Valsuelm

English!

'Controlling their children and limiting exposure to different ideas.' You have a very uninformed or ignorant view of why parents would not send their kids to public school. Perhaps this is just some more of your contempt for Average Joe citizen on display then? If all drivers are idiots and untrustworthy, then certainly they aren't capable of teaching their own children to at least the joke of a level that modern public schools require. That said, I'm really curious as to what different ideas you think a kid might and should be exposed to at a public school that they won't be exposed to elsewhere in life if they are home schooled or sent to a private school. While no doubt there are some parents out there that might fit the bill that you think most do, out of the dozen and a half or so people I personally know who are homeschooling their kids (I know a lot more who send their kids to private schools, including one of my sisters (who went to a public school herself) who actually doesn't live far from you) not one of them fits your bill and I guarantee all of them will be far better educated and score better on all the standardized tests ever thrown at them than even most above average public school kids. One thing common amongst most home schooled kids is that they learn far more and far quicker than their public school counterparts, as they aren't held back from learning like so many are in public schools (especially under 'common core') and benefit from parents actively interested in and participating in their kid's education. What one might learn in school aside, as I previously mentioned, many public schools are becoming very toxic places. It's not a matter of wrapping your kid up in a protective bubble, it's a matter of not subjecting your kid to what is BS in the best light. My own old high school, which I very much enjoyed being at when I was there, has become what I'd consider an Orwellian nightmare with all sorts of insanity from police tasing kids for telling them to bleep off, to kids who got in a fight but didn't start it suspended for an entire school year under zero tolerance policies, to kids being suspended for a week because they discussed having a food fight on facebook, to other insanities (that are increasingly common throughout the US). No way would I send my kids to it now. If it was like it was when I went to school I wouldn't hesitate, but back then police weren't staffed at the school let alone tasing kids, a fight might get your suspended for a couple of days if you were the one that started it, and actually participating in a food fight would get you a detention or three (I know.. I got em) as opposed to just talking about having one getting you suspended for a week. One of the major high schools the next city over is far worse, an honor student kid was beat to death and stabbed not to long ago as he was walking home from school by a group of other kids from his high school in a gang (and guess what, they weren't black) over some trivial argument. Schools all over are not like they were two decades ago and more now, and just about all of the changes are decidedly for the worse.

That's kinda and untrue at the same time. Black majority areas are more likely to have more problem students. There is a reason for that though; not to sound like a broken record, but this thanks to the damn drug war. The drug war targets blacks the most, and thus screws up their communities the most. This is a big part of why the socio-economic situation for many blacks isn't so good. Ending the drug war would do far more good for education than free community college; especially for poor black communities. 'Kinda and untrue'? Come again? What is untrue about what I stated? Are you defending and adding to Orogun01's blatant racism? And there are 'problem students' and drug abusers in nearly every if not every public school district out there, even those that are comprised by a very large majority of upper class wealthy white people. I speak from experience. Perhaps you just watch too much TV? Or really haven't thought about what you're saying? Or are you really just completely ignorant of the fact that there are oodles upon oodles of kids nationwide that are not black who are in or on their way to being in gangs, do drugs, and other not so good things. I gotta say here. To be clear I'm not offended. But I am a bit disgusted at just how many people on this forum are turning out to be bonified racists (the thread on the recent mass murder in France has a number them), and I'm beginning to question the merits of me actually reading this forum, let alone posting here.

Another gem on the horizon:

QFT

There is no polite way to ask this, are your wife's students black? Cause that would explain the gangs, drugs and ignorance. Yea.. because only blacks are involved in gangs, do drugs, or are ignorant. Retardo stereotype and Racist much? Yeah, go teach at an inner city school with a black majority. You'll see what i'm talking about, every teacher that I've met through my mother has similar horror stories about working on black schools which range from the comical to the tragic. Luckily the ones that are close to my family have been comical. I didn't take you for one of those people that get offended when one mentions race. I didn't get offended. In over 25 years of internet forum perusing I've yet to get offended by someone's post. However, there's been a heckuva lot of racism on this forum the last few days, and my tolerance for racist and uberignorant remarks is generally near nil normally. It's absolutely ignorant and racist to say that the because the kids are black that is the problem. I could show you predominately Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American schools (I know of no other ethnicity that dominates a modern 'problem school' in the US, but I'm sure they are out there on planet earth somewhere) with similar problems to an 'inner city school with a black majority' that might be a nightmare to teach at. The problem isn't he color of someone's skin, or even necessarily the ethnic culture, the problem generally is the socio-economic background their parents hail from, but it isn't even just that, because there are plenty of good parents out there (of all ethnicities) that are poor for one reason or another. Why school X might be a nightmare to teach at or learn at always has a number of factors behind it, and those factors can and do vary from district to district. Skin color however, is never one of them. I didn't take you for a racist and thought you smart enough to realize what I stated above, but rarely does such a thing rear it's head right away with anyone.

It's absolutely true that parents are the #1 factor in any kid's upbringing and education. However, they are not the only factor and you have to ignore quite a lot to pretend that they are. Especially when we start specifically talking about public schools. An intelligent and responsible parent has quite a challenge raising and educating a kid given the plethora of total BS their kid is subjected to in media, increasingly in many instances at schools themselves, and from other directions. In fact, while it varies from district to district the widespread effect of things like 'no child left behind', 'common core', 'zero tolerance policies', and 'security' in our schools creates such a negative atmosphere in regards to education in many places that more and more intelligent and responsible parents are taking their kids out of the public school system and sending them to private schools or homeschooling them if they can afford it. Unfortunately not everyone has the means to do this. And not only are many good parents yanking their kids out of schools if they can many of the better teachers out there are fleeing their profession for other careers for many of the same reasons. The modern public school has increasingly become a very toxic place over the last couple of decades, and there are many good parents out there that not only are not at fault for this, but that have been actively battling some of the reasons (like common core) as to why that is.

There is no polite way to ask this, are your wife's students black? Cause that would explain the gangs, drugs and ignorance. Yea.. because only blacks are involved in gangs, do drugs, or are ignorant. Retardo stereotype and Racist much?

Well, one strategy would be to ignore ignorant racist remarks that apply guilt by loose association to nearly 2 billion people for the actions of a relative few. And yea... it's been mentioned more than once in this thread already that one of the cops was a Muslim.

Common core is 'no chlid left behind' on steroids. My complaints on common core are innumerable. There's pretty much nothing good about it at all. Poop has more redeeming qualities. The 'real issues in education'? While I wouldn't say curriculum, teachers, or materials are the only issues in education, they certainly are some of the real issues. What do you think the real issues are? Common core is no more a smokescreen for something that the bubonic plague was for rats. Also, the very nature of it is political, and politics is the only way you're going to change it so being against politicizing it is like being against air being part of the wind.

Yay for the protecting students part, boo for the dig on Common Core. I'm not going to say Common Core is revolutionary, but it does move us away from the terrible standardized testing and puts the focus on developing critical thinking skills. Also, anytime you hear a politician talking about Common Core, right or left wing, ignore them because they have no idea what they are talking about. You are the only teacher I've ever had any personal contact with in any manner who says boo to a dig on common core. I don't know you personally obviously, but I do know and speak fairly regularly to dozens of friends and acquaintances that are teachers of all different qualities, intellect, and ability and not one of them doesn't loathe common core. Then again, I'm in New York, an early adopter of 'common core'. Perhaps you're just ignorant of what's coming your way. Here's a good presentation on some aspects of it:

False. There isn't a shred of evidence that Irenicus knows anything about Aluando's prophesy or that he even cares. He does not mention it to you, or Bodhi, or Elisime, Or Yoshimo, or Saemon Havarian, or the matron mother. It's not mentioned anywhere in his journals. And the PC's part in the prophesy has nothing to do with his motives and actions anyway. He Only knows that you have Bhaal's blood. And even that only matters to him because Bhaal is a god and God essense = immortality, according to his strange scientific theories. (which is, in itself proof that he's not familiar with Aluando's prophesy, since Bhaal DIED to start the whole thing) Not false. You misread what I wrote. "Irenicus was interested in the main character and Imoen in large part because of their import to Aluando's prophecy," Their import and significance in Aluando's prophecy is that they have Bhaal's blood. Perhaps I could have communicated it in a clearer manner, but then again you seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing and nitpick, so I doubt I'll make you happy. That Irenicus does or doesn't know about the prophecy is somewhat irrelevant, as the prophecy itself isn't the main focus of the story (the very nature of prophecy generally means it almost never is the focus of any story). What's relevant is what the characters do, and insofar as the overarching storyline of the spawn of Bhaal (that which makes the main character the main character) the fact that he is Bhaal's spawn is central to the plot of Baldur's Gate 2 even before The Throne of Bhaal chapter is reached. And all that said, the story of the original Baldur's Gate was about more than just Aluando's prophecy. If you want to focus on that, that's your perogative, but it's akin to reading The Godfather and thinking the story is only about Vito. There's quite a bit more to it than that.

This isn't true at all. BG2 is the biggest red herring in RPG history. It's one giant side quest. The BG story line is about Aluando's prophesy, remember? Specifically, the Chaos that Bhaal's progeny will wreak upon the world. Well? BG2's plot has nothing to do with that. It's a pit stop on the road. An uninvolved, peripheral meddler (Irenicus), with his own totally unrelated motivations, temporarily halts the road trip...with a kidnapping. It isn't until Throne of Bhaal that the BG plot gets continued. Hardly a side quest. You ignore that Irenicus was interested in the main character and Imoen in large part because of their import to Aluando's prophecy, and I'll leave it at that as to not spoil things for the OP who is on a playthrough. Also, whenever I refer to BG I also include Tales of the Sword Coast, just as whenever I refer to BG2 I include The Throne of Bhaal, unless the discussions is about specifics of the expansions vs. the games, and when discussing the overall story this really doesn't factor. Most people here who have played and completed one have played them all, and I assume that when most playthrough them again they also play the expansions. To do otherwise is akin to starting a book a third of the way through it or putting it down before you reach the final page. It's common when discussing most games to assume people also play the latest expansions (ie: If I discuss Civilization 4, I'm referring to all of it's expansions as well unless specifically state otherwise). Obviously, apparently you don't assume that. So I'll keep this nitpicking in mind when next I post.

And you're guessing. (probably a safe guess, but still a guess) This beta does not showcase any "different level". Lets take a look at the quests in it Please use spoiler tags for any discussion about the details of PoE's content. Yea.. .I (and no doubt others) don't want to know even the details you posted. If I did, I'd be playing the beta and reading the beta forums. That said, there aren't supposed to be any spoilers at all in this forum.

Yup. Baldur's Gate 2 is a direct sequel to Baldur's Gate, and a direct continuation of that storyline. It's one of the great things about that game: that it was a real sequel. Something that is sadly so rare in the gaming world. Obviously it's too late PrimeJunta, but you'd likely have appreciated the writing and characters more from the get go had you played and completed the original Baldur's Gate before playing BG2. In fact, that you'd even start a fresh game of BG2 and not start your new adventure in BG1 makes me shake my head to an extent as you're missing out on the grander experience and how it was designed to be played. I certainly would not say the writing for the BG series was bad. It doesn't have the depth of Planescape Torment but it was great for what it was. It was a step above everything else out there at the time it came out, and it's still a step above the vast majority of everything that has come out since. And on content density.... while I much preferred the open world of BG1 to BG2, the content density of BG2's city didn't seem any more dense to me than BG1's. It's just perhaps that in BG2 you get to that city a lot quicker so a new player is more like to be overwhelmed (but again, BG2 isn't meant to be played having not played BG1). A city should be dense in content. And another of the great things about BG2 was that though it allowed someone to play having not played BG1 it was designed for the veteran player that played BG1. That the designers didn't try and hold everyone's hand was a good thing, and contributed to making BG2 a better game than it would have been had they tried to (an all too common design decision uberflaw these days). And that said, the manual was top notch.

Yea... Having played and beaten the IE games multiple times on core rules difficulty or higher, I think I might have used the kiting strategy once, and that was just as a trial strat (I usually try everyone at least once). It certainly wasn't how I went about fighting your average let alone most fights, and it certainly wouldn't work on a great many of them. And counterspelling being deliberately removed from the game is just bad. The complexities and diversities of the IE magic system is one of the primary things that made fights in that game very fun, challenging, and interesting.

You miss the point if you're focused on the KKK. Most KKK members certainly wouldn't call the KKK a hate organization, and I only mention them (and the Black Panthers) due to the amount of stigma Average Joe perceives them to have, and in case the point wasn't already clear up until the time I mentioned them. I wouldn't feel any differently if some Christians had done the evil deed (some Christians very well may have), that you even ask me that tells me you completely misunderstand what I was saying.

They aren't shut up, today Charlie Hebdo stated they will continue publication as normal, and Google has donated a quarter million Euros to pay help pay for even wider circulation. Let's put this is a different yet more appropriate perspective for some of you. Let's say that Charlie H was a publication known for publishing anti-black (or anti jew, or anti women, or anti pick a) people material. For over a decade they'd made a point of belittling those who hailed from place X, had color of skin Y, or believed in widely held belief Z, depicting them as subhuman, bafoons, and other unflattering/belittling/insulting ways. They mocked their way of life, they paraded failures of individuals of group X in their publication, took shots of all kinds at them over the years, and so on. They did this under mantra of 'satire', but a real lot of black people as well as a great many who were not black didn't quite see it as satire. We aren't talking about one cartoon here either. We are talking about people at Charlie H dedicating their lives to this 'satire'. Then one day a someone(s) threatens to blow up Charlie H if they don't cease publication of their anti black (or whatever group) 'satire'. Threats are unheeded, dismissed, or ignored, and publication of the 'satire' continues. Threats continue. Warnings continue. Eventually the office is firebombed.The leader of Charlie H stands tall and firm, stating his right to publish the material he's publishing and even say's he'd rather die doing it than not. The treats and warnings continue, and in light of this, as well as the firebombing, the State, which has a vested interest in seeing anti group X 'satire' published as it helps galvanize it's populace to support it's foreign policy/war agenda on group X's homeland, assigns a taxpayer paid for bodyguard to the leader of Charlie H. Some years pass, the publication of the anti-black material (as well as other anti group of people X material, because Charlie H isn't just focused on 'satirizing' blacks, it's got plenty of 'satire' to spread around) continues. Then one day, a couple of masked men walk into Charlie H's office, gun everyone down, and shout 'Freedom for *insert group of people X here, be there blacks, Jews, etc*!!'. 10 people in the office are killed, and so are two police officers, one of which being that bodyguard. Would some be trying to be making this a freedom of the press issue if the 'satire' had been focused on blacks, Jews, gays, women, etc? Sure, some would, but a large majority would think that's vile, and rightly so. I'm a thousand percent for free speech, moreso than most you'll ever meet I'm sure (ie: I'm vehemently against 'hate speech' laws,as well as most moderation I've ever seen on this forum, will defend someone's right to say anything), so don't get me wrong. But saying the Charlie Hebdo murders are a free speech issue really is misguided at best. You can say what you want, but there are consequences. If you tell someone to go bleep themselves or make a point of insulting their mother to their face, don't be surprised if they punch yours. I'm not saying that's right, and I'm certainly not condoning the evil murders of those at Charlie Hebdo. But what those at Charlie Hebdo were up to had no more to do with freedom of expression than the most vile KKK publication ever did. In other words, if the members of the Black Panthers walked into a KKK newspaper that for over a decade had published innumerable 'satirical' pieces targeting blacks in a unflattering at best manner, and mowed all the members of said newspaper down, and killed two cops in the process, would you think it's a free speech issue because some cartoons they didn't like supposedly were their motivation? Would you think the taxpayer should have funded a bodyguard for the leader of the KKK newspaper? Would you think the Black Panthers were terrorists?

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. The cartoons really aren't necessary to most news stories about this, and would be a waste of space in most news publications. Consider if what we're talking about was a photo from a snuff film or pornography. Would we be calling people cowards for not publishing the material? Were news organizations cowards for not publishing photos from the various beheadings in the last decade? Freedom of the Press exists. You can publish anything you want in the U.S. and many other western nations (but not all (including Canada)), but it doesn't mean you should. 'The better part of valor is discretion.'

While your argument in itself is an acceptable reason, let's be honest here, the one and only reason the American news people refuse to show those pictures, they're afraid a couple crazy muslims will kill them. CBC is Canadian.

A decent presentation on the NRA and some of the issues it is associated with: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gunned-down/

Well, on that note... it's relatively safe to say that if France wasn't directly and indirectly mucking around in Muslim country X, blowing up people and things, sponsoring coups, assassinating people, etc. over the years, then people from those nations would be less inclined to bring that war to Paris. Would Average Joe care if a group of retards halfway around the world dedicated their careers to 'art' inciting hatred against his nation or peoples? Probably not. However, if that group of people resided in a nation that was actively waging a war upon your nation/people, chances are Average Joe's perspective would change.

Is it so clear? If it was clearly targeted at them, why invoke Mohammed at all? Surely one can draw a cartoon targeted at these folks which does not invoke something that is sacred on at least some level to nearly 2 billion people. Most non evil people would find insult on some level in being associated with very evil people, or having something they hold dear associated with very evil people or evil deeds. That said, is it wise to go around insulting people publicly who are known for killing people?

Do you have an example of major American news outlets that post insulting Jesus caricatures? I've never seen one, it would be incredibly foolish given the fact the US is still predominantly Christian. It would alienate a large audience. I will criticise anyone that publishes insulting and degrading material about religion. I will certainly not buy such publications, and will not be surprised if they lose advertisers or go out of business. But I will always defend their right to publish such material. That is how freedom works. The ones I've seen are usually amusing and not insulting. But then, some of the caricatures of Muhammad (the original Danish ones) weren't insulting either, and there was no reason not to print them. What might be amusing to you might indeed be insulting to someone else. Islamic tradition generally forbids depiction of religious figures, somewhat in the same manner that many sects of Judaism and Christianity forbid idolatry. So the very act of drawing a representation of Mohammed is insulting to some, let alone drawing him in the manner that folks such as those at Charlie Hebdo did. I realize some here might find that ridiculous but chances are some things that you would find insulting are seen as ridiculous by others, and chances are that someone can draw something that would insult you.

A whole bunch of misinformation in this one to make many an ignorant hateful racist living in ****ed up fantasyland happy. I recommend fact checking before posting things such as this. Yet, you didn't provide a single one. You peaceloving dip**** living in anal **** fantasyland. A single one of what? If you mean facts, go fact check that picture yourself. It only takes a minute or so to find that the major points it makes are false. I'm not doing all of your homework for you. You have a problem with peace? I generally prefer it I admit. Though I fail to see how it relates to picture posted that ignorantly endorses a hateful view of a couple billion people.