I'm more concerned about that spindly 7ft long leg. If it has any bones in it, some of them are definitely broken.

In many balanced literacy classrooms, children are taught phonics and the cueing system. Some kids who are taught both approaches realize pretty quickly that sounding out a word is the most efficient and reliable way to know what it is. Those kids tend to have an easier time understanding the ways that sounds and letters relate. They'll drop the cueing strategies and begin building that big bank of instantly known words that is so necessary for skilled reading.

But some children will skip the sounding out if they're taught they have other options. Phonics is challenging for many kids. The cueing strategies seem quicker and easier at first. And by using context and memorizing a bunch of words, many children can look like good readers — until they get to about third grade, when their books begin to have more words, longer words, and fewer pictures. Then they're stuck. They haven't developed their sounding-out skills. Their bank of known words is limited. Reading is slow and laborious and they don't like it, so they don't do it if they don't have to. While their peers who mastered decoding early are reading and teaching themselves new words every day, the kids who clung to the cueing approach are falling further and further behind.

These poor reading habits, once ingrained at a young age, can follow kids into high school. Some kids who were taught the cueing approach never become good readers. Not because they're incapable of learning to read well but because they were taught the strategies of struggling readers.

Another reason cueing holds on is that it seems to work for some children. But researchers estimate there's a percentage of kids — perhaps about 40 percent — who will learn to read no matter how they're taught. According to Kilpatrick, children who learn to read with cueing are succeeding in spite of the instruction, not because of it.

Maybe your kid is one of the lucky ones that can read fine regardless of how he's taught. But not everyone will be. That's the point of changing how reading is taught, to be more effective for the highest number of people.

But you could also try giving him a reading test like the ones presented at the top of this website https://readingtests.info/ and see for yourself how well he reads an unfamiliar story.

Those women probably attacked his tender, tiny digits with their powerful genitals for street cred.

This makes it look like a pretty clear case of sarcasm to me.

And after googling DARVO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO it becomes even clearer.

He brought up the example of a child who comes to the word "horse" and says "pony" instead. His argument is that a child will still understand the meaning of the story because horse and pony are the same concept.

I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ says "pony"? And different letters say "horse"?

He dismissed my question.

Goodman rejected the idea that you can make a distinction between skilled readers and unskilled readers; he doesn't like the value judgment that implies. He said dyslexia does not exist — despite lots of evidence that it does. And he said the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.

"My science is different," Goodman said.

It really shouldn't surprise me at this point that people that think like this are in charge of how kids are educated.

Behold, intimidation.

Could have said something specific then, rather than "literally anything acute". As it is, I don't know why you'd assume your magical elf that's known to cause cancer could also be so benign as to only give people a cold.

Any time you vote for a candidate that loses, this is the case. And of your preferred candidate wins in a landslide, every extra vote they didn't need might as well have been blank.

choose between having an acute health condition and cancer

The ironic part is you just might be better off with the cancer. An acute problem could be anything, from broken bones or an infection to a heart attack or acute radiation poisoning. At least with cancer you know what you're going to get and should have time to seek treatment.

why do people have this innate ability to underestimate what we might be capable of?

Because we can see what we're currently capable of in terms of climate change, and the outlook is pretty bleak

why do you think its impossible for us to become masters of our own genome?

Because even in the best case scenario, this is dangerously close to eugenics

not getting off this rock means our species is doomed regardless of how ‘perfect’ we keep earth.

If we can't keep earth livable, an entire self-regulating planet that's been livable for hundreds of millions or billions of years, what are our chances of keeping anywhere else livable?

I'm not actually trying to argue one way or the other, but

No, the cart always has to be voters. Actually showing up to the polls has to be the cart. Anything before that is nonsense.

You're literally putting the cart before everything else, including the horse. Work on your metaphors a little.

If absolutely nothing else, it's conflating support for Palestinians with support for Hamas and is suggesting that the use of indiscriminate explosives is a cool and funny thing to do (assuming you believe him that it was a joke).

But more to the point, if you were to randomly say "I hope you don't die" or "I hope you don't get cancer" or even "I hope you don't stub your toe in the middle of the night" while having a heated argument with someone, it will never be taken as you actually hoping for those things to not happen.

Before Oregon became a state, it fashioned itself as a whites-only utopia. When it joined the union in 1859, it was then the only state with laws specifically prohibiting certain races from legally living, working, or owning property within its borders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/oregon-once-legally-barred-black-people-has-the-state-reconciled-its-racist-past

It was started as a white ethnostate. Some people never really got past that.