Fox News hosts lament algebra and history text books

[AiliailiA]

They're teaching conjugation without even mentioning holy matrimony! They claim that the Origin is zero! They manufacture absolute values by pretending that negatives are actually positives! They claim that there are "real" numbers which they admit are not rational! They have a number they made up which is actually called "the imaginary number", but that hide that by calling it a "complex" number! Isn't that what liberals always say when they're wrong?

Then there's statistics, which right-thinking people know is worse than damn lies, where they actually teach children REGRESSION! And you won't believe this: standard deviation!! That's your gay agenda, right there.

[Transhuman Proteus]

It is always good to make education entertaining.

No, it absolutely isn't.

Entertaining might not be the right word they were looking for. Engaging perhaps (which can include entertaining).

I know some of my best teachers were those who managed to make their subject come alive by some means or another. They had something to teach and worked to make sure the student wanted to learn what they had to teach. As opposed to text book teachers with board after board after board of notes who never sought to engage with the student or really stimulate the learning process (because they were too busy filling up the board with notes).

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I'm sure Fox has no issues with kids learning the Annihilation Method, though.

[Caninope]

I actually draw problems with economics. They only seem to teach Keynsian economics at high school level.

I'd imagine that's because Keynesianism either forms the framework for a great deal of many other schools of thought, especially in fiscal policy, or other theories are too complex to teach.

[Caninope]

I actually draw problems with economics. They only seem to teach Keynsian economics at high school level.

For the same reason they only teach evolution.

There are legitimate issues that can be raised regarding the validity of some Keynesian ideas.

[Salandriagado]

For the same reason they only teach evolution.

There are legitimate issues that can be raised regarding the validity of some Keynesian ideas.

Mostly ones that don't make high school economics (or at least, that don't make the equivalent in the UK).

[Forsher]

Know who else used letters for numbers? The Romans. Know what the Romans did? Killed Jesus. ALGEBRA IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN!

The Romans used math to find out how many Christians a day they could feed to lions for maximum entertainment value after all. *nod*

I had a go at that, probably stuffed it up but that's that for you.

E is entertainment value. Each lion generates an entertainment value of four and each gladiator 8. Therefure, E = 4L + 8G.

At least fifty Christians must be killed in a circus. A single lion can kill four and a single galdiator two. Thus, 50 is lesser than or equal to 4L + 2G.

The organisers have a budget of 40 sestirii (or whatever it was) and a lion costs 2 and a gladiator 4. As such, 40 is greater than or equal to 2L + 4G.

Naturally, there must be no fewer than zero lions or gladiators.

The corners are at (10,5), (12.5) and (20,0).

Putting that into E = 4L + 8G, means that 20 lions or 10 lions and 5 gladiators provide maximum entertainment value of 80.

It isn't quite the thingy proposed there but it's close enough for a bit of fun.

But math does have a liberal bias. You see, according to math, finances and free market capitalism are racist and evil.

Proof:

1. Racial integration was a good thing.

2. According to the fundamental theorem of calculus, integration is the opposite of differentiation.

3. Therefore, since integration was good, derivatives must be bad, and so must everything associated with them.

4. Ergo, derivatives trading is bad and racist and so is capitalism (because it's associated with derivatives, so the associative property holds), and therefore Islam and black lesbian abortionism are good.

5. Praise Stalin.

QED

Do you really want the liberal filth known as "calculus" taught to your children?

I can confirm that this is an entirely valid mathematical proof.

Has the advantage of there being no numbers at all, right?

[Risottia]

Fox News host Eric Bolling Cartman on Wednesday accused some Colorado schools of “pushing the liberal agenda” for teaching an algebra lesson about the distributive property.

During a segment about “indoctrination in schools,” Bolling Cartman reminded viewers of a 2009 showcased an old video of children chanting, “Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Barack Hussein Obama,Es ist Zeit für Rache, wir müssen die Juden ausrotten” which outraged conservatives Christ-killers at the time.

“But even worse is the way some textbooks are pushing the liberal agenda,” the Fox News host explained, pointing to an algebra worksheet that Scholastic says gives students “insight into the distributive property as it applies to multiplication.”

Fox News, each day less distinguishable from Comedy Central.

(fixed, ty Forsher)

[Forsher]

Fox News host Eric Bolling Cartman on Wednesday accused some Colorado schools of “pushing the liberal agenda” for teaching an algebra lesson about the distributive property.

During a segment about “indoctrination in schools,” Bolling Cartman reminded viewers of a 2009 showcased an old video of children chanting, “Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Barack Hussein Obama,Es ist Zeit für Rache, wir müssen die Juden ausroten” which outraged conservatives Christ-killers at the time.

“But even worse is the way some textbooks are pushing the liberal agenda,” the Fox News host explained, pointing to an algebra worksheet that Scholastic says gives students “insight into the distributive property as it applies to multiplication.”

Fox News, each day less distinguishable from Comedy Central.

It is time for revenge? I'm not so sure about the rest... something about must and Jews.

Ah, exterminate... that makes sense. Google Translate says you've forgotten a t.

When Fox's viewers begin to have different tastes it'll change. Or, it gets new owners (the sort that would end popular programming because it is off depsite getting more viewers than others in its slot). Before then, I think you'll see more of this.

[Salandriagado]

The Romans used math to find out how many Christians a day they could feed to lions for maximum entertainment value after all. *nod*

I had a go at that, probably stuffed it up but that's that for you.

E is entertainment value. Each lion generates an entertainment value of four and each gladiator 8. Therefure, E = 4L + 8G.

At least fifty Christians must be killed in a circus. A single lion can kill four and a single galdiator two. Thus, 50 is lesser than or equal to 4L + 2G.

The organisers have a budget of 40 sestirii (or whatever it was) and a lion costs 2 and a gladiator 4. As such, 40 is greater than or equal to 2L + 4G.

Naturally, there must be no fewer than zero lions or gladiators.

The corners are at (10,5), (12.5) and (20,0).

Putting that into E = 4L + 8G, means that 20 lions or 10 lions and 5 gladiators provide maximum entertainment value of 80.

It isn't quite the thingy proposed there but it's close enough for a bit of fun.

I can confirm that this is an entirely valid mathematical proof.

Has the advantage of there being no numbers at all, right?

Numbers have nothing to do with maths. They are entirely irrelevant.

[Tekania]

No, it absolutely isn't.

I've learned the most from my entertaining teachers.

Indeed, the purpose of education is for the student to absorb and process the lesson. If the it isn't entertained, it's likely not to really be processed and retained. Students need to be engaged, not merely have information thrown at them.

[Absurdity]

The Conservatives will stop at nothing.






NOTHING.

Wow, aren't you just the EDGIEST.

>implying Fox News accurately represents conservative thought
>implying liberals don't say things far more ridiculous than Mr. Bolling's statement on a regular basis

[Ifreann]

The Conservatives will stop at nothing.






NOTHING.

Wow, aren't you just the EDGIEST.

>implying Fox News accurately represents conservative thought
>implying liberals don't say things far more ridiculous than Mr. Bolling's statement on a regular basis

Whereas going after liberals as though that is a defence of conservatives is so old a notion that I imagine you needed to get special permission from the Museum of Arguing History to use it.

[Arkinesia]

I actually draw problems with economics. They only seem to teach Keynsian economics at high school level.

For the same reason they only teach evolution.

Yeah. I mean, it's not like Third Way economic policies have worked in this country recently or anything. That shit's retarded. Am I right?

[Caninope]

There are legitimate issues that can be raised regarding the validity of some Keynesian ideas.

Mostly ones that don't make high school economics (or at least, that don't make the equivalent in the UK).

Yeah.

For some reason, I doubt that high school students care if the interest rate is the cost of money (Keynesian) or the cost of credit (market monetarist).

[Caninope]

For the same reason they only teach evolution.

Yeah. I mean, it's not like Third Way economic policies have worked in this country recently or anything. That shit's retarded. Am I right?

Uh, what?

Keynesianism, by itself, advocates nothing. It is simply a framework that allows economists to study and measure changes, and to attribute those changes to various causes. That's actually all of economics. That is what would be taught to the students.

[Forsher]

I had a go at that, probably stuffed it up but that's that for you.

E is entertainment value. Each lion generates an entertainment value of four and each gladiator 8. Therefure, E = 4L + 8G.

At least fifty Christians must be killed in a circus. A single lion can kill four and a single galdiator two. Thus, 50 is lesser than or equal to 4L + 2G.

The organisers have a budget of 40 sestirii (or whatever it was) and a lion costs 2 and a gladiator 4. As such, 40 is greater than or equal to 2L + 4G.

Naturally, there must be no fewer than zero lions or gladiators.

The corners are at (10,5), (12.5) and (20,0).

Putting that into E = 4L + 8G, means that 20 lions or 10 lions and 5 gladiators provide maximum entertainment value of 80.

It isn't quite the thingy proposed there but it's close enough for a bit of fun.



Has the advantage of there being no numbers at all, right?

Numbers have nothing to do with maths. They are entirely irrelevant.

I am not going to participate in that discussion for want of a joke. Let's just say maths is patterns and be done with it.

On the other hand, the maths I tried above needed numbers so there. *Childish Triumph*

Mostly ones that don't make high school economics (or at least, that don't make the equivalent in the UK).

Yeah.

For some reason, I doubt that high school students care if the interest rate is the cost of money (Keynesian) or the cost of credit (market monetarist).

Interesting. That seemed like something very basic that couldn't possibly disagree.

If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion. - George Bernard Shaw

What about interest rates paid to savers? I am correct in thinking that that's in return for banks using the money saved with them for other pursuits?

[Xsyne]

For the same reason they only teach evolution.

Yeah. I mean, it's not like Third Way economic policies have worked in this country recently or anything. That shit's retarded. Am I right?

Given that every historical implementation of fascist economic policies has been a colossal failure, "retarded" would be an accurate, albeit not preferred, description.

[Choronzon]

The Conservatives will stop at nothing.






NOTHING.

Wow, aren't you just the EDGIEST.

>implying Fox News accurately represents conservative thought
>implying liberals don't say things far more ridiculous than Mr. Bolling's statement on a regular basis

Few things are more ridiculous than what is said regularly on FOX News.

[Caninope]

Interesting. That seemed like something very basic that couldn't possibly disagree.

Traditionally it hasn't been a topic of debate. However, recently there's been a group of increasingly influential economist bloggers (no, I'm not kidding). These bloggers have begun to coalesce some of the teachings of the New Classical school (relying heavily upon expectations) and traditional monetarism.

Anyways, the point of disagreement is that if the interest rate is seen as the cost of holding money, whenever the real interest is effectively zero or even negative, monetary policy will have very little effect. This means that we're stuck in a liquidity trap. We can't lower interest rates, and if we raise them, businesses will invest less.

However, if the interest rate is seen as the cost of credit and not of money, that means that there is still monetary policy that could be implemented. These market monetarists look towards the market to indicate a demand for money. They disagree with Milton Friedman and traditional monetarists on the idea of a "long and variable lag" in the market with regards to money; market monetarists believe the market reacts quickly to monetary policy and expectations of monetary policy.