I have no problem with someone thinking of hunting as a sport on two conditions:
1) They eat everything they kill. No shooting a bear, ripping out a few teeth as a trophy and leaving the rest there to rot. If you're going to shoot something, be prepared to eat it.
2) You need to track it down yourself. No climbing a ladder to a cozy "tree shooting range" and having someone push a deer into your line of sight.
I'll append these with a disclaimer that I don't hunt myself. Partly because I'm not sure I could abide by my own rules. Also, given my horrid aim and tendency to be a klutz, it's probably better that way for everyone involved.
Say goodbye to "Innocent until proven guilty" and say hi to "Suspicious until proven... not suspicious in this one instance but still suspicious for future instances."
We have the WiiU and love their "tablet" screen. Split screens can often be confusing (being distracted by another player's screen portion and missing something on your screen portion). As a bonus, the tablet screen means that I can play a game (with headphones on or sound off) while my wife watches TV.
The only thing I'd do to improve the WiiU would be to allow for multiple "tablets". Right now, they only allow for one tablet. All other controllers must be classic Wii controllers (or other supported non-tablet-controllers). It would be great to have two (or more) people playing on tablets, seeing just what they need to see, and either not needing the TV at all or using the TV as some kind of "group view" screen. For example, in a Mario Kart-type game, show each person their own cart's view on their tablets and use the TV for a top-down view of where racers are as well as the current race rankings (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc).
And just to provide even more perspective: A trip to the moon costs $150 million. The US military budget for 2014 is $526.6 billion. So a moon trip is 0.02% of the military's budget. Or, if we divide the military's budget into 365*24 chunks to get an hourly budget, the moon trip would cost a mere 2.5 hours of the military's budget. Even if we doubled this an used 5 hours of military budget-time it would be a bargain.
I'm in the same situation and yet I'd love to have more of my tax dollars put to use in getting people to the Moon (and all the scientific and engineering accomplishments that doing this would entail) and less of my tax dollars put to use in buying new bombers, missiles, and the like. Even if the first Moon trip was 90% PR and 10% science (having the astronauts "live tweeting" from their suits somehow, live HD feeds streaming in online, etc), it would be a better use than Yet-Another-Device-To-Kill-Lots-Of-People.
I didn't see the whole debate, but the telling part to me was when both were asked what would change their minds. What would make Bill Nye believe in creationism and Ken Ham accept evolution?
Bill Nye said evidence. If a rabbit fossil was found in the same soil layer as a T-Rex fossil, it would seriously make him question his theories. He might not jump to creationism right away, but it would push him in that direction.
Ken Ham said nothing. To him, even if God himself came down and said "Hey Ken, I'm glad that you're a fan of the bible and all but evolution is true", Ken would still hold onto creationism and not accept evolution.
In other words, Bill Nye is keeping his mind open - albeit requiring some very exceptional proof for good reason - while Ken Ham's mind is extremely closed. Debating Ken wasn't to convince Ken Ham, though, but to convince others whose minds might not be so closed off. I just wish they could have done it without Ken Ham profiting financially from it.
Sadly, I have. I used to belong to an Orthodox Jewish temple back when I was living with my parents. (It meant I didn't need to pay my own temple dues and I wanted to save money.) The rabbi would, semi-regularly, rail on how science knew nothing because they were always changing their minds but religion always kept the same story and that was proof they were right. The very thing that science sees as a strength (correcting your theory when new data comes in), they see as a weakness. That rabbi definitely believed that the Earth was only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old, that things happened literally as written in the bible/Torah, and that any evidence to the contrary was either scientists making mistakes ("carbon dating is wrong!") or explained way by biblical stories ("Noah's flood changed where fossils were in the soil layers!"). During these speeches, I mostly just sat there and rolled my eyes. (Arguing against him would have been a waste in that setting.)
The problem I think is small minds need a small God.
That's the way I see it too. For the moment, let's assume that the universe was created by a deity according to a plan he had. Which type of deity is more impressive:
1) A deity that, around 10,000 years ago, created the world as-is.
or
2) A deity that created the Universe via a Big Bang, guided (in the background, mostly via certain natural laws) the formation and destruction of stars to make heavier elements, guided the formation of our star and planet over untold billions of years, looked over the cooling of the Earth so that life could emerge, allowed life to flourish via Evolution - perhaps giving a gentle nudge here or there as needed, and oversaw the gradual transformation of humans from chimp-like creatures to our present day forms.
Personally, I'd find the second deity much more impressive as it shows incredible planning skills over the "poof, there it is" deity. Plus, the scientific view of the Universe is so vast and complicated and amazing that, if there is a deity responsible for creating it, that deity has definitely proven its power. I just don't get religious types who try to insist that their God is all powerful by insisting their God is small.
Chances are, if you can cure your "depression" by just deciding to be happy, you aren't clinically depressed. People with clinical depression don't wake up and say "Hey, today I think I'll be depressed instead of happy." They would love to be happy and not be depressed. They physically can't any more than you can just decide that you're going to fly by flapping your arms (and then actually fly).
If your comment was directed specifically at my child - implying that he doesn't have Asperger's Syndrome and instead just "acts up" because he wasn't raised properly - you'll excuse me if I don't take the diagnosis of an Internet commenter with zero knowledge of my child over a professional who observed my child for 6 hours.
Before the diagnosis, we thought he was being defiant and put some strict punishment measures in place both at home and at school. The behaviors didn't get better and, in many ways, got worse. After the diagnosis, those punishment measures were removed and replaced with measures designed to help kids with High Functioning Autism/Asperger's Syndrome. His problems for the most part went away. It's always a challenge as any minor change can throw him off, but we're much better off now than we were pre-diagnosis.
Saying "those kids don't really have autism - they're just misbehaving because of bad parenting" shows a profound lack of understanding of what Autism actually is and the challenges that parents of children with autism face on a day to day basis.
A 13 foot long, quarter ton chicken would NOT be the kind of animal I'd want to get angry. Or be anywhere near when it's hungry. Even though this article says they were "ecological generalists that fed upon vegetation, small animals, and perhaps eggs." I wouldn't want to be the one to test whether this bird/dinosaur would decide to add people to its diet.
Sounds like only one adjustment was needed... don't deal with the friend's chiropractic girlfriend. I'm guessing not dealing with her has made you happier which should improve your general health.
As the parent of a child with autism (and someone who is likely on the spectrum as well - albeit undiagnosed), I'm insulted when people imply they'd rather their child get a deadly disease than get autism. Like Penn and Teller said, even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - it would be better to get your child vaccinated and risk autism than go unvaccinated.
The real reason for the "rise" in autism is better detection. When I was a kid, I was pegged as "shy", "weird", and my parents were told (while I was in elementary school, mind you) "he won't feel comfortable socially until he is in college." There was no diagnosis as to what was going on with me and definitely no help. I was just not like the other kids and that was it. With my son, we had a doctor spend six hours observing him (3 hours in class and 3 hours one-on-one observation) before getting the Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis. Once we had that, there were a lot of resources for us to draw upon to help him out. (Adults can get diagnosed too, but in my case money is tight and a diagnosis wouldn't help me or my son.)
But the theory that the government is "suppressing access to natural cures" is very likely to be true.
The problem here is how are many governments working together to suppress a natural cure. Let's say that someone claimed that grape juice cured cancer but that the federal government was suppressing the research. The USA is not the only country in the world. Is this research being suppressed in England, France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Australia, and every other country as well? Wouldn't any of these countries love to be known as the country that the cure for cancer was found in? Wouldn't any researcher love to have their name go down in the history books as the person who cured cancer? Even a company would love this. It would be the best PR around and would be mentioned in every single future ad campaign. "New, from the people who cured your cancer,..."
The real reason that natural cures aren't widely used is that they tend to be either a) ineffective or b) somewhat effective. If a, they aren't really cures. If b, they are studied until the exact reason for their "somewhat effective" status is understood. Then, the compounds are extracted, synthesized, and quality controlled (so dose 1 is the same as dose 2 which is the same as dose 3). In the end, natural treatments that fall into group b wind up being standard medical treatments. Or, to put it another way: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine!
I completely agree but would only add that herd immunity also covers people with actual valid reasons for not vaccinating. These include medical issues like allergies or immune system problems or age (too young to get the vaccine). A six week old baby shouldn't die of Whooping Cough because some idiot thinks it's their "personal right" to be a disease carrier.
If not vaccinating meant that only you or your children would get sick, I'd say "it's your choice" (though I'd still argue for vaccinating being the better choice). However, when someone tries to claim that their actions (not vaccinating) that affect other people is their choice, I highly disagree. (I keep waiting for them to claim that it's their right to choose to drive drunk - railing against police enforcing driver sobriety and completely ignoring how many people are killed by drunk drivers.)
Yes, it is true that the reason why it is such a small chance is because of vaccinations
The problem with this is that the anti-vaccination folks are essentially relying on herd immunity to stay healthy. Previously, when it was just kids who were too young to be vaccinated or people with medical reasons (allergies, immune system issues, etc), herd immunity had no trouble keeping them safe. Measles was all but wiped out in the US. A few people started skipping the vaccines due to one scare or another (e.g. Wakefield's "MMR causes autism" which despite being debunked repeatedly still gets quoted), but they were fine because herd immunity protected them as well. However, when too many people jump on the anti-vax bandwagon and skip vaccinations, herd immunity breaks down and you begin to get outbreaks. This is where we are now. Outbreaks of disease preventable illnesses popping up because some people listen to Jenny McCarthy railing about toxins (just before she gets botox injected into her), listening to some other celebrity, or listening to "some stuff I read on a natural cures website" instead of listening to someone with actual medical experience.
And when these diseases break out again, people will die. (Despite some anti-vaxxers - who obviously have never seen the diseases - claiming that whooping cough and measles not killing anyone.)
Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean we should stop fighting against it. Suppose you were diagnosed with a disease that was fatal if untreated but that could be cured with a month of uncomfortable/painful treatment. Would you opt not to treat it because death is inevitable anyway? Or would you treat it to extend your life knowing that you are going to die at some point even if the treatment is successful?
Step 1 was vilification. "Teachers are lazy and failing our kids!"
Step 2 was standardized tests designed to show our kids are failing.
Step 3 was enforcing curriculum on the teachers that takes out all actual teaching and replaces it with script-reading.
Step 4 will be replacing teachers entirely. After all, why should we pay these "expensive", highly trained professionals when some minimum wage aide can supervise the kids listening to the script via a Pearson computer program with the computers donated by Microsoft?
The problem with that is with kids like my 10 year old son. He has Asperger's Syndrome and is, socially, about the same as a 6 year old. However, intellectually, he's about 12. So where do you put him? In 5th grade with his age-peers? (Where he'll be bored.) In 1st grade with his social-peers? (Bored out of his skull!) Or in 7th grade with his intellectual peers? (Where he'll be mocked for being so "baby-ish.")
Another problem? Lately we've been vilifying teachers. "Teachers are lazy. They don't *REALLY* teach our kids. They take summers off." And more lies of the sort. Teachers actually engage kids, trying to make them reach their full potential, all while working long hours at small pay. But we sneer at them as if they were filth while lauding the guy who can run a dozen yards while carrying a ball.
(Part of the vilifying of teachers is from corporations who want to profit from education and the politicians they've "donated funds" to who are more than happy to help, but that's a different rant.)
And as the parent of a kid whose gifted, I can personally say that smarted kids who aren't challenged can also get bored. When they get bored, they try to find ways to entertain themselves. This leads to them getting in trouble and being labeled a "troublemaker" which, in turn, causes them to hate school more. This definitely doesn't set them down the path of pushing the limits of their intellect.
It's not so much that they need more hand-holding as it is that they need curriculum designed to challenge them (instead of leaving them bored with the same things their peers are learning) while not burning them out.
Sadly, Common Core (at least here in New York with "EngageNY") states that all kids must learn in exactly the same way at exactly the same page. We're raising a generation who are being taught that you MUST stay inside the box at all times because thinking outside of the box is the wrong way to do things. This is NOT the way to nurture the next generation of intellectuals. (Which might just be the whole point.)
We've dealt with both ends of the spectrum. Our oldest son has Asperger's Syndrome. Age-wise, he's 10. Intellectually, he's about 12. Socially/emotionally, he's about 6. We've gotten plenty of assistance with helping him with social/emotional issues in school. Things like not eating lunch in the chaos that is the lunch room or using technology to write because he has muscle tone problems that leave him tired and frustrated. However, intellectually, he's basically told to just sit there and wait for the other students to catch up. There are little to no resources for gifted children.
Believe me, I don't begrudge the kids with learning disabilities. They should definitely be helped. However, school should be about getting all kids to reach their full potential, not about getting as many kids as possible to the "average line."
Slashdot Mirror
Moose with fricken' lasers attached to their heads?
I have no problem with someone thinking of hunting as a sport on two conditions:
1) They eat everything they kill. No shooting a bear, ripping out a few teeth as a trophy and leaving the rest there to rot. If you're going to shoot something, be prepared to eat it.
2) You need to track it down yourself. No climbing a ladder to a cozy "tree shooting range" and having someone push a deer into your line of sight.
I'll append these with a disclaimer that I don't hunt myself. Partly because I'm not sure I could abide by my own rules. Also, given my horrid aim and tendency to be a klutz, it's probably better that way for everyone involved.
Say goodbye to "Innocent until proven guilty" and say hi to "Suspicious until proven... not suspicious in this one instance but still suspicious for future instances."
We have the WiiU and love their "tablet" screen. Split screens can often be confusing (being distracted by another player's screen portion and missing something on your screen portion). As a bonus, the tablet screen means that I can play a game (with headphones on or sound off) while my wife watches TV.
The only thing I'd do to improve the WiiU would be to allow for multiple "tablets". Right now, they only allow for one tablet. All other controllers must be classic Wii controllers (or other supported non-tablet-controllers). It would be great to have two (or more) people playing on tablets, seeing just what they need to see, and either not needing the TV at all or using the TV as some kind of "group view" screen. For example, in a Mario Kart-type game, show each person their own cart's view on their tablets and use the TV for a top-down view of where racers are as well as the current race rankings (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc).
And just to provide even more perspective: A trip to the moon costs $150 million. The US military budget for 2014 is $526.6 billion. So a moon trip is 0.02% of the military's budget. Or, if we divide the military's budget into 365*24 chunks to get an hourly budget, the moon trip would cost a mere 2.5 hours of the military's budget. Even if we doubled this an used 5 hours of military budget-time it would be a bargain.
I'm in the same situation and yet I'd love to have more of my tax dollars put to use in getting people to the Moon (and all the scientific and engineering accomplishments that doing this would entail) and less of my tax dollars put to use in buying new bombers, missiles, and the like. Even if the first Moon trip was 90% PR and 10% science (having the astronauts "live tweeting" from their suits somehow, live HD feeds streaming in online, etc), it would be a better use than Yet-Another-Device-To-Kill-Lots-Of-People.
I didn't see the whole debate, but the telling part to me was when both were asked what would change their minds. What would make Bill Nye believe in creationism and Ken Ham accept evolution?
Bill Nye said evidence. If a rabbit fossil was found in the same soil layer as a T-Rex fossil, it would seriously make him question his theories. He might not jump to creationism right away, but it would push him in that direction.
Ken Ham said nothing. To him, even if God himself came down and said "Hey Ken, I'm glad that you're a fan of the bible and all but evolution is true", Ken would still hold onto creationism and not accept evolution.
In other words, Bill Nye is keeping his mind open - albeit requiring some very exceptional proof for good reason - while Ken Ham's mind is extremely closed. Debating Ken wasn't to convince Ken Ham, though, but to convince others whose minds might not be so closed off. I just wish they could have done it without Ken Ham profiting financially from it.
Sadly, I have. I used to belong to an Orthodox Jewish temple back when I was living with my parents. (It meant I didn't need to pay my own temple dues and I wanted to save money.) The rabbi would, semi-regularly, rail on how science knew nothing because they were always changing their minds but religion always kept the same story and that was proof they were right. The very thing that science sees as a strength (correcting your theory when new data comes in), they see as a weakness. That rabbi definitely believed that the Earth was only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old, that things happened literally as written in the bible/Torah, and that any evidence to the contrary was either scientists making mistakes ("carbon dating is wrong!") or explained way by biblical stories ("Noah's flood changed where fossils were in the soil layers!"). During these speeches, I mostly just sat there and rolled my eyes. (Arguing against him would have been a waste in that setting.)
That's the way I see it too. For the moment, let's assume that the universe was created by a deity according to a plan he had. Which type of deity is more impressive:
1) A deity that, around 10,000 years ago, created the world as-is.
or
2) A deity that created the Universe via a Big Bang, guided (in the background, mostly via certain natural laws) the formation and destruction of stars to make heavier elements, guided the formation of our star and planet over untold billions of years, looked over the cooling of the Earth so that life could emerge, allowed life to flourish via Evolution - perhaps giving a gentle nudge here or there as needed, and oversaw the gradual transformation of humans from chimp-like creatures to our present day forms.
Personally, I'd find the second deity much more impressive as it shows incredible planning skills over the "poof, there it is" deity. Plus, the scientific view of the Universe is so vast and complicated and amazing that, if there is a deity responsible for creating it, that deity has definitely proven its power. I just don't get religious types who try to insist that their God is all powerful by insisting their God is small.
Chances are, if you can cure your "depression" by just deciding to be happy, you aren't clinically depressed. People with clinical depression don't wake up and say "Hey, today I think I'll be depressed instead of happy." They would love to be happy and not be depressed. They physically can't any more than you can just decide that you're going to fly by flapping your arms (and then actually fly).
If your comment was directed specifically at my child - implying that he doesn't have Asperger's Syndrome and instead just "acts up" because he wasn't raised properly - you'll excuse me if I don't take the diagnosis of an Internet commenter with zero knowledge of my child over a professional who observed my child for 6 hours.
Before the diagnosis, we thought he was being defiant and put some strict punishment measures in place both at home and at school. The behaviors didn't get better and, in many ways, got worse. After the diagnosis, those punishment measures were removed and replaced with measures designed to help kids with High Functioning Autism/Asperger's Syndrome. His problems for the most part went away. It's always a challenge as any minor change can throw him off, but we're much better off now than we were pre-diagnosis.
Saying "those kids don't really have autism - they're just misbehaving because of bad parenting" shows a profound lack of understanding of what Autism actually is and the challenges that parents of children with autism face on a day to day basis.
So what you're saying is we need to invent time travel and then use it to torture... I mean punish criminals.
Bonus, our prisons can be small blue boxes that hold many, many more prisoners on the inside.
(Though, somehow I don't think the Doctor would be pleased.)
A 13 foot long, quarter ton chicken would NOT be the kind of animal I'd want to get angry. Or be anywhere near when it's hungry. Even though this article says they were "ecological generalists that fed upon vegetation, small animals, and perhaps eggs." I wouldn't want to be the one to test whether this bird/dinosaur would decide to add people to its diet.
Sounds like only one adjustment was needed... don't deal with the friend's chiropractic girlfriend. I'm guessing not dealing with her has made you happier which should improve your general health.
As the parent of a child with autism (and someone who is likely on the spectrum as well - albeit undiagnosed), I'm insulted when people imply they'd rather their child get a deadly disease than get autism. Like Penn and Teller said, even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - it would be better to get your child vaccinated and risk autism than go unvaccinated.
The real reason for the "rise" in autism is better detection. When I was a kid, I was pegged as "shy", "weird", and my parents were told (while I was in elementary school, mind you) "he won't feel comfortable socially until he is in college." There was no diagnosis as to what was going on with me and definitely no help. I was just not like the other kids and that was it. With my son, we had a doctor spend six hours observing him (3 hours in class and 3 hours one-on-one observation) before getting the Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis. Once we had that, there were a lot of resources for us to draw upon to help him out. (Adults can get diagnosed too, but in my case money is tight and a diagnosis wouldn't help me or my son.)
The problem here is how are many governments working together to suppress a natural cure. Let's say that someone claimed that grape juice cured cancer but that the federal government was suppressing the research. The USA is not the only country in the world. Is this research being suppressed in England, France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Australia, and every other country as well? Wouldn't any of these countries love to be known as the country that the cure for cancer was found in? Wouldn't any researcher love to have their name go down in the history books as the person who cured cancer? Even a company would love this. It would be the best PR around and would be mentioned in every single future ad campaign. "New, from the people who cured your cancer, ..."
The real reason that natural cures aren't widely used is that they tend to be either a) ineffective or b) somewhat effective. If a, they aren't really cures. If b, they are studied until the exact reason for their "somewhat effective" status is understood. Then, the compounds are extracted, synthesized, and quality controlled (so dose 1 is the same as dose 2 which is the same as dose 3). In the end, natural treatments that fall into group b wind up being standard medical treatments. Or, to put it another way: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine!
I completely agree but would only add that herd immunity also covers people with actual valid reasons for not vaccinating. These include medical issues like allergies or immune system problems or age (too young to get the vaccine). A six week old baby shouldn't die of Whooping Cough because some idiot thinks it's their "personal right" to be a disease carrier.
If not vaccinating meant that only you or your children would get sick, I'd say "it's your choice" (though I'd still argue for vaccinating being the better choice). However, when someone tries to claim that their actions (not vaccinating) that affect other people is their choice, I highly disagree. (I keep waiting for them to claim that it's their right to choose to drive drunk - railing against police enforcing driver sobriety and completely ignoring how many people are killed by drunk drivers.)
The problem with this is that the anti-vaccination folks are essentially relying on herd immunity to stay healthy. Previously, when it was just kids who were too young to be vaccinated or people with medical reasons (allergies, immune system issues, etc), herd immunity had no trouble keeping them safe. Measles was all but wiped out in the US. A few people started skipping the vaccines due to one scare or another (e.g. Wakefield's "MMR causes autism" which despite being debunked repeatedly still gets quoted), but they were fine because herd immunity protected them as well. However, when too many people jump on the anti-vax bandwagon and skip vaccinations, herd immunity breaks down and you begin to get outbreaks. This is where we are now. Outbreaks of disease preventable illnesses popping up because some people listen to Jenny McCarthy railing about toxins (just before she gets botox injected into her), listening to some other celebrity, or listening to "some stuff I read on a natural cures website" instead of listening to someone with actual medical experience.
And when these diseases break out again, people will die. (Despite some anti-vaxxers - who obviously have never seen the diseases - claiming that whooping cough and measles not killing anyone.)
Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean we should stop fighting against it. Suppose you were diagnosed with a disease that was fatal if untreated but that could be cured with a month of uncomfortable/painful treatment. Would you opt not to treat it because death is inevitable anyway? Or would you treat it to extend your life knowing that you are going to die at some point even if the treatment is successful?
Step 1 was vilification. "Teachers are lazy and failing our kids!"
Step 2 was standardized tests designed to show our kids are failing.
Step 3 was enforcing curriculum on the teachers that takes out all actual teaching and replaces it with script-reading.
Step 4 will be replacing teachers entirely. After all, why should we pay these "expensive", highly trained professionals when some minimum wage aide can supervise the kids listening to the script via a Pearson computer program with the computers donated by Microsoft?
The problem with that is with kids like my 10 year old son. He has Asperger's Syndrome and is, socially, about the same as a 6 year old. However, intellectually, he's about 12. So where do you put him? In 5th grade with his age-peers? (Where he'll be bored.) In 1st grade with his social-peers? (Bored out of his skull!) Or in 7th grade with his intellectual peers? (Where he'll be mocked for being so "baby-ish.")
Another problem? Lately we've been vilifying teachers. "Teachers are lazy. They don't *REALLY* teach our kids. They take summers off." And more lies of the sort. Teachers actually engage kids, trying to make them reach their full potential, all while working long hours at small pay. But we sneer at them as if they were filth while lauding the guy who can run a dozen yards while carrying a ball.
(Part of the vilifying of teachers is from corporations who want to profit from education and the politicians they've "donated funds" to who are more than happy to help, but that's a different rant.)
And as the parent of a kid whose gifted, I can personally say that smarted kids who aren't challenged can also get bored. When they get bored, they try to find ways to entertain themselves. This leads to them getting in trouble and being labeled a "troublemaker" which, in turn, causes them to hate school more. This definitely doesn't set them down the path of pushing the limits of their intellect.
It's not so much that they need more hand-holding as it is that they need curriculum designed to challenge them (instead of leaving them bored with the same things their peers are learning) while not burning them out.
Sadly, Common Core (at least here in New York with "EngageNY") states that all kids must learn in exactly the same way at exactly the same page. We're raising a generation who are being taught that you MUST stay inside the box at all times because thinking outside of the box is the wrong way to do things. This is NOT the way to nurture the next generation of intellectuals. (Which might just be the whole point.)
We've dealt with both ends of the spectrum. Our oldest son has Asperger's Syndrome. Age-wise, he's 10. Intellectually, he's about 12. Socially/emotionally, he's about 6. We've gotten plenty of assistance with helping him with social/emotional issues in school. Things like not eating lunch in the chaos that is the lunch room or using technology to write because he has muscle tone problems that leave him tired and frustrated. However, intellectually, he's basically told to just sit there and wait for the other students to catch up. There are little to no resources for gifted children.
Believe me, I don't begrudge the kids with learning disabilities. They should definitely be helped. However, school should be about getting all kids to reach their full potential, not about getting as many kids as possible to the "average line."