Rejuvenescience

Those are the only lines in the entire speech that sounded authentic.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by the author on how PRIVATE institutions work. They have every right to offer grants according to their own criteria.

TLDR: A PRIVATE foundation wants to determine their own criteria for which programs they fund. 🙄

Let’s be clear. Trump is here because his lawlessness is protected by the GOP.

Musk is none of those and here illegally.

Why?

Why would a poor voter with no intention of traveling out of the country spend money on a passport?

You need a better meme—one that makes it clear that women will not be able to vote unless their passport matches their birth certificate.

With more Canadians on the team than Americans🤷🏼‍♀️

By extension, an atheist is in no position to lecture the religious.

His father didn’t “choose” this. His father followed the rules and has an active asylum case in the US. In fact, ICE often detains immigrants who have followed the law. Even taking them from directly from the courthouse.

The fundamental problem is that the media wants to report a narrative about weak democrats instead of facts. Just say there were more deportations under Biden. It’s the same with how they report on drug seizures at the border.

FFS. You should quit while you are behind.

Did your wife explain it to you in those misogynistic terms?

We need a new DSM-V disorder called “Dunning Kruger Validation” wherein witnessing the success of someone else who suffers from the Dunning Kruger Effect serves to validate your own DKE delusion.

Modern conservatism can’t separate itself from the boat it gladly rode in on nor the fact that it happily pretended it couldn’t hear the dog whistles.
Conservative ideology happily wed itself to the GOP and we all recognize the blasphemy of the party of the Southern Strategy referencing Lincoln.

FFS.

Maybe he’ll do it at 4 degrees Celsius.

FFS.

Are they going to pretend that creating a chatbot in their own image is a step forward?

We don’t need more narcissists.

Does that go along with 3,333% inflation?

Good god. Who said it was a “brilliant pro-god rebuttal”? Who said she was dunking on her professor. I never said the paper was good. I’ve only made one argument this entire thread:

The prof left herself open to a 1A argument because of her poorly defined assignment.

Stop making assumptions.

You guys are having a hard time following the thread. The OP said that the author was protected by 1A.

My response was that A1 shouldn’t protect students from bad grades but the professor left herself open to 1A bc of a poorly defined rubric. It’s a “reaction” paper where you tell how you “feel”

It’s a “reaction” paper about “some aspect” about the article where supposed to say how you “feel” about it.

And if I asked you to write a paper on this, you would be failed for using logical fallacies and not providing empirical evidence.

The prof was played by this student by not defining specific requirements and therefore leaving herself open to a 1A argument

It doesn’t matter if she would have been failed in other classes or any of the other logical fallacies you presented. The only thing that counts is the rubric for THIS paper

You are fighting hard here because you don’t like the outcome. The professor did not properly define the expectations. And “every college class requires empirical evidence” (which isn’t even true) isn’t a defense for not explicitly defining the requirements.

The rubric didn’t ask for citations.

The problem is that you are responding to the contents of the essay. I don’t agree with it either. I find it vile and distasteful. My point is that prof left herself open to a 1A argument by not being explicit in her rubric.

1) it’s under grad. Most under grad classes don’t require empirical evidence. And most under grads wouldn’t even know what that means. 2) it didn’t say she needed to reference the reading, it said she needed to respond to it 3) I have three masters degrees. The last one I rec’d in 2022.

The rubric: Does the essay show a tie-in to the article, does it show a thoughtful response, is it clearly written.

The prof should have defined the constraints to include the need for empirical evidence. She left herself open to 1A by not making it clear that the essay shouldn’t be an opinion pc

I agree about the lack of specificity by the professor. She left it open to this type of response and her grade was inappropriate.

But responding separately about A1 protecting students from bad grades —that’s absurd. You might as well just sell degree certificates.

Not really. I work in a technical field and was able to do searches on technical questions up until a few months ago. And I could still use a negative operator to refine my search.