Raider5678

If I had a kid, I could teach them to multiply 4 digit numbers y 4 digit numbers in their head. I could teach them science all the way up to advanced biology. I could teach them Algebra, Trigonometry, and some of Calculus. I could teach them History simply by reading articles online.(Trusted websites.) I could teach them physical education, life lessons, and how to run a small business. I could teach them advanced psychology, how to read body language, and how to tell when someone is lying. I could teach them literature by simply taking an online course and teaching them it. It'd take all day. But if I can hire a private tutor to teach all the same things, I wouldn't need all day. So why wouldn't I? I guarantee you. Being augmented by the internet, with the ability to think clearly, would be able to home school their child effectively to get a high school diploma. You showed one example which was false. I don't understand how that counts as having a better average. Inside of Belgium, 58% of students attend private schools. You said they had a higher average GPA then the USA. Hmmmm.

Sigh. Yes.

Wait. By this diagram the tunnel is a random distance from the center of the earth. How long is the tunnel? I mean, unless that picture is to scale.

2MG/c² M = total mass of both stars. G = Gravitational Constant c = Speed of light. That will be the event horizon. Any closer, and you're dead. Even being that close is risky, but that's the point of no return if you want to push it. Edited: Was: c = Speed of light squared.

So. Contradiction. Great argument there. And you have proof of that I suppose? What about home schooling? Would hiring a professional tutor to tutor your child at home rather then sending them to public school be a wrong to you? Because I'm sure that's going to be the result for the majority of them if they're looking for a better education. And regardless, I want you to think about public schools for a moment. I don't know if you've been in them recently, but think about this. Take a teen. Give him/her money. Insert into school with poorer kids. It happens again and again. The rich kids get drugs, alcohol, and typically end up going to college to party. And sure, some poor kids get drugs too. But I'll tell you from experience. The rich kids in public school all have drugs.

By that logic, a parent should only be able to say certain things to their children, give them certain food, and only give them a sub medium house hold to live in. That way, no child has an advantage if their parents work hard to give it to them. Because you know. They shouldn't have the right to give children a better education. I think he is suggesting that they shouldn't be indoctrinated in schools and that private schools do that. In my opinion, while I may object that a child is better at a private school of a particular religion, or a single sex school, it's the parents right to raise them as they wish. Once the child is 18, they have all the choice they want. Frankly, there will be some regulation to what can be taught at a private school. Regardless of religion.

I'm thinking this is an anti trump statement more then anything. But either way, why would the US pay for it?

Do you not believe that children have the ability to make a choice? That they aren't conscious like adults?

Eh. Depends on what you think is the best.

Freewill is something that's inside of the majority of people. Whether a child is raised in a religious school or not doesn't depict their religion for the rest of their life. There are many cases of this. You created a lump statement that summed every child up into one big group and said that 100% of them would turn out one way, and then proceeded to claim it was undeniable. I simply told you you were wrong, but didn't bother supplying why as somebody else had told you first. As for having homework to do, no. I finished it last month.

That's an undeniable lie.

It got stripped away by radiation.

No, I feel it's perfectly fine. Because it's true. There's a difference to teaching religion, and teaching about religion. Frankly, I don't mind teaching the history of religion. But the actual aspects of it should be left up to the parents. Additionally, I don't see what's wrong with a kid praying before he eats if he doesn't make a big scene about it. But apparently bowing your head is reason for getting suspended at my school if you go to church.

The psychology of having a corrupt leader in charge of a country. Look at Castro, or Joseph Stalin, or Hitler.

The baby still got skin, so no. But for the most part, yes.

A bit? You better be talking about 10-12 hours with months of waiting for the appointment. Eye surgery, is extremely complicated, risky, and takes time. You can't prove she'd never lie to you. For all you know, she's lying constantly and you don't know.

Alright. Let me ask this question. Were you with her when she went to the doctor?

Yeah, she's lying. Don't do drugs kids.

Right. But I didn't say gerrymandering did nothing, I'm saying at this current point in time, due to geographical political clustering, there is automatic gerrymandering. To which, I provided evidence.

It does. But as shown by the study, not all votes are equal. That rural area, if the people vote's there are worth 3.52 times more then the city's, then they only need 570,000 to equal the 2 million. Regardless of gerrymandering. So when you start realizing that entire city is only in one county, then the majority of the democratic vote is in that county. Unless you split the city into multiple counties.

This is what I was alluding to. The Blacks and Hispanics in Oakland have a 25% arrest rate each, as well as whites. So their chances of being arrested if searched is 25%. No matter race. Yet, they say they have a 6 times higher chance of being arrested if they're black, because of the general populations difference. Think of it like this. In the general population, 13% are African Americans. In Okaland's population, 25% are African Americans. When 1/4 of the African Americans are searched and found incriminated, rather then referencing to Oakland's population, they refer to the general population. And that leads to the conclusion that African Americans are 6 times more likely to be arrested if searched in Oakland. Now, can you see where that's flawed? 1/4 of any race inside of Oakland will be arrested if searched. Whites, Blacks, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Well, 1/4 of the searches they committed. So they expect that the African Americans should make up 13% of Oakland's arrests, rather then the 25% that they do. But if Africans did only make up 13%, wouldn't that mean they were less likely to be arrested, considering they consisted of 25% of Oakland's population? Or am I wrong there?

I was curious about that. http://www.projectknow.com/discover/drug-arrest-across-america/ This study shows that the majority of drug use is in cities.(Note, I said majority. There's also proof, given above.) So, unless I'm wrong, the majority of drug arrests will be in cities.(note, I said majorities. Not all. Just saying that now. Study also proves this.) https://priceonomics.com/the-most-and-least-diverse-cities-in-america/ This shows another thing. African American and Hispanic populations usually are equal to White and Asian populations in cites. Now, this is important. Delta, you're logical. So thing about this. Even though Whites outnumber Blacks and Hispanics, inside of cities they are usually equal. In events where they aren't equal, it's not the same ratio of White to Black as in the general population as it is in cities. So the majority of drug use is in cites, the majority of drug arrests are in cities, and inside of cities the populations are much more balanced then in the general population. So from this premise, we can conclude that if the drug arrests in cities should be fairly equal in the ratio of Whites to Blacks. And regardless if they aren't, we should see the disparity of drug arrests in a population with a more balanced ratio. So, looking at Oakland, CA, the most balanced. Of all the searches, 25% of the searches resulted in incriminating evidence. And, the ratio of those found with criminal items were the same through all races. 25% of whites, 25% of African Americans, 25% of Hispanics, etc. But, due to comparing that to general population statistics, you could still say African Americans are five times as likely to be arrested for drug use as whites. Which they do say that.

I have a question. Democrats are often separated into geographical clusters. Someone drew up states into rational non-partisan lines(someone from the New York Times, I'm not sure who) and found the Republicans still gain a huge advantage in votes because democrats are often clustered together in huge groups in cities. And in order to make it fair, you'd have to gerrymander in a specific way to try and balance out the cities with the rural populations. This can be explained by a few things. One, your vote counts for more if you live in a state with less people. If you live in Wyoming, your vote is 3.52 times more influential then Texas's. So yeah. The electoral college is messed up, and we should rely on popular vote. That way, at least we'd have a sane president in office.(also good news, I'm finding a majority of the people who were radically Trump voters, are now anti-Trump where I live.) But simply saying the Republicans won because of Gerrymandering is false. They did not. They Gerrymandered, yes. But even if they didn't, you'd have to go out of your way to make weird county lines so that it wasn't unfair. If all the support is in a city, where your vote counts less then in rural areas, you have to somehow split up the city to cover the rural areas. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=0

Yes. It's possible. But you also have to note a few things. 1. I'm taking your question and rephrasing it as "After I die is it possible that all the pieces of me could form together after an infinite amount of time and create another living things. Now the reason I rephrased it, is because the Universe isn't infinite. Additionally, that also sums up your question. 2. Throughout your life, your skin drops skin particles, hair, and more. If all of it was collected, it'd be a much larger you. So you also have to take into account that. But I'm assuming you meant your final body when it died. Now, the chances, are very low. Mainly because there are so many atoms in the universe, it'd be like 1/10^1,000,000^1,000,000^1,000,000. Which is basically so astronomically low, that it will never happen. Very simply put. The universe won't live long enough. And even if there was infinite time, the chance would still be so low that it's basically impossible. Infinite time is a long time, but doesn't mean it will happen. It's like saying if you shot two bullets out into space, after an infinite amount of time would they eventually collide from swinging around on gravitational pulls from planets, stars, and galaxies. Possible, but not likely. Really not likely.

Yes. They hacked the democrats, and not the Republicans. Which shows obvious favoritism. Also, I was researching on the voter turnout. One of the major things, is that Republicans are trying to suppress black voters from turning out because they have criminal records. The criminal records thing though, prevents a lot of people from voting, owning guns, and a lot more. And they aren't things like petty crime, they're usually for felonies. I'm just curious on what you think of this. Just wondering. I know a guy who can't vote because of his record, but when I've asked him about it in the past he said he made the mistakes and now he's paying the consequences. But he also said the for the most part, it doesn't interfere with his life.