Only french text, here:
Text (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/vivre/famille/vie-de-famille/201109/09/01-4432884-a-lecole-des-3-ans.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_aujourdhui-sur-cyberpresse_267_accueil_ECRAN1POS1)
Kids are going to school at 3-4 years old. They have homework to do, they learn to read & write, they learn maths & english second language.
It costs 125$/month for one kid.
Parents say they are convinced they are doing the best thing for their kids, helping get a leg up in "real" school. I have my doubts.
I remain unconvinced that you'll turn ordinary kids into geniuses by getting them in schools younger than usual.
Has there been any kind of studies on this? I know stimulating a kid is good. Teaching them words, numbers, reading simple phrases when they 4-5 years old, almost in kindergarden. But full time school, with homeworks? At 3 or 4 years old? Shouldn't kids play when they're young, enjoy their time?
I went to Pre-school, and look how far I came! I could read before I entered Kindergarten but couldn't tell left from right or tie my shoe until I was teenager.
I went to pre-school as well. They didn't teach me how to tie my shoes and tell left from right either, but fortunately my parents filled in that gap while I was still a child. :P
My guess is it's a complete waste. But at least you don't need a babysitter.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2011, 02:47:19 PM
My guess is it's a complete waste. But at least you don't need a babysitter.
it's Quebec. We have state sponsored baby-sitters :P
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2011, 02:47:19 PM
My guess is it's a complete waste. But at least you don't need a babysitter.
it's Quebec. We have state sponsored baby-sitters :P
Really? That's pretty awesome. Kudos, Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 02:23:53 PM
I remain unconvinced that you'll turn ordinary kids into geniuses by getting them in schools younger than usual.
It won't, obviously. But if the kid is capable of learning some of these things at an early age, why not teach them?
I've had my 3.5 year old in pre-school for a couple months now & he clearly benefits from it. He's learning some things that I wouldn't have thought to teach him myself and he is getting some needed socialization. He's in the 4 to 4.5 year old class and seems to be doing fine. If he can handle it, I'd like to keep him on an accelerated learning track as long as possible.
The class runs 5 days/week and we only have him in there 3 days, so they send the other 2 days of work home with him as optional homework. I usually make him do the homework, though frankly it's as much for my benefit to watch him learn as it is for his to learn the stuff.
Should kids be playing at ages 3 & 4? Yeah, but it's not like a few hours of pre-school is going to leave them with no playing time. And at my kid's school, they build enough fun stuff into it to where they feel like they're playing about as much as learning.
I think there are definite long-term benefits to pre-school, but only if the kids continue to be challenged once they start elementary school.
And $125/month is cheap.
The major advantage is socialization with other kids.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 02:23:53 PM
Only french text, here:
Text (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/vivre/famille/vie-de-famille/201109/09/01-4432884-a-lecole-des-3-ans.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_aujourdhui-sur-cyberpresse_267_accueil_ECRAN1POS1)
Kids are going to school at 3-4 years old. They have homework to do, they learn to read & write, they learn maths & english second language.
It costs 125$/month for one kid.
Parents say they are convinced they are doing the best thing for their kids, helping get a leg up in "real" school. I have my doubts.
I remain unconvinced that you'll turn ordinary kids into geniuses by getting them in schools younger than usual.
Has there been any kind of studies on this? I know stimulating a kid is good. Teaching them words, numbers, reading simple phrases when they 4-5 years old, almost in kindergarden. But full time school, with homeworks? At 3 or 4 years old? Shouldn't kids play when they're young, enjoy their time?
What's the harm?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 02:51:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2011, 02:47:19 PM
My guess is it's a complete waste. But at least you don't need a babysitter.
it's Quebec. We have state sponsored baby-sitters :P
Really? That's pretty awesome. Kudos, Quebec.
7$/day for daycare centers, wich are only available to about 1/3 of the children in the province.
Don't take them to one of those satanic preschools where they flush kids down the toilet.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2011, 02:54:59 PM
It won't, obviously. But if the kid is capable of learning some of these things at an early age, why not teach them?
I was afraid that, in the long term, the kid might lose interest in school, suffer some kind of education burn-out. I knew a couple of guys to wich it happenned. They were brainiacs in their early teens, but by the end of highschool they were some fucked up morons.
I don't really know, honestly. If feel it's kinda like those parents pushing their kids to play hockey hoping he'll turn into an NHL start and be their retirement fund.
Quote
I think there are definite long-term benefits to pre-school, but only if the kids continue to be challenged once they start elementary school.
ah, there's a catch...
Quote
And $125/month is cheap.
Everything is cheaper in Quebec, except cars & taxes. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 03:07:57 PM
7$/day for daycare centers, wich are only available to about 1/3 of the children in the province.
"Only" available to a third of the kiddies here? Should be less than that. In fact, it should be for parents who can afford none at all. :frusty:
What Viper doesn't mention is that wealth is not considered as a threshold of admission, which would weed out the wealthier parents. Thus, parents who can afford sending their kiddies to private daycare clog the system away from those the system was aiming to help in the first place.
After all, why not? We are all equals after all, even when the household income is 100K/year and both parents drive a BMW. So we have the right to 7$/day daycare as much as others after we have to wait in queue six months for an opening. Parents ain't dumb, if they have the choice to park their kids away at 35$/day or at 7$/day, (because let's be honest, it's all about occupying their kids away at a cheap cost while daddy and mommy work) they'll choose the latter and make it worth waiting months for a place.
That is pure Quebec efficiency.
Actually, I do think there's a threshold for wealth. I remember my cousin not being able to send her kids to the daycare center, she had to find a private, non subsideized one.
I used "only" because the left is quick to pat itself on the back saying it was a good move, giving good results. Hard to derive any viable stats when 2/3 of the kids don't to to these.
It keeps the twins from burning my house down.
Quote from: Drakken on September 09, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 03:07:57 PM
7$/day for daycare centers, wich are only available to about 1/3 of the children in the province.
"Only" available to a third of the kiddies here? Should be less than that. In fact, it should be for parents who can afford none at all. :frusty:
What Viper doesn't mention is that wealth is not considered as a threshold of admission, which would weed out the wealthier parents. Thus, parents who can afford sending their kiddies to private daycare clog the system away from those the system was aiming to help in the first place.
After all, why not? We are all equals after all, even when the household income is 100K/year and both parents drive a BMW. So we have the right to 7$/day daycare as much as others after we have to wait in queue six months for an opening. Parents ain't dumb, if they have the choice to park their kids away at 35$/day or at 7$/day, (because let's be honest, it's all about occupying their kids away at a cheap cost while daddy and mommy work) they'll choose the latter and make it worth waiting months for a place.
That is pure Quebec efficiency.
Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so? I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school. Why not daycare?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2011, 03:12:27 PM
I was afraid that, in the long term, the kid might lose interest in school, suffer some kind of education burn-out. I knew a couple of guys to wich it happenned.
That actually happened to me multiple times. Pre-school (which in my own memory was 95% fun activities & maybe 5% actual school) did not speed that up any.
Quoteah, there's a catch...
Might be obvious, but many refuse to acknowledge it. Like proponents of the Head Start program in the US.
Quote from: Drakken on September 09, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
After all, why not? We are all equals after all, even when the household income is 100K/year and both parents drive a BMW.
Those people probably need it to, since payments on their BMWs would eat up a good chunk of their paychecks :D
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so? I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school. Why not daycare?
Surely even you would draw a line *somewhere*, wouldn't you?
3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely? Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.
Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2011, 04:24:42 PM
3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely? Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.
Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.
Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.
I know I wouldn't put a kid in a preschool that gives out homework.
Homework to a 3-4 yr old? (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft5Num.gif&hash=b70261600569cf5546279cf38c4a57832ef6a913)
The corporate drones of tomorrow.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2011, 04:36:49 PM
Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.
True enough for a 4 year old, that's when you start school in England. And you can learn numbers and letters. I suppose I just think it's a bit too early for that sort of structured learning - I agree with Ed on the whole homework issue too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 09, 2011, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so? I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school. Why not daycare?
Surely even you would draw a line *somewhere*, wouldn't you?
Now, now, I don't
have to.
I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs? Sure. I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.
It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments. Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*
Why do you hate jobs?
*Well, one would think. These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.
I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2011, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2011, 04:24:42 PM
3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely? Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.
Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.
Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.
I'm guessing S means actually structured, graded work? Which I'd agree with, but parents should definitely be teaching literacy and numeracy from about 2 years old onward, if not prior.
Edit: and a foreign language, if possible. If preschools taught foreign languages, and they may well do, they'd be worthwhile just for that.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 09, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children :hmm:
Just not too much. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 09, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children :hmm:
Just not too much. :P
Indeed, 15 minutes a month is probably about right...............not that I'm having a crappy evening or anything ;)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 09, 2011, 04:53:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 09, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children :hmm:
Just not too much. :P
Indeed, 15 minutes a month is probably about right.
Just like ultraviolet radiation. :)
I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.
DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2011, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2011, 04:24:42 PM
3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely? Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.
Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.
Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.
I've no problem with the learning. I knew how to read&write before I first attented school. My sorta stepsister's kids are learning to read and count (2&4 years old) and I think it's great.
It's about the structured aspect to it, with homework&all, that I have some... unease.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 04:47:04 PM
I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs? Sure. I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.
I approved of the program on this basis.
Then it turned out middle class parents were excluded because it was apparently a good idea for wellfarer's to put their kids there.
We have a shortage of places in these daycares. Lots of parents who should benefit from these don't.
In the old system, the parents received a yearly allocation, based on wealth, from the government and generous tax credits. That was working rather well.
Of course, there were parents using this money to buy cigarettes & drugs. Still, it was better for every parent to benefit from this than only a few as it is now, with everyone paying the full costs.
Quote
It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments. Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*
Why do you hate jobs?
*Well, one would think. These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.
You now need a college degree at least to be an educator, and they successfully claimed they are doing the same job as an elementary school teacher so they deserve the same yearly salaries, even if they don't have a university degree.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 04:56:23 PM
I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.
DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.
She can coach in the Big East...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2011, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 04:56:23 PM
I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.
DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.
She can coach in the Big East...
I'd be disappointed then. Big least? yuck.
Read some studies years ago that suggested that pre-school or Head Start put kids ahead of their classmates for the first 2 or 3 grades of elementary school, but after that there was no difference in acedemic performance. So it's probably a waste of money, as far as actual education is concerned.
I've long felt that preschool was unnecessary to the long-term education of children. However, the lack of a preschool education is extremely detrimental to children in the first couple of years of regular education in our society today.
The skills taught in preschool are basically "how to behave in a classroom when the teacher is talking", and the most basic of educational materials.
It wasn't uncommon for my children's kindergarten teacher to suggest to the parents of children who had not attended preschool first that their child be tested for ADD or ADHD. Why? Because they hadn't learned to sit still and pay attention. Of course these children didn't have any kind of disorder at all, rather they had just not yet learned how to do so as they hadn't had preschool to teach it to them. Not only that, but to "test" into kindergarten, my kids had to be able to count to 20, know the 10 most basic colors, read simple words like "the", "have", etc., and know their left from their right (though they might get a pass on that last one).
Personally, I think it's stupid. I think the earliest a kid should go to school is six, and prior to that they should be allowed to play and enjoy themselves. However, given the structure of the system our kids are in, one really can't do that without putting your kids in a very difficult position once they actually make it to school.
What are the ten most basic colors? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:14:00 PM
What are the ten most basic colors? :unsure:
ROYGBIV and the shades?
or i guess you can throw in pink, brown, in there instead of some of the shades.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 04:47:04 PM
Now, now, I don't have to.
I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs? Sure. I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.
It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments. Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*
Why do you hate jobs?
*Well, one would think. These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.
"Major portion of income" and "redistribution" indicate you think we're talking about a poverty program. It's not. No income/wealth test, yuppies stealing spots from gammas.
There are 3 primary colors. "The ten basic colors" must be some bullshit Illiinois thing.
Well, given the political system in Illinois, it's probably green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, and green.
Yeah, at a guess, I'd suppose the correct answer is probably ROYGBIV, black, white, and brown (or gray).
But I mean, it's all made up crap. Many people don't really characterize indigo as a separate color anymore, blue and green are considered the same color (or color range) in Japan, black isn't a color, white is a mixture of colors, as is purple, and if you were a bird you'd consider ultraviolet A a primary additive color, and so on. I think naming ten "basic" ones is a little arbitrary, and at best would serve to test the child's ability to memorize things.
Also, test in to kindergarten? What do they do for stupid/uneducated children? :unsure:
Quote from: dps on September 12, 2011, 01:25:41 PM
There are 3 primary colors. "The ten basic colors" must be some bullshit Illiinois thing.
Well, given the political system in Illinois, it's probably green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, and green.
Is Illinois a left-wing haven, Muslim, or a stronghold for Ukrainian democrats? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 04:47:04 PM
Now, now, I don't have to.
I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs? Sure. I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.
It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments. Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*
Why do you hate jobs?
*Well, one would think. These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.
"Major portion of income" and "redistribution" indicate you think we're talking about a poverty program. It's not. No income/wealth test, yuppies stealing spots from gammas.
No, I know it's not. The point is that I like government programs available to everyone. A library versus a bookstore.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:33:08 PM
No, I know it's not. The point is that I like government programs available to everyone. A library versus a bookstore.
Publicly provided automobiles? Plasma TVs? Vacations?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:33:08 PM
No, I know it's not. The point is that I like government programs available to everyone. A library versus a bookstore.
Publicly provided automobiles? Plasma TVs? Vacations?
Wow, America is more Socialist than I thought.
QuotePre-school for kids: does it really work?
What other preschool can there be? For adults? For pets? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2011, 01:38:54 PM
QuotePre-school for kids: does it really work?
What other preschool can there be? For adults? For pets? :huh:
Languish: international preschool for lunatic nerds. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: dps on September 12, 2011, 01:25:41 PM
There are 3 primary colors. "The ten basic colors" must be some bullshit Illiinois thing.
Well, given the political system in Illinois, it's probably green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, and green.
Is Illinois a left-wing haven, Muslim, or a stronghold for Ukrainian democrats? :unsure:
Oddly enough, all three.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:33:08 PM
No, I know it's not. The point is that I like government programs available to everyone. A library versus a bookstore.
Publicly provided automobiles? Plasma TVs? Vacations?
Nationalized automobile industry? I dunno, that may be a step too far.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 01:33:08 PM
No, I know it's not. The point is that I like government programs available to everyone. A library versus a bookstore.
Publicly provided automobiles? Plasma TVs? Vacations?
Nationalized automobile industry? I dunno, that may be a step too far.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 03:13:08 PM
Nationalized automobile industry? I dunno, that may be a step too far.
Yeah, it was.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2011, 01:38:54 PM
QuotePre-school for kids: does it really work?
What other preschool can there be? For adults? For pets? :huh:
I suppose pre-school could be used for any kind of classes attended before enrolling in a program. Like studying in university in or college to get pre-requisite math classes before going full time in your program.
I think I'd do fantastic in preschool. One of my fondest fantasies is to have my mind thrown back into my body from twenty-five years ago, ala Replay. With a combination of education far beyond my biological age, and a knowledge of future events, by adulthood I'd already be like a living god.
It'd be annoying for the first couple of weeks, though, as it seems unlikely that I could convince anyone to sell a four year-old cigarettes.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:30:55 PM
I think I'd do fantastic in preschool. One of my fondest fantasies is to have my mind thrown back into my body from twenty-five years ago, ala Replay. With a combination of education far beyond my biological age, and a knowledge of future events, by adulthood I'd already be like a living god.
It'd be annoying for the first couple of weeks, though, as it seems unlikely that I could convince anyone to sell a four year-old cigarettes.
And everyone would hate you.
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2011, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:30:55 PM
I think I'd do fantastic in preschool. One of my fondest fantasies is to have my mind thrown back into my body from twenty-five years ago, ala Replay. With a combination of education far beyond my biological age, and a knowledge of future events, by adulthood I'd already be like a living god.
It'd be annoying for the first couple of weeks, though, as it seems unlikely that I could convince anyone to sell a four year-old cigarettes.
And everyone would hate you.
So it's net gain.
:hug:In theory going back would be cool ( maybe not five) but knowing what I know now I still make the same mistakes over and over again, so I doubt much would change.
Knowing in advance which bitches were going to break your heart and when would be very useful. :menace:
I went to pre-school but you just play there, you learn nothing.
My mother teaches reception class at a school and she observes that kids who come to school already knowing how to read and write tend not to have a long term advantage over those that don`t. Its not like they use the time at school where other kids are learning to read and write to do something productive.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Knowing in advance which bitches were going to break your heart and when would be very useful. :menace:
I would use my foreknowledge to get so much ass. Well, money, then ass.
I could live with everyone hating me for being weird. It wouldn't matter, because I would have Harvard-quality grades, and I could predict 9/11, the housing bubble, and things like Facebook and google. At that point, I could buy friends.
The problem is that I would be too young to make mad money from the dot-com bubble, although if I colluded with my father I might be able to acquire the capital necessary. I think it'd be pretty easy to convince him: at the age of five predicting the Bush and Clinton presidencies, the reunion of Germany, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Kuwait, and devolution in Scotland, would probably be sufficient to convince him I knew my shit. He might be upset that I will have effectively murdered his son, though, by inhabiting his tiny child brain, but whatever. Ideologue Redux is better than the original cut.
I'd probably never even meet Korea, since meeting her relied on continuing personal failure from 2000-2004. I might do something to help her out of her terrible home life, though, out of sentimentality.
I`ve had the same fantasy.
Which yes, no doubt I would screw up, but hey, at least I`d do better at school.
Fantasy?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecaptainsmemos.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2Fbiff.jpg&hash=7ae52cecc4048a07a3ff29f3340485d84a1f494d)
Ed Anger, 2021
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 07:23:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Knowing in advance which bitches were going to break your heart and when would be very useful. :menace:
I would use my foreknowledge to get so much ass. Well, money, then ass.
I could live with everyone hating me for being weird. It wouldn't matter, because I would have Harvard-quality grades, and I could predict 9/11, the housing bubble, and things like Facebook and google. At that point, I could buy friends.
The problem is that I would be too young to make mad money from the dot-com bubble, although if I colluded with my father I might be able to acquire the capital necessary. I think it'd be pretty easy to convince him: at the age of five predicting the Bush and Clinton presidencies, the reunion of Germany, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Kuwait, and devolution in Scotland, would probably be sufficient to convince him I knew my shit. He might be upset that I will have effectively murdered his son, though, by inhabiting his tiny child brain, but whatever. Ideologue Redux is better than the original cut.
I'd probably never even meet Korea, since meeting her relied on continuing personal failure from 2000-2004. I might do something to help her out of her terrible home life, though, out of sentimentality.
Ah, you want to combine being a kid again with time travel, as opposed to being a child again in 2011.
Quote from: dps on September 12, 2011, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 07:23:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Knowing in advance which bitches were going to break your heart and when would be very useful. :menace:
I would use my foreknowledge to get so much ass. Well, money, then ass.
I could live with everyone hating me for being weird. It wouldn't matter, because I would have Harvard-quality grades, and I could predict 9/11, the housing bubble, and things like Facebook and google. At that point, I could buy friends.
The problem is that I would be too young to make mad money from the dot-com bubble, although if I colluded with my father I might be able to acquire the capital necessary. I think it'd be pretty easy to convince him: at the age of five predicting the Bush and Clinton presidencies, the reunion of Germany, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Kuwait, and devolution in Scotland, would probably be sufficient to convince him I knew my shit. He might be upset that I will have effectively murdered his son, though, by inhabiting his tiny child brain, but whatever. Ideologue Redux is better than the original cut.
I'd probably never even meet Korea, since meeting her relied on continuing personal failure from 2000-2004. I might do something to help her out of her terrible home life, though, out of sentimentality.
Ah, you want to combine being a kid again with time travel, as opposed to being a child again in 2011.
Why would anyone want to be a kid in 2011? Everyone's parents have gotten WAY too strict.
Quote from: dps on September 12, 2011, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 07:23:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Knowing in advance which bitches were going to break your heart and when would be very useful. :menace:
I would use my foreknowledge to get so much ass. Well, money, then ass.
I could live with everyone hating me for being weird. It wouldn't matter, because I would have Harvard-quality grades, and I could predict 9/11, the housing bubble, and things like Facebook and google. At that point, I could buy friends.
The problem is that I would be too young to make mad money from the dot-com bubble, although if I colluded with my father I might be able to acquire the capital necessary. I think it'd be pretty easy to convince him: at the age of five predicting the Bush and Clinton presidencies, the reunion of Germany, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Kuwait, and devolution in Scotland, would probably be sufficient to convince him I knew my shit. He might be upset that I will have effectively murdered his son, though, by inhabiting his tiny child brain, but whatever. Ideologue Redux is better than the original cut.
I'd probably never even meet Korea, since meeting her relied on continuing personal failure from 2000-2004. I might do something to help her out of her terrible home life, though, out of sentimentality.
Ah, you want to combine being a kid again with time travel, as opposed to being a child again in 2011.
Yeah, although to be honest I would definitely take a Magneto-esque de-aging as a consolation prize. That's twenty years of extra life, plus I could expect a great deal of media attention, which presumably would translate into money or at least more opportunities.
I guess I'd have to live with not getting laid again for at least nine years, but without adult-level testosterone production, that storm is probably weatherable.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
I guess I'd have to live with not getting laid again for at least nine years, but without adult-level testosterone production, that storm is probably weatherable.
Well, Grallon could probably solve that problem for you. :hmm: