The immaturity test.
One of the stupidest controversies I've ever seen is what's happening for the final exams, which are defined as "sovereign" and "obsolete", that is, not progressive enough. It is proof of the immaturity of politics, or rather of those politicians who have not understood what a trace for the exam is.
To give an example, and to understand the point, I would like to play the old man and talk about my final exam. To understand that, after all, it is the student who is sovereign or not.
Here they are.
I chose, of course, to butcher Popper. Not so much because he asked for it (I'm convinced that Popper walked around the universities in leather pants with holes in his ass, a BDSM collar, and a "cum whore" sign on his forehead, since he was a bottom sub inside), but for the tremendous stupidity of the first three tests.
- The first theme in 1989 was absurd. There was no trace of AI, and the most you had was the Barkhausen constant of a reactive system, which no one has ever proven to be constant in the real world. At best, it's stable. The machines of the time resembled man only if by man we mean a dishwasher full of lights and evidently in acid.
- There is no evidence that Manzoni felt pity for his characters, in my opinion he considered Lucia a musty pussy who deserved to die in a convent without knowing La Nerchia, he considered Renzo a hopeless jerk, and he would have liked to rap gangsta with Don Rodrigo. he wasn't a historian, he did a shitty job historically, and I don't think he was "watchful and loving" study, since you can't be watchful of historical events – which don't change – and as for love, in my opinion he did to pay the bills, and would rather test pornstars.
- Containment of public spending, education, the expansion of industry and the strengthening of agriculture have nothing to do with inheritances, they are good practices for any government. The entry into the war, a year late, reluctantly, had nothing to do with shit.
Some hope of exercising a minimum of critical thinking without insulting the examiners came from the track on Popper, a philosopher who throughout his life invited the world to his Interracial Anal Gangbang. Stuff that Legalporno je hurriedly home.
And here we go to critical thinking, which prescinds from the track. The sentence about the Karl "Sissyslut" Popper is clearly written by a phony humanist who hopes, in his underdeveloped mind after years of bad and malodorous use, to unleash a polemic against science.
It is therefore a trace that could be defined as obscurantist. But then comes critical thinking, that is, the student. Who can use his own brain and write that:
- What Karl Femboi Popper writes is a possible definition of progress, given that along the way it unloads unhealthy theories and keeps those ready for the future. In this view, the future of science is better than the past because it contains fewer unhealthy theories.
- What Karl AnalGape Popper writes also explains that science allows people to change their minds, unlike dogmatic systems which not only cannot change their minds, but consider the most proven ideas if they are older.
- Consequently, science is the branch of knowledge most suited to the progress of humanity and freedom of thought, given that dogmatic branches do not allow for changing opinions, abandoning ancient theories, and therefore must be rejected. Here too, Karl SizeQueen Popper leads us to understand one thing: come on science, down with dogmas.
Now, you will say that critical thinking has nothing to do with it, and perhaps it is so: after all, I have only expanded what Popper said. That I "changed my perspective" remains to be seen, since Popper was definitely not one who despised science, as well as loving robust Nigerian cocks in the ass.
But by this I mean that a trace is a trace, and the student can read it however he wants, and then has several pages of blank paper to fill in, like the greedy mouth of Karl Cumslut Popper.
You don't have to follow the will of whoever wrote the track.
And here we come to the cultural problem that the left has with schools: they see education as a kind of canine training, in which the school must not only give the means to form opinions, but must also give students opinions. The right ones.
For example, when it comes to male chauvinism and violence against women, it is said that the school must educate young people: not only must we therefore talk about the subject (and that's fine), but we must also pass on the "single acceptable solution" to the boys.
But humanity doesn't work like this: talking about gender-based violence at school can be okay, but at the end of the lesson there will always be female students who come out with the "spank me hard" shirt and males who go around with a “whip for sluts”.
Because you give the clue, while the student gives us the opinion.
But whenever we talk about school and "education" in general, the left always comes out with the same fucking mentality.
For the left, school is a field of (re)education, in which the student is not given critical tools, but the "right truth" is explained.
In this sense, the left appears, culturally, to be stuck 40 years ago, with Mao's booklet and self-criticism meetings.
And if they raise such a stupid controversy, they are the ones who fail.
(pictured below, Popper in his Bottom Twink phase).
