Topic: Hypthetical situation: a high school student does an exam on evolution
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #50,855
...and gets every question right. However, at the end of the exam, the student writes: "Evolution is a lie. I only answered the questions to get a grade."
Should the student pass or fail?
Should the student pass or fail?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| The student should pass, because he/she answered every question correctly. | 8 | 67% | |
| The student should fail, because he/she believes evolution is a lie. | 4 | 33% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #659,710
Answering every question correctly should enable you to pass on an exam. I don't think someone inept enough to deny all the evidence for evolution would actually pass that exam though. The student seems to be trolling.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,713
Easy, the grade has nothing to do with what the student personally believes about the subject so full credit.
Punishing someone like that for their beliefs or opinions is repugnant to me.
Punishing someone like that for their beliefs or opinions is repugnant to me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,715
@659,710 (B)
A lawyer will happily argue in favor of something she/he does not personally believe, as long as it will win a court case and put money in his/her pocket.
The student is doing much the same thing. The only difference is, she/he is simply being honest about it. "The evidence points to this conclusion. However, I don't agree with the conlusion, I'm simply telling you what you want to hear for my own benefit".
A lawyer will happily argue in favor of something she/he does not personally believe, as long as it will win a court case and put money in his/her pocket.
The student is doing much the same thing. The only difference is, she/he is simply being honest about it. "The evidence points to this conclusion. However, I don't agree with the conlusion, I'm simply telling you what you want to hear for my own benefit".
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,716
@previous (A)
All of your she/he and him/her references lead me to believe it is a hypothetical tranny example. So it begs the question, which toilet would he/she use from a purely evolutionary standpoint?
All of your she/he and him/her references lead me to believe it is a hypothetical tranny example. So it begs the question, which toilet would he/she use from a purely evolutionary standpoint?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,718
@659,713 (Metæ)
Should the student be forced to explain why she/he believes a scientifically validated theory to be a lie? please note that the student used the word "lie", not "incorrect" or "inaccurate".
Should the student be forced to explain why she/he believes a scientifically validated theory to be a lie? please note that the student used the word "lie", not "incorrect" or "inaccurate".
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 52 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,719
@659,710 (B)
I dunno, we're talking high school here where evolution and the evidence for it is terribly taught and class is spent passing notes and shooting spitballs. And besides it's not on the high stakes standardized test anyway.
I dunno, we're talking high school here where evolution and the evidence for it is terribly taught and class is spent passing notes and shooting spitballs. And besides it's not on the high stakes standardized test anyway.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Metæ double-posted this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,720
@659,718 (A)
> Should the student be forced to explain
No because it's not relevant to the test. The teacher could certainly ask the student and debate it but an explanation (or lack thereof) is immaterial You could take an astronomy test and write "the sun goes around the earth and the earth is flat and Copernicus was a big dumb poopyhead" in the margin but if you answered the questions right you should get full credit.
> Should the student be forced to explain
No because it's not relevant to the test. The teacher could certainly ask the student and debate it but an explanation (or lack thereof) is immaterial You could take an astronomy test and write "the sun goes around the earth and the earth is flat and Copernicus was a big dumb poopyhead" in the margin but if you answered the questions right you should get full credit.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,723
@previous (Metæ)
Then, what is the point of teaching any scientific theory if the student rejects it as a lie? For that matter, what is the point of teaching anything? Is it simply to satisfy the requirements of a government-mandated curriculum?
Then, what is the point of teaching any scientific theory if the student rejects it as a lie? For that matter, what is the point of teaching anything? Is it simply to satisfy the requirements of a government-mandated curriculum?
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,724
@previous (A)
> Then, what is the point of teaching any scientific theory if the student rejects it as a lie?
The same reason algebra is taught to kids who immediately forget it after the test because they'll "never use quadratic equations in real life".
> Is it simply to satisfy the requirements of a government-mandated curriculum?
You're talking high school here so yes. The student is legally forced to learn the curriculum. Punishing the students who think jeebus created dinosaurs on the third day is hardly likely to win them over. You'll just feed their persecution complex and prejudice them even more against secularism and science.
> Then, what is the point of teaching any scientific theory if the student rejects it as a lie?
The same reason algebra is taught to kids who immediately forget it after the test because they'll "never use quadratic equations in real life".
> Is it simply to satisfy the requirements of a government-mandated curriculum?
You're talking high school here so yes. The student is legally forced to learn the curriculum. Punishing the students who think jeebus created dinosaurs on the third day is hardly likely to win them over. You'll just feed their persecution complex and prejudice them even more against secularism and science.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 50 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,725
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #659,727
@659,718 (A)
> Should the student be forced to explain why she/he believes a scientifically validated theory to be a lie?
Anyone refuting a theory should be asked to explain what they think is wrong with it. That is how science works.
> Should the student be forced to explain why she/he believes a scientifically validated theory to be a lie?
Anyone refuting a theory should be asked to explain what they think is wrong with it. That is how science works.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,730
@659,725 (squeegee)
Of course not Squeegee. I'm asking if there's more to education than simply forcing a student to learn something in order to satisfy the demands of the state.
> You're talking high school here so yes. The student is legally forced to learn the curriculum.
Do you think that should be the primary aim of either a student or a teacher? Conforming to a syllabus simply to avoid failure, legal repercussions or unemployment?
Of course not Squeegee. I'm asking if there's more to education than simply forcing a student to learn something in order to satisfy the demands of the state.
> You're talking high school here so yes. The student is legally forced to learn the curriculum.
Do you think that should be the primary aim of either a student or a teacher? Conforming to a syllabus simply to avoid failure, legal repercussions or unemployment?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,731
@659,727 (B)
Asked, perhaps. However, what if they have no desire to discuss their personal beliefs. Should they be forced to explain why they believe evolution is a deliberate lie?
Asked, perhaps. However, what if they have no desire to discuss their personal beliefs. Should they be forced to explain why they believe evolution is a deliberate lie?
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,734
@659,730 (A)
> Of course not Squeegee. I'm asking if there's more to education than simply forcing a student to learn something in order to satisfy the demands of the state.
yes, of course, but the burden of learning isn't just on the teacher or the state you know. students have to be open minded and willing to learn, which by definition means to acquire knowledge you didn't previously have. an unwillingness to learn is not the fault of the state nor the teacher. you're starting from the position that a students beliefs are somehow more valid than the material being taught and that forcing it on them is, for some reason, wrong?
> Do you think that should be the primary aim of either a student or a teacher? Conforming to a syllabus simply to avoid failure, legal repercussions or unemployment?
no... but again you're putting the responsibility for a students unwillingness to acquire knowledge on the teacher. the teacher's goal is to educate, and the state's goal is to turn out educated students, but if the student's goal is to NOT learn and to REMAIN ignorant then no amount of foisting it on them will educate them. a student is just as responsible for their own education as a teacher is, you're making it out that the only one with any responsibility here is the teacher and the curriculum. and really, what's the difference between a teacher educating willful students and a teacher foisting the same material on unwillful students? it's the students, that are the difference. not the material, and not the manner of education.
but, i will say that when you have an ignorant student who refuses to learn then the only thing you CAN do is just conform to a syllabus and simply avoid legal repercussions or unemployment. if you can't get through to them, then it's damage control time. that's it, and you can't save everyone, especially those who won't let themselves BE saved.
> Of course not Squeegee. I'm asking if there's more to education than simply forcing a student to learn something in order to satisfy the demands of the state.
yes, of course, but the burden of learning isn't just on the teacher or the state you know. students have to be open minded and willing to learn, which by definition means to acquire knowledge you didn't previously have. an unwillingness to learn is not the fault of the state nor the teacher. you're starting from the position that a students beliefs are somehow more valid than the material being taught and that forcing it on them is, for some reason, wrong?
> Do you think that should be the primary aim of either a student or a teacher? Conforming to a syllabus simply to avoid failure, legal repercussions or unemployment?
no... but again you're putting the responsibility for a students unwillingness to acquire knowledge on the teacher. the teacher's goal is to educate, and the state's goal is to turn out educated students, but if the student's goal is to NOT learn and to REMAIN ignorant then no amount of foisting it on them will educate them. a student is just as responsible for their own education as a teacher is, you're making it out that the only one with any responsibility here is the teacher and the curriculum. and really, what's the difference between a teacher educating willful students and a teacher foisting the same material on unwillful students? it's the students, that are the difference. not the material, and not the manner of education.
but, i will say that when you have an ignorant student who refuses to learn then the only thing you CAN do is just conform to a syllabus and simply avoid legal repercussions or unemployment. if you can't get through to them, then it's damage control time. that's it, and you can't save everyone, especially those who won't let themselves BE saved.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,736
@659,731 (A)
> Should they be forced to explain why they believe evolution is a deliberate lie?
Yes, if you are going to challenge a theory, then you should be able to come up with a compelling argument. Do it and some people might agree with you. That's how science works. That's, unfortunately, not how other modes of thinking work.
> Should they be forced to explain why they believe evolution is a deliberate lie?
Yes, if you are going to challenge a theory, then you should be able to come up with a compelling argument. Do it and some people might agree with you. That's how science works. That's, unfortunately, not how other modes of thinking work.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,738
@659,734 (squeegee)
In the hypothetical scenario I've outlined, the student has satisfied the requirements of the state, but refused to accept what she/he has been taught. More than that, they have declared the beliefs of both the state and (presumably) the teacher to be a deliberate lie. The question therefore becomes, have they truly learned anything?
In the hypothetical scenario I've outlined, the student has satisfied the requirements of the state, but refused to accept what she/he has been taught. More than that, they have declared the beliefs of both the state and (presumably) the teacher to be a deliberate lie. The question therefore becomes, have they truly learned anything?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,739
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,741
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,742
@659,739 (A)
> If they refuse to explain their reasons, should they fail the exam?
Ummm... Yes. If you can't explain why something is wrong, then why the fuck are you claiming it is wrong?
> If they refuse to explain their reasons, should they fail the exam?
Ummm... Yes. If you can't explain why something is wrong, then why the fuck are you claiming it is wrong?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,744
@previous (B)
Then we have a bit of a conundrum, because, as you said "Answering every question correctly should enable you to pass on an exam."
Then we have a bit of a conundrum, because, as you said "Answering every question correctly should enable you to pass on an exam."
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,745
@previous (A)
well, a semantic argument isn't really a conundrum. you still haven't explained what you meant by "truly learned" and how that is different from just "learned." he learned it but he didn't truly learn it. this is sounding like some kind of a "no true Scotsman fallacy" or something.
edit: and i would say that the fallacy would fall on the student who "learned it" but also claims he didn't "really learn it" because he doesn't believe it. the student is making a logical mistake. it would be like learning geometry proofs and going, "uh, yeah, i don't buy it," even though you can see it demonstrated in front of you. it's an unwillingness to accept what is demonstrably true for what your gut tells you. that's a problem with the student, not the teacher and not the curriculum. they fulfilled their duties by properly exposing the student to the info to the point that a flat unwillingness to accept it is the only thing that stops, what you call, truly learning.
and that's the student's fault.
well, a semantic argument isn't really a conundrum. you still haven't explained what you meant by "truly learned" and how that is different from just "learned." he learned it but he didn't truly learn it. this is sounding like some kind of a "no true Scotsman fallacy" or something.
edit: and i would say that the fallacy would fall on the student who "learned it" but also claims he didn't "really learn it" because he doesn't believe it. the student is making a logical mistake. it would be like learning geometry proofs and going, "uh, yeah, i don't buy it," even though you can see it demonstrated in front of you. it's an unwillingness to accept what is demonstrably true for what your gut tells you. that's a problem with the student, not the teacher and not the curriculum. they fulfilled their duties by properly exposing the student to the info to the point that a flat unwillingness to accept it is the only thing that stops, what you call, truly learning.
and that's the student's fault.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #659,746
@659,741 (squeegee)
I think you understand what I mean Squeegee. In the case of the theory of evolution, I mean accepted as being scientifically valid, if not demonstrated fact.
The student has acquired sufficient understanding of the subject to answer the questions correctly, but rejects the central premise itself as a lie. He/she has not accepted evolution as either scientifically valid or demonstrably factual.
I think you understand what I mean Squeegee. In the case of the theory of evolution, I mean accepted as being scientifically valid, if not demonstrated fact.
The student has acquired sufficient understanding of the subject to answer the questions correctly, but rejects the central premise itself as a lie. He/she has not accepted evolution as either scientifically valid or demonstrably factual.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,747
> Then we have a bit of a conundrum, because, as you said "Answering every question correctly should enable you to pass on an exam."
An exam... Sure. An exam is intended to test you. That is what it is for. Answering every question on an exam would be passing that exam. Even if every question was about some bullshit flat earth topic.
An exam... Sure. An exam is intended to test you. That is what it is for. Answering every question on an exam would be passing that exam. Even if every question was about some bullshit flat earth topic.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 11 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,748
@659,746 (A)
> The student has acquired sufficient understanding of the subject to answer the questions correctly,
then the teachers job is done
> but rejects the central premise itself as a lie. He/she has not accepted evolution as either scientifically valid or demonstrably factual.
then the students job is not. in this scenario the only thing preventing "true learning" is the attitude of the student. if the student WANTS to "truly learn" about evolution then the student is going to have to be willing to accept the central premise. i think "true learning" requires open mindedness, if by "true learning" you mean "believe what you have been taught."
> The student has acquired sufficient understanding of the subject to answer the questions correctly,
then the teachers job is done
> but rejects the central premise itself as a lie. He/she has not accepted evolution as either scientifically valid or demonstrably factual.
then the students job is not. in this scenario the only thing preventing "true learning" is the attitude of the student. if the student WANTS to "truly learn" about evolution then the student is going to have to be willing to accept the central premise. i think "true learning" requires open mindedness, if by "true learning" you mean "believe what you have been taught."
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,749
@previous (squeegee)
Then, should the student be failed, despite answering every question correctly?
Then, should the student be failed, despite answering every question correctly?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,750
@659,747 (B)
Then, you've changed your view that the student should be forced to explain their reasoning on threat of failing an exam she/he's already passed?
Then, you've changed your view that the student should be forced to explain their reasoning on threat of failing an exam she/he's already passed?
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,751
@659,749 (A)
no! people keep saying this. no, especially if you're drawing a distinction between learning and "true learning." a teacher can only "learn a student", and a student can only pass by regurgitating what they've been taught. believing it is separate from that and not the responsibility of the teacher or the system. that's on the student, and that's not something you can grade for
demonstrate you understand what's being taught, that's it. belief, that's something else entirely
no! people keep saying this. no, especially if you're drawing a distinction between learning and "true learning." a teacher can only "learn a student", and a student can only pass by regurgitating what they've been taught. believing it is separate from that and not the responsibility of the teacher or the system. that's on the student, and that's not something you can grade for
demonstrate you understand what's being taught, that's it. belief, that's something else entirely
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,752
@previous (squeegee)
> demonstrate you understand what's being taught, that's it. belief, that's something else entirely.
That is precisely what the student has done, meaning that nobody is actually in error. However, Anon B posted here that the student should be failed if she or he refuses to explains why they believe evolution to be a lie. Perhaps you should address your argument to Anon B, assuming he hasn't changed his position to agree with yours.
> demonstrate you understand what's being taught, that's it. belief, that's something else entirely.
That is precisely what the student has done, meaning that nobody is actually in error. However, Anon B posted here that the student should be failed if she or he refuses to explains why they believe evolution to be a lie. Perhaps you should address your argument to Anon B, assuming he hasn't changed his position to agree with yours.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,753
@previous (A)
anon b can have his opinion. and in a perfect world i'd agree with him, but education is forced in this country and so we don't have the luxury of kicking bad students out of classes. don't want to learn biology and evolution? okay, leave, someone else out there would trade places in a heartbeat. go learn what you want and be as narrow minded as you like.
if education was voluntary it would be different, students that want to learn and show an eagerness to embrace the material are the students that would be in school if it was voluntary. so yeah, kick them out for not embracing it or providing solid logic for not embracing it. but it's not voluntary.
anon b can have his opinion. and in a perfect world i'd agree with him, but education is forced in this country and so we don't have the luxury of kicking bad students out of classes. don't want to learn biology and evolution? okay, leave, someone else out there would trade places in a heartbeat. go learn what you want and be as narrow minded as you like.
if education was voluntary it would be different, students that want to learn and show an eagerness to embrace the material are the students that would be in school if it was voluntary. so yeah, kick them out for not embracing it or providing solid logic for not embracing it. but it's not voluntary.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,755
@previous (squeegee)
Then, if the law changed to allow teachers to fail students for not believing what they'd been taught, you wouldn't object to them being "kicked out", even if they passed all their exams?
Then, if the law changed to allow teachers to fail students for not believing what they'd been taught, you wouldn't object to them being "kicked out", even if they passed all their exams?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,756
@659,753 (squeegee)
Also, does rejecting a commonly accepted concept or theory make a person a "bad student" as you suggested? What if their grades are high, and their behavior is exemplary?
Also, does rejecting a commonly accepted concept or theory make a person a "bad student" as you suggested? What if their grades are high, and their behavior is exemplary?
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,758
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,760
@previous (squeegee)
As you wish. I would, however, be interested in hearing your views on these matters tomorrow if you feel like it.
As you wish. I would, however, be interested in hearing your views on these matters tomorrow if you feel like it.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,770
I'd probably give them an after class meeting for the attitude but if they answered all the questions correctly then they meet criteria for a pass
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,775
lol is this the same autist who boasts about how many replies he gets?
sad fucker.
sad fucker.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,933
@659,770 (F)
> I'd probably give them an after class meeting for the attitude...
That's interesting. What would you say to him/her during this meeting?
> I'd probably give them an after class meeting for the attitude...
That's interesting. What would you say to him/her during this meeting?
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,940
@previous (A)
That they can believe what they choose to but to please be respectful during class times
That they can believe what they choose to but to please be respectful during class times
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #659,945
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,252
@659,716 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
From an evolutionary standpoint, he/she would use a fishbowl because, from an evolutionary perspective, humans are, in fact, fish.
From an evolutionary standpoint, he/she would use a fishbowl because, from an evolutionary perspective, humans are, in fact, fish.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,466
@659,945 (A)
It's an idiotic belief, which demonstrates that the student has learned nothing. The student is spitting in the face of each and every hard working taxpaer whom paid for the education he wasted. Thanks.
It's an idiotic belief, which demonstrates that the student has learned nothing. The student is spitting in the face of each and every hard working taxpaer whom paid for the education he wasted. Thanks.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,474
@659,945 (A)
> How is stating a genuine belief being disrespectful?
It isn't. However only bible thumping religious mental retards, believe otherwise, when they deny evolution.
> How is stating a genuine belief being disrespectful?
It isn't. However only bible thumping religious mental retards, believe otherwise, when they deny evolution.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,629
@660,466 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
So, should the student be failed, regardless of how many questions he/she answered correctly?
So, should the student be failed, regardless of how many questions he/she answered correctly?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,630
@660,474 (J)
Should we deny others the right to express their personal beliefs, and should we penalize people whose personal beliefs are at variance with accepted scientific theory?
Should we deny others the right to express their personal beliefs, and should we penalize people whose personal beliefs are at variance with accepted scientific theory?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,631
@660,629 (A)
Stop being a faggot that counts their worth on replies to shit topics. When is the last time you went outside or talked to a person irl?
Stop being a faggot that counts their worth on replies to shit topics. When is the last time you went outside or talked to a person irl?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,632
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Today. Went to work, had lunch and later coffee with friends. How about you?
Today. Went to work, had lunch and later coffee with friends. How about you?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,633
@previous (A)
But will you ever stop being a faggot that counts his pathetic existence via post count by being a butthurt whiner? Why don't you go back to TC so you can madpost about the doctor for another 5 years?
But will you ever stop being a faggot that counts his pathetic existence via post count by being a butthurt whiner? Why don't you go back to TC so you can madpost about the doctor for another 5 years?
Trashtivist !8x8z91r9YM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #660,635
@659,713 (Metæ)
Pretty much this.
If the answers were 'correct', full credit, regardless of what the student or teacher believes.
Pretty much this.
If the answers were 'correct', full credit, regardless of what the student or teacher believes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #660,645
@previous (Trashtivist !8x8z91r9YM)
So, in this scenario, parroting answers is more important than accepting the scientific validity of the theory.
So, in this scenario, parroting answers is more important than accepting the scientific validity of the theory.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #660,718
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #660,722
> problems in America
Enjoy your shitty school system!
Enjoy your shitty school system!
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #660,740
The student should probably be shot in the head to eliminate his retarded ass from the gene pool, so yes, he or she should fucking fail since they proved to be too incompetent to pass
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #660,820
@659,945 (A)
Because it is written there to sneer at the teacher, there is no reason to write that except as a "fuck you".
Because it is written there to sneer at the teacher, there is no reason to write that except as a "fuck you".