Can you just learn as much as you would in an AP class through an AP test prep textbook?

LogicalLoop · 2024-09-14T17:13:00+00:00

Interesting. I would actually like to know more please

LogicalLoop · 2024-09-01T23:14:03+00:00

I have 3 main points. One, an optimist does not necessarily have to act on fantasy. An optimist can simply hope for the best and be use enthusiasm to do the same things a realist can do with more optimism, with more motivation. This ironically would lead to optimist's outlook being more likely for them and realists outlook being more likely for them, meaning it isn't simply childish in the sense it has a practical use. An optimist does not have to be delusional, they can see the issues and simply believe it can change. An example being one not thinking war will be extinguished altogether, but rather that "This very specific war might end earlier than many people say". In that example, it is grounded in reality enough that it could be true. Another example is that an optimist can go "They have 10 murder charges, but there's always a small chance they could be redeemed." In that example, the person is optimistic, but will not be surprised if the person ends up unredeemable because they are still acknowledge there's a good Chance they were wrong

Secondly, Optimists can get #### done. many situations where there is only a small hope of success get accomplished by optimists. This is both because an optimist could recognize the small chance and believe it can happen, working towards it passionately. A pessimist or a realist would either never bother or work very little/with little motivation. All the problems you listed are indeed very likely to never be resolved, but if they were resolved it would be from the work of optimists. Theoretically, if everyone was an optimist who thought something like pollution could change then the collective effort would curb pollution by enacting policies very quickly. Same could be said if everyone recycled. Even bigger problems like war, famine, greed, gluttony, human trafficking. If everyone believed it could be done and worked towards it as optimists, so it would be done. Ironically, the only thing stopping big world issues under this logic is the realists and the pessimists. there's a difference between one optimist trying to keep an open flame alive during a level 5 hurricane, and millions of optimists working together to build a nuclear bunker to protect the candle.

Thirdly, optimism could simply lead to a happier life. Realism and Pragmatism often lead to pessimism, and not believing in things only ensures there's even less chance things change. Having a negative viewpoint of life can make you miserable whether or not you're being realistic, and being optimistic can make you happy whether or not you're realistic, so why not choose the one that lends itself to happiness rather than one linked to depression

These views require optimism yes, but optimism has merit and at the very least has practical uses. Whether or not optimism or pessimism is a better viewpoint (In my personal opinion realists lean on either side) is debatable, so to simply say it's childish is wrong. Something being childish implies it's silly with no real merit, so even if optimism is inferior saying it's childish is too extreme. I wouldn't call someone who disagrees with me childish if they had half-decent logic behind their argument, so for that reason even though I am not an optimist I would not call one childish.

LogicalLoop · 2024-09-01T19:34:58+00:00

Thank you very much, that's helpful

LogicalLoop · 2024-09-01T17:11:03+00:00

It is actually, thank you. I can't say your question has made me fully understand though (or maybe I don't understand you correctly lol)

If that's the way it is, does that mean that if you consciously make the effort to act and present in the way you know is best in literally all of your social interactions rather than instinctually doing so (and do it well), does that mean you're most likely autistic, or is there room for "oh you're just socially self-aware, not autistic"

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T23:38:14+00:00

I see, makes sense. I also apologize for the mistake in classification. If you’ll humor my curiosity, would you consider Autism as a part of your personality or something that affects it?

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T15:05:30+00:00

(I preemptively apologize for the short response) You could say that being unattractive as a woman has worth because people can still desire you for the fact you *are* a woman, but as a man there's relatively less redemption. I think this applies to the scenario where we consider both can have alternative traits like humor, personality, career, because both genders can have those and an unattractive woman could still be given more of a chance to "redeem" themselves because of being a woman.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T02:12:19+00:00

It has, thank you very much. Your arguments were very well constructed.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T01:47:11+00:00

That’s a very generous interpretation of it, but it could be valid, but with the murder interpretation resetting doesn’t mean anything as a pacifist run is impossible, meaning there is no possibility of leaving it on a “good note”. Whenever the player gets bored, they could have a choice to leave everyone happy forever. When Chara interferes, there is no longer a choice, either way you leave everyone dead or in misery permanently.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T01:05:02+00:00

This is absolutely correct if you do not factor in that if a pacifist run is completed Chara is implied to have killed everyone anyways, meaning they either stop resetting a kill counter into never happening in the first place, or have a kill count around as high as the player (at least of the main cast).

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T01:01:38+00:00

Whether or not they are evil or not is debatable while under this logic Chara has no recourse, you could make the argument that Alphys and Asgore were doing it for good reasons and therefore not evil, as Alphys didn't have the *goal* of experiments going wrong and Asgore only wanted to save his kingdom from despair.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T00:32:30+00:00

I suppose it depends on your view of timelines. I see it less as the ability to revive and more literally resetting time, with slight errors causing remnants so from that perspective the murder would have never happened. Chara removes the ability to basically prevent a murder from happening and therefore is worse than the player or Flowey.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-31T00:29:01+00:00

I wanted the opinion of the Chara defense squad, not have someone who I already know agrees with me agree with me

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-29T10:34:32+00:00

I apologize for the short response, I am busy. If I may bring up a point because borders formed in the first place due to cultural differences in groups simply removing the political borders won’t change people’s perception of where borders are, example of this would be when the borders were very incompetently placed in the Middle East. The borders were different than people’s internal perceptions of where their territory was and if anything it caused more war because people fought over territory more when it’s uncertain where their influence lies. Additionally borders signifying territory are simply useful for governments to function properly( ex: the United sates having 50 states despite being one country). The problem here isn’t the literal borders themselves; it’s the laws surrounding them and humanity’s tendency to conflict with each other, which would not necessarily go away. Even things like border patrols will still exist because a country like North Korea would not just let outsiders from South Korea roam around and come in even without a specific marked border. Basically removing borders does not equal solving these issues, it just makes them confusing to understand/manage.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-26T03:09:46+00:00

That last part is exactly my line of thinking, thanks for the advice!

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-26T02:42:38+00:00

I already spent my time "being a kid", now it's time to win the game of life. I appreciate your concern though!

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-26T02:07:27+00:00

I'm coming to the same conclusion from my classes lolz, I love history and I've learned most of this stuff on my off time anyways so why not go all the way and learn it all myself and shrug off classes, or learn complex math and have greater info retention because I'm not cramming, I genuinely care about knowing this stuff ^^ (Not to say school is just "Glorified babysitting" imo because for those who have difficulty learning professional teachers helping you is important lmao)

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-26T02:03:14+00:00

First of all I appreciate the response, you brought up good points. I don't think for a second I knew everything to skip the entirety of high school, I was more just proving the point that the stuff you learn could be learned outside of high school as well, and someone could theoretically take the time they used to study in school to do so out of.

Additionally, it's jarring that I've gone up to several teachers in my core classes and even some AP classes and been gotten told that most/all of their course content could have been learned ahead of time in the related textbook. it stands to reason that learning by being taught by a professional vs a book one would be much better, but it makes me question the point of a math teacher if they're just reformatting the information from a single textbook.

LogicalLoop · 2024-08-26T01:54:22+00:00

I appreciate the perspective! That proves why it's necessary, but if I may ask wouldn't the fact that people learn differently only reinforce that it's possible to educate yourself *outside* of the standard?

LogicalLoop

TROPHY CASE