I do agree with you that it is good to get the basics of a lot of different languages. However, I do believe that every student should know another language at least proficiently. Realistically, being a "jack of all trades" in language can't get you as far as being specialized in one or two. Also, I think the retention rate of the material learned in school is a student-by-student things. The students that want to retain more will, the ones who don;t want to won;t.
Theoretically though, isn't it impossible that something has always existed and always will exist? Or, I guess maybe just impossible to wrap the mind around.
EDIT: You also argued that
you think the uncreated existance of an already all-powerful complex and intelligent being which has never been observed is as likely as the uncreated existance of forces, which at the least are mathematically possible and despite that we observe forces every day?
How can you argue against one person theory of creation while citing a more "matematicallly sound" idea of creation, when at the same time you are arguing that it is presumptuous to assume that we were ever created in the first place?
I don't know that I would call myself a deist necessarily. I believe in a higher power who expects people to live their lives to the fullest and to love one another and be compassionate and so on. I think this this higher power puts the earth into balance. I, however, do not believe that this higher power really controls the way people live or act. So I guess I could be called a deist, but it would be a little bit of a stretch.
EDIT: Upon further reading into deism, I guess it wouldn't be that much of a strech really. I am however, very open when it comes to religion, and my views change often as I hear new arguments.
The existence of a theory and the existence of a concept are two very different things. Concepts can be applied and be proved to be true based upon their application. Theories, however cannot really be applied, but rather observed, or assumed.
I was an exchange student in Romania for a year, and I'm almost completely positive I know more about the country than any book could tell you. When you travel, you experience everything, which stays with you a lot longer than anything you just read in a book.
Well of course no concept can ever be tangible. What I'm saying is that if a concept has real application, is that not enough "evidence" to make the concept be considered "concrete" in the sense that through use of the concept, tangible things can be created?
I think it could be argued that mathematics is indeed concrete, or at least, its not entirely abstract. I refer especially to more specific applications of mathematic priciples such as those of geometry and trigonometry, which are present in almost everything you see or can call "concrete".
This would infringe upon our first amendment rights. Although the bill has what I guess could be seen as "good" intentions, like everything in politics, it would eventually get out of control. With the bill in place, the government would easily be able to block any site they felt like , even if that wasn't the original intent of the bill. In government, things are always taken to the extreme.
It's possible that the argument over creation by a high power and evolution is an irrelevant argument, because it is the same point being argued from different angles. Who's to say that when God created the Heavens and the Earth, he didn't do so with the "Big Bang". And who's to say that evolution was not his doing as well? Although I don't necessarily believe in the "God" that a lot of people do, I do believe in a high power which created us, and I don't believe that the argument between the two "opposing" viewpoints is invalid.
Really though, I'm open, and very curious as to other's opinions on this.
With the world becoming more and more globalized, learning a second language can do nothing but help the youth of today in succeeding. Claims such as "I'm an American, I only need to know English." are become less and less true each and every day. Communication is the key to new opportunities, and learning a language besides your native tongue can not only help you a better understanding of your own language, but also give you the skills to communicate around the world.
How could you fairly make certain votes carry a lower weight? Assuming anyone of any age is allowed to vote, and a highly intelligent and mature 8 year old votes, should their vote count less than that of a uninformed and immature 9 year old? I think trying to "weight" votes is just telling people that just because someone is older than you, their opinion means more.
I'm not one to normally complain about updates, but this one I just cannot agree with. I am a very orderly person, I like things in order. That being said, the new timeline, to me, looks sloppy and unorganized. With the current profile, everything is in the order in which it has been posted. To me it just makes more sense this way. I think Facebook is trying way to hard to become something it's not. The reason Facebook caught on was because of its simple interface, and how easy it was to use. Why fix what's not broken?
