You didn't build that, and now, you didn't earn that

[jc456]

YOu claim to be a teacher.

No teacher would claim that the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

I said in order to have learned in school someone had to help you understand. Not to mention someone had to feed and clothe you before you ever got there. Please say something relevant to the point instead of using easily spotted and dismissed deflections.

Context, monkey.

Obama point was you didn't do that.

YOu are supporting that.

You didnt answer the question. Who made that claim? I understand you have to deflect but lets concentrate.

that seems to be what you say a lot in here. maybe your questions don't make sense or you don't even know what it is you asked. Funny though, you are always making this post.

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

I said in order to have learned in school someone had to help you understand. Not to mention someone had to feed and clothe you before you ever got there. Please say something relevant to the point instead of using easily spotted and dismissed deflections.

Context, monkey.

Obama point was you didn't do that.

YOu are supporting that.

You didnt answer the question. Who made that claim? I understand you have to deflect but lets concentrate.

that seems to be what you say a lot in here. maybe your questions don't make sense or you don't even know what it is you asked. Funny though, you are always making this post.

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

 

[Correll]

That is what you are doing by supporting Obama by arguing that the act of teaching takes away from that student's ie Predfan, accomplishment of learning.

Try to be less stupid.

Thats not what i am saying nor is it what Obamas saying. He is saying dont take all the credit on yourself when you had prodigious amounts of help doing it. Only someone mentally impaired would believe what you are claiming.

And you just did it again.

You and Obama are telling a student to NOT take all the credit for the accomplishment of learning.


Because they had help.

That is you taking credit away from the student for the accomplishment of learning.


I've trained and taught a lot of people a lot of stuff.

And although in some settings I might cite my teaching and training abilities I would NEVER tell someone I trained or taught that the "help" I gave them in any way detracted from their accomplishments.

i dont get how thats the same as taking credit away from the student for learning? "When the student is ready the teacher will appear". I'm wondering why you struggle with simple reading comprehension. You cant learn without a teacher so you cant take all the credit.

Gimme a break. No one believes you taught anyone anything unless it was a course on how to be illiterate.

The two phrases here are "NOT take all the credit" and "taking away credit".

In both the point is that the student does not get the full credit for his accomplishment of learning because of the help/teaching he received.


For you to not understand this, just shows how little thinking you actually do.

Thanks for admitting you have terrible reading comprehension. No one said either of those two phrases you are claiming. Go back to school and try again.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats not what i am saying nor is it what Obamas saying. He is saying dont take all the credit on yourself when you had prodigious amounts of help doing it. Only someone mentally impaired would believe what you are claiming.

And you just did it again.

You and Obama are telling a student to NOT take all the credit for the accomplishment of learning.


Because they had help.

That is you taking credit away from the student for the accomplishment of learning.


I've trained and taught a lot of people a lot of stuff.

And although in some settings I might cite my teaching and training abilities I would NEVER tell someone I trained or taught that the "help" I gave them in any way detracted from their accomplishments.

i dont get how thats the same as taking credit away from the student for learning? "When the student is ready the teacher will appear". I'm wondering why you struggle with simple reading comprehension. You cant learn without a teacher so you cant take all the credit.

Gimme a break. No one believes you taught anyone anything unless it was a course on how to be illiterate.

The two phrases here are "NOT take all the credit" and "taking away credit".

In both the point is that the student does not get the full credit for his accomplishment of learning because of the help/teaching he received.


For you to not understand this, just shows how little thinking you actually do.

Thanks for admitting you have terrible reading comprehension. No one said either of those two phrases you are claiming. Go back to school and try again.

So point out where anyone but you said those two phrases. Please dont deflect or your time with me is up.

 

[jc456]

Context, monkey.

Obama point was you didn't do that.

YOu are supporting that.

You didnt answer the question. Who made that claim? I understand you have to deflect but lets concentrate.

that seems to be what you say a lot in here. maybe your questions don't make sense or you don't even know what it is you asked. Funny though, you are always making this post.

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

 

[Correll]

And you just did it again.

You and Obama are telling a student to NOT take all the credit for the accomplishment of learning.


Because they had help.

That is you taking credit away from the student for the accomplishment of learning.


I've trained and taught a lot of people a lot of stuff.

And although in some settings I might cite my teaching and training abilities I would NEVER tell someone I trained or taught that the "help" I gave them in any way detracted from their accomplishments.

i dont get how thats the same as taking credit away from the student for learning? "When the student is ready the teacher will appear". I'm wondering why you struggle with simple reading comprehension. You cant learn without a teacher so you cant take all the credit.

Gimme a break. No one believes you taught anyone anything unless it was a course on how to be illiterate.

The two phrases here are "NOT take all the credit" and "taking away credit".

In both the point is that the student does not get the full credit for his accomplishment of learning because of the help/teaching he received.


For you to not understand this, just shows how little thinking you actually do.

Thanks for admitting you have terrible reading comprehension. No one said either of those two phrases you are claiming. Go back to school and try again.

So point out where anyone but you said those two phrases. Please dont deflect or your time with me is up.

Already explained that, like I would to a retarded child.

 

[Asclepias]

You didnt answer the question. Who made that claim? I understand you have to deflect but lets concentrate.

that seems to be what you say a lot in here. maybe your questions don't make sense or you don't even know what it is you asked. Funny though, you are always making this post.

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

 

[jc456]

that seems to be what you say a lot in here. maybe your questions don't make sense or you don't even know what it is you asked. Funny though, you are always making this post.

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

 

[Asclepias]

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

Implied is subjective which means you read into it. So you admit no one said anything of the sort?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

wharrgarbl

 

[georgephillip]

It wasn't nothing (sic) you did. You didn't build that.

That's quite a message. That's our slogan now. America, 2016.

If it's true we have no moral or legal entitlement to our pre-tax income, and we don't, you didn't build it alone.
No it’s not your money: Why taxation isn’t theft
"This feeling that your pre-tax income is ‘your money’ is difficult to shake.

"It’s hard not to see the pre-tax figure on your payslip as representing what’s really owing to you for the work you’ve done, and hence to feel that the state is taking away from you something that is yours by right.

"However, a little careful reflection shows this almost universal assumption to be utterly confused. There is no sense in which you have a right to your pre-tax income.

"To see this, we have to ask what kind of right it might be supposed one has to one’s pre-tax income.

"Presumably, it is either a legal right or a moral right.

"Once we separate out these alternatives, we can see that the former option is incoherent, whilst the latter is utterly implausible..."

 

[jc456]

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

Implied is subjective which means you read into it. So you admit no one said anything of the sort?

I'm saying it's implied

 

[jc456]

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

wharrgarbl

Exactly, that must have been difficult to say!

 

[EverCurious]

<-- Quit HS as a Junior because they /weren't/ teaching me anything.
Immediately went to college for 4yr computerized bookkeeping associates - taught idiot teachers how to format their hard drives and program calculators. Graduated a year early.
Started first job /while/ in college, assistant manager with no bookkeeping at all.
Ultimately became an Interim Executive - a position/field based on management and quickly learning a businesses business and very little bookkeeping.

Nope, my learned skills are all my own thanks.

 

[Asclepias]

<-- Quit HS as a Junior because they /weren't/ teaching me anything.
Immediately went to college for 4yr computerized bookkeeping associates - taught idiot teachers how to format their hard drives and program calculators. Graduated a year early.
Started first job /while/ in college, assistant manager with no bookkeeping at all.
Ultimately became an Interim Executive - a position/field based on management and quickly learning a businesses business and very little bookkeeping.

Nope, my learned skills are all my own thanks.

You taught yourself to read? Who fed and clothed you before you went to college? Sorry but I call bullshit.

 

[EverCurious]

My parents taught me to read and they clothed and fed me in exchange for "chores" until I was 16, at which point I moved out and was on my own. I had a job after school, I'd saved a bit for my truck, then after I moved out it paid enough for renting with some of my HS buddies. When I was 19 I bought a house with my husband, was making $20/h as an assistant manager for the local newspaper by then. I set aside 10% every month and given it to my buddy who wanted to be an investor. By the time I had my first kido at 21 I'd invested in the market (IBM, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft, then around 22 or so Oil) - the rest is history.

 

[Juicin]

My parents taught me to read and they clothed and fed me in exchange for "chores" until I was 16, at which point I moved out and was on my own. I had a job after school, I'd saved a bit for my truck, then after I moved out it paid enough for renting with some of my HS buddies. When I was 19 I bought a house with my husband, was making $20/h as an assistant manager for the local newspaper by then. I set aside 10% every month and given it to my buddy who wanted to be an investor. By the time I had my first kido at 21 I'd invested in the market (IBM, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft, then around 22 or so Oil) - the rest is history.

So how do you think your parents acquired food? Magicked it there through the air? They used our infrastructure.

Heated your home?

Provided you with healthcare?

It sounds like you're a net taker...Almost guaranteed

 

[Asclepias]

My parents taught me to read and they clothed and fed me in exchange for "chores" until I was 16, at which point I moved out and was on my own. I had a job after school, I'd saved a bit for my truck, then after I moved out it paid enough for renting with some of my HS buddies. When I was 19 I bought a house with my husband, was making $20/h as an assistant manager for the local newspaper by then. I set aside 10% every month and given it to my buddy who wanted to be an investor. By the time I had my first kido at 21 I'd invested in the market (IBM, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft, then around 22 or so Oil) - the rest is history.

So you had help and didnt do it on your own which was Obamas point.

 

[EverCurious]

My folks exchanged their skills and time with an employer for money (also known as work) they needed to buy the things they needed (and wanted) and other people created said items for them in exchange for money (that work thing again). My folks not only bought necessities, but my Father had this thing about helping ex-cons and paid them I swear to God every damn weekend to do shit around the properties. (That was actually bit of a sore spot for me because I wasn't allowed to have friends over when the ex-cons were there for security/liability reasons, part of why I moved out on my own at 16.)

They also paid taxes, [a lot considering my folks are worth over $14m]; federal, state, property, and gas taxes, which the local government then uses to pay for roads, police, fire, snow removal, public schools, and various random local needs like earthquake prep. And on the Federal side it pays for government, military, social welfare, and a thousand other things and special interests.

The above is something I also do, though my highest worth only ever made it to $5m, cause I didn't need more than that, and now it's only $1m ish cause of the recession] and personally don't hire many folks because, frankly, I just don't have the patience to deal with average people. Instead I throw money at charities - mostly local because the lower 48 is an embarrassment.

Meh I'll admit that I'm less of a "giver" than my folks are... My mom's a democrat [well until this year anyway] so she's always been hup hup about some bullshit special needs crap with all her rich philanthropy clubs and shit, and my Father's a "southern boy" so he's always been into working charity shit; now that he's retired his thing is volunteer police and teaching kids how to be police. Vs. Myself, I'm a lot less inclined to give a shit what happens with the US; I guess I gave up on it already. Ya'll want to go socialist and shit, I gotta move if that crap is allowed to float in (socialists use, abuse, and hate us wealthy folks ya know) so I've grown kind of resentful toward those assholes. Not so much that living in another country would be hard or w/e, dollars still strong so I can still buy whatever, just idk I've got a lot of history in the US that's being seriously fucked over by the latest crop of idiots down there (lower 48.) My family fled the Nazi's to come here, Gfolks were German's who hired Jews, they got put out of business for being "sympathizers", on the other side my Gfolks got misplaced from the invasion of Norway. My gfather was an oil man in Texas, fought in Japan. My father was top brass for Alaska. My husband's a West Pointer Vet of the Cuban war. They all fought for nothing, all of them... Basically so that you fucks could cry for socialism. It pisses me off. Then ya'll bitch about the wealthy and how much you hate them... I don't have the patience nor desire to support this kind of... well ungrateful stupidity so now I have to try to figure out what other god damn country I want to live in. It's frustrating ya know, to watch a dream be destroyed by envy and greed... W/e you folks won't understand, you think socialism is good.

Frankly, I just hope I'm still alive when it all goes down in flames so I can snicker about Karma...

 

[Correll]

I say it alot because its clear your attention span is minute. You guys make these wild claims then when called on it you start talking about something else. I understand that it might not make sense to you. Obviously you something is terribly wrong if you dont understand someone is asking for the source of your claim.

dude discussing anything with you is a waste. you have literally no intentions of discussing any topic with anyone. you are out to look stupid and you accomplish it. But hey, thanks for continued support of stupid. It fills the day.

Anytime you actually would like to discuss something post with some class.

BTW, I answered all of your questions. i always do. no reason not to. you just don't like the answers. again, it's what makes my day.

No you never answered my question. Anyone reading the thread can see that.

ok, what question didn't I answer

The one I asked Corral and you chimed in.

Who said a teacher would make the claim "the act of teaching takes away from the accomplishment of learning"?

it's called 'implied'. The implications are that the student doesn't learn only that the teacher teaches. The teacher teaches but a good student takes the knowledge and utilizes it to his/ her advantage and that is all the learner, not the teacher. it is what you all don't understand cause you feel sorry for those that don't have the skillset to utilize the education. It is how PHDs and Doctorates evolve.

Actually, I think it is stronger than implied. It's unstated but, obvious.

If I say I did half the work, it is unstated but obvious that I am stating that you did NOT do all the work, nor get all the credit for the result.