I am trying really hard not to write a snarky response to this. No matter how much you cover up, there will *always* be someone who is aroused or distracted by what is revealed. I mean, at some points in this country, if you could see a woman's ankles, she was considered inappropriately dressed, and in some countries, even being able to see a woman's eyes without a veil is considered too revealing.

Pfft, that's what happens when you let them out of the kitchen. /snark

Y'know, she has the right to wear whatever she wants. But personally, what I'd do: If I were going out to dinner or trying to convince him to come brew a pot of tea, I'd wear something that he also found attractive. I'd expect him to do the same for me. If I were just bumming around in the garden, then I would wear what I liked and hand him a paper bag to put over his head if he couldn't stand the sight.

The problem I see with that (note that I'm not intrinsically opposed to the idea) is that if there has been a breakdown of law and order of such magnitude, I don't see the money actually getting to the people who need it without an ongoing military or para-military presence to safeguard it.

Three guys are on a boat. They have four cigarettes, but no matches, lighters, or any way to get them lighted. However, they are all desperately craving a smoke. What do they do? They throw one cigarette overboard and the whole boat becomes a cigarette lighter.

It's most common to have college algebra (one semester) and then precalc (one semester) although sometimes it's called trigonometry. The rest of my response is on the other thread already.

Here would be my issue with college algebra: It's usually (not always) taken by students who didn't understand their high school math classes very well. The students in there tend to have a sub-optimal attitude about math, and the course focuses far more on getting them up to the minimum level than on preparing a pre-engineering student to take a rigorous calculus class. The college algebra/precalculus together probably are not going to cover as much as DO precalc. Looking at DO's course outline, I would expect that the CC will omit chapters 10-11 at a minimum. If he were struggling at home and needed an external teacher I'd recommend CC highly. But I think DO is a good course, and if he's doing well with that I'd prefer to finish Precalc there. Furthermore, placement in/out of precalc is usually determined by a placement test -- so it's not like he'll have to take an AP test or something to validate his at-home study.

nm

Haha! A friend of mine convinced the cooks at his boarding school that he was Jewish, because if they were serving mystery meat it usually had pork in it and the Jewish kids got an alternative.

It would seem to me reasonable to suggest that they consult with their religious leader the next time they attend worship/Sunday School or equivalent for the theological implications. I just don't see how it could work otherwise. I would be pretty ticked, for example, if I found that my kid's religious studies class was teaching them that (for example) people who didn't believe that Genesis was a literal account of Creation were all going to Hell, but someone who believes that would probably be pretty ticked to have the opposite taught.

This is important enough that it bears repeating. I ran into some major trouble with this myself -- AOPS wasn't out yet (neither was the internet, not outside of colleges) and I ended up just running through a solid program very fast. This caused trouble when I finally hit something I had to work at to understand, and I almost quit graduate school because of it. I barely scraped through my first semester with the minimum gpa to avoid probation, and I had to drop a class to do that.

Hmm, courses such as "survey of world religions" or "classical mythology" seem like totally reasonable electives at a high school or college level, although of course not required courses.

Oh, what a SHAME! How TERRIBLE! :)

Spices are a lot better, I was thinking it was someone's drugs :p

That is both harsh and unnecessary.

FWIW, I see this at the university. Evaluate this? Fine. Solve this equation? Usually okay. But problem solving/sanity checks? For example: If the half-life of a radioactive substance is 7 days, how much of a 10-gram sample remains after 14 days? Now, someone who has understood what half-life is should be able to immediately say "Oh, so it's 14 days -- that's 2 half-lives, so there will be 1/4 of the original amount left, because half of a half is a quarter. 1/4 of 10 grams is 2.5 grams. Most of the class, when asked this question, will either go straight to the formula we learned in class (which is correct, it's just sssslllooowwww) or skip it because it's a word problem.

Agree with all of this, but especially the bolded.

I believe you can also re-visit lessons as appropriate for deeper understanding or when something interesting pops up in nature study.

Pay your girlfriend to read the book to you? :P

I think it's more that you will see far more Christians outspokenly denouncing sexual sin than other sins. You don't, for a specific example, see groups of Christians picketing a hot-dog eating contest with signs saying "GLUTTONY IS A MORTAL SIN" or something similar.

Because they're deeply mired in "NA NA NA NA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME"? Oh, sorry, you wanted a reasonable explanation. Because they're trying to score political points?

I actually think it's entirely reasonable to post a rebuttal -- just as if she'd posted it first, you'd be entirely justified in posting yours in response. I just don't think that this study (in this thread) carries much validity. I'll be really interested to see what the studies show when there are enough children who've been born into same-sex families to have the numbers to do a really valid comparison. I suspect that you'll end up with no significant difference, but as of right now, there really aren't enough to get a comparison of a comparable cross-section.

This study has some serious methodological issues: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255 As a specific example: "Because of how the paper was written, Sherkat said, it would have been easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as “lesbian mothers†and “gay fathers.†If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods. In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all." It appears that he was comparing statements from children whose parent had a string of relationships, including at least one same-sex relationship, to children from intact two-parent families. I would not be AT ALL surprised to find negative outcomes from that. As far as I know, his data set has yet to be released, but I have been following this with interest since I saw the rebuttal blog in the Chronicle.

I'd prefer to use a cheat sheet for facts rather than a calculator.