Dr. Calculus
2.3K posts

Dr. Calculus
@4StringFriend
Dad, Physicist, Math Addict/Teacher & Bass Player. 2A absolutist. ✝️ 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅






Alright, MFs! Another mean rock thrower is being given away and this time the story is short. Why is that? Well @TheRascallion just refused to elaborate about what, exactly, he'd gotten himself into. All he would say is that the @Springfield_Inc Kuna sure does perform well in a tight spot. The @VortexOptics Crossfire was nuthin' to sniff at either. So... We are all glad Rascal made it back, from wherever he went and whatever trouble he was in to, and we are DOUBLY glad to have @SummRidge partnering with us on this GIVEAWAY! The good people there got wind of what Rascal had in mind and wanted to chip in so we could give away the Vortex and THREE EXTRA MAGS as well! That is a total of 5 mags coming with this mean little sub gun! SO! FOLLOW US AND @SummRidge , REPOST or QUOTE POST, and REPLY TO ENTER THIS GIVEAWAY! Appreciate you all and good luck this week!




Wharton researchers gave nearly 1,000 high school math students access to ChatGPT during practice problems Result: chatGPT is the perfect trap. Look at the red bars. Students with ChatGPT crushed their practice sessions. The basic ChatGPT group solved more problems and those on the "tutor" version did even more. Now look at the gray bars. That's the exam. No AI allowed. The ChatGPT group scored 17% worse than kids who practiced with zero technology. And the fancy tutor version? No better than working alone. The researchers called AI a "crutch." When they analyzed what students actually typed into ChatGPT, most of them just wrote - “What’s the answer?” The kicker: students who used ChatGPT believed it hadn't hurt their learning. They were confidently wrong. This is the AI trap in education. Outsourcing your thinking. Of course, lots of half-baked AI literacy curricula being rolled out in schools now Let’s of course ignore that basic literacy (the ability to read) is possible for <50% of 8th graders Source: Bastani et al. (2025), "Generative AI Can Harm Learning," PNAS







I was concerned this might blow over and he might not get hard time Then I saw he fucked with the Fish Cops domain.... Yep... that "boy" won't be seen again until at least 2030

Oh. Oh, this is genuinely adorable. You just committed THREE separate logical fallacies in a single sentence, which is actually impressive in a "bless your heart" kind of way. Pull up a chair. You clearly need this. FALLACY ONE: IGNORATIO ELENCHI (Latin) — "irrelevant conclusion" in plain English. The argument was never about whether someone gets shot at a polling place. The argument was about whether IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS constitute an unconstitutional burden on constitutional rights. Your "no one gets shot" observation is about as relevant to that question as my blood type is to your car payment. FALLACY TWO: RED HERRING — redirecting the debate to a separate, tangentially emotional issue to avoid addressing the actual argument. You are not engaging with the constitutional logic. You are fleeing from it. FALLACY THREE: PETITIO PRINCIPII — circular reasoning. You are ASSUMING that "risk of physical harm" is the constitutional metric by which rights receive equal protection. Show me where Article II, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any federal statute says that. I grade lab reports for a living. I am comfortable with silence. Here is what the Constitution actually says: NOTHING about physical danger as a qualifier for how much protection a right receives. The First Amendment does not say "free speech rights only apply if the speech is harmless." The Fourth Amendment does not say "searches are unreasonable only if someone might get hurt." The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees EQUAL PROTECTION — PERIOD. No asterisk. No footnote. No carve-out for rights you personally find inconvenient. If your logic held, we could require a government-issued photo ID to buy a newspaper, because words have absolutely gotten people killed. We could require fingerprinting before attending a protest, because protests have, demonstrably, turned violent. The left would lose its collective mind — rightfully so. Because that is NOT how constitutional rights work. Quinn's Law #23: liberals love the law unless they disagree with it. Then they just do not obey it. In this case, they do not even bother reading it. You cannot argue that ID requirements are a racist, discriminatory, unconstitutional burden when applied to voting — and then insist those SAME requirements are perfectly acceptable when applied to the Second Amendment — unless your actual position is that you get to pick which constitutional rights come with guardrails and which ones do not. That is not jurisprudence. That is favoritism dressed in legal vocabulary. But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who understands that the Bill of Rights is not a buffet where you take the items you like and leave the rest on the table. #MAGA #Veterans #Trump FOOTNOTES & WORKS CITED (because you need them) [1] Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) — The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia. [2] McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) — The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. [3] Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter photo-ID law, finding it did not impose an undue burden on the right to vote. [4] U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1 — "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [5] National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-180 — Federal law mandating identification verification for firearm purchases. [6] Quinn, Jim. Laws of Liberalism, Law #23: "Liberals love the law unless they don't agree with it. Then they just don't obey it." [7] Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate — Definitions of ignoratio elenchi, red herring, and petitio principii used herein are consistent with standard formal logic classifications.
















