I am skeptical of any institutional teachings or from any individual as well.
Every institution and individual has an agenda and motivation for teaching what they do.
Education is a plot to teach our children to believe facts, rather than magic/religion.
Since you chose to not stick to educational institutions, I can do nothing except restate my point except in simpler terms in which you might understand. I forgot it takes explicit wording in order for you to understand - my mistake.
The purpose of US government educational institutions is to indoctrinate their students with the propaganda of the funding entity - that is the US National Government which determines the standardized test that a student must regurgitate in order to progress into the next level of indoctrination.
I would accept Math if I can demonstrate it and verify it empirically.
Apart from the grammatical errors that make that statement unintelligible, the word 'would' has meaning.
Other than using "will" rather than "Would" and therefore mixing tenses, there is nothing wrong with this statement and certainly most people would still get the meaning.
I will again write this statement with more words so there is some possibility you may understand.
I accept Math (as well as Science) as subjects that can be taught by government schools because the processes are repeatable, demonstrable and can be proven by the student.
These subjects are hard to spin and lie about because of the reasons given and therefore government schools can be trusted to a large extent to be truthful. Furthermore, the Corporations and private industry as well as the government need workers who are proficient in these two subjects.
English I accept because it really does not matter.
See above. When you mangle the language, your meaning is lost. It does matter.
The meaning was not lost except to the most unable to understand.
Perhaps you are being trite and attacking me personally rather than arguing your point.
My point was that it is increasingly being taught by government schools that knowing grammar, diction and the process of developing well-thought out logical explanations of one's point of view. The TV networks and even USA Today distill and synthesize a news story to editorials and no facts so that the user cannot see through their lies, manipulation and creation of biased drivel that the consumer has to accept or reject as being truthful.
History I accept not at all unless I can verify ... especially if related to politics.
That is possibly the most asinine thing you have ever said. So every thing before 1960 is suspect, providing you were digesting history at an early age?
In this case, you have made some assumption that makes your observation gibberish and non-sensible.
I like most Americans went through a government school and learned to regurgitate all the dates and propaganda.
Unlike most people, I expanded my education to history and newspapers written during that period and saw first-hand how governments sponsor and fund school books that rewrite history to support what they want the population to believe.
Perhaps this would be beneficial to you rather than spending all your time watching FOX News and Jimmy Swaggert.
