More Ignunce

Who needs theists, New Agers, conspiracy theorists, and quacks when you have my speech and debate class? There is nothing that proves that our education system fails epically than the students in that class.

Today, we were sharing our articles for our upcoming current events speeches. The teacher called on one kid to say what his article was about. The kid said what it was, and then was asked what his source was.

Kid: Ray-u-ters.

Teacher: Reuters (pronounced correctly)?

Kid: Ray-u-ters.

Teacher: Insisting on an incorrect pronunciation does not make it correct.

Kid: It’s Ray-u-ters.

Teacher: So I could come along and say that your name is My-shale (the kid’s name being Michael)?

Kid: Yes.


Kid: Why would it be Reuters, there’s no W.

Other kid: Why would there be a W?

Kid: I meant Y. I get Y and W confused sometimes.


8 responses to this post.

  1. Ouch… linguistic ignunce! That strikes at me straight to the core, it does.

  2. Posted by James T Kirk on April 9, 2008 at 12:18 am

    Forgive me for bringing this up but I am disturbed by the fact that you catagorized theists such as myself with new agers, conspiracy quacks and other nutcases. I don’t think my beliefs are that unreasonable.

    Also this episode might be that the kid was embarrased that he mispronounced the word and tried to pretend he didn’t. Thus in trying not to make himself look like an idiot he made himself look like an obstinant ignorant–you get the picture.
    –end of psychoanalysis

  3. Oh, and for the record, it’s “roy-ters” because it’s from the German last name, Reuter, and “eu” is pronounced “oy” in German.

  4. James, this IS an atheist blog. The best you’ve done so far is the fine-tuning argument which at best proves the existence of the deist god.

    And believe me, the kid is that stupid.

  5. Posted by James T Kirk on April 10, 2008 at 5:00 am

    I know, I am simply saying that I do not think my beliefs are nearly as unlikely as t he beliefs of astrologers, pseudoscientists etc. I am sure you would also object if I placed you in the same category as faith-healing frauds and all.

  6. Posted by James T Kirk on April 10, 2008 at 6:10 am

    Forgive me for posting twice but I simply needed to clarify my objection to being grouped with pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists.

    My objection is that when you point to people such as those you are speaking of them as not being a legitimate alternative to your ideology (you obviously would consider a conspiracy theorist to hold a legitimate intellectual position). Basically when you group theists and deists into the same category as pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists byou are giving the unspoken message that theism are not a legitimate alternative philosophy to atheism (which if you believe that then by all means). I do consider atheism a legitimate alternative philosophical paradigm to theism. That is what I found disconcordant.

    Once again I apologize for bothering you on this issue, and I agree that kid is pretty darn stupid

  7. Posted by James T Kirk on April 10, 2008 at 6:11 am

    Darn you can’t edit comments, I meant you would NOT consider a conspiracy theory a legitimate intellectual position, sorry once again, I had to correct that error

  8. What is wrong with conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, quacks, New Agers, etc? They don’t have any evidence to back up their claims.

    Now, if you’ve got anything better than fine tuning, let me know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: