damage affects all of the brain, not just the non-physicals. Yeah, basically classic "metally handicapped" looking stuff is either a) can't coordinate both eyes very well (which is a brain thing) or b) has problem keeping his muscles in check at all times, which leads to making "silly" faces, or c) can't take care of himself very well, so hair etc...don't look to well-kept. All of which are originating from the brain, but having effects on what you view. Of course, these are only the cases where someone "looks mentally handicapped"
Well, there's also Down's syndrome, hydrocephalus and a few other diseases and conditions that cause both mental problems and changes to one's physical appearance. In these cases it's not the mental problems causing the physical symptoms, but rather the underlying root cause causing both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j5sjPMP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P0oE4LV.jpg)
