BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldM to InsanePeopleFacebook@lemmy.world · 1 个月前Sovcit doesn't understand.lemmy.worldimagemessage-square45fedilinkarrow-up1307arrow-down15
arrow-up1302arrow-down1imageSovcit doesn't understand.lemmy.worldBonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldM to InsanePeopleFacebook@lemmy.world · 1 个月前message-square45fedilink
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up47·1 个月前No. One of my favorite insults is: “Just because you didn’t learn, doesn’t mean they didn’t teach.”
minus-squaresome_guy@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up7·1 个月前Not when you only have two brain cells orbiting within an empty head.
minus-squareNougat@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 个月前Orbiting implies gravity. Gravity implies mass.
minus-squareTar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up7·1 个月前Checks out, they’re extremely dense
minus-squarestate_electrician@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 个月前“So next time someone’s teaching why don’t you get taught.” implies that getting taught requires someone teaching, but does not automatically follow said teaching.
minus-squareemeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 个月前No but it does imply that getting taught requires learning, which is what the OP actually says instead of teaching.
Does teaching imply learning?
No. One of my favorite insults is:
“Just because you didn’t learn, doesn’t mean they didn’t teach.”
Not when you only have two brain cells orbiting within an empty head.
Orbiting implies gravity. Gravity implies mass.
Checks out, they’re extremely dense
Fighting for second place.
They aren’t mutually inclusive.
“So next time someone’s teaching why don’t you get taught.” implies that getting taught requires someone teaching, but does not automatically follow said teaching.
No but it does imply that getting taught requires learning, which is what the OP actually says instead of teaching.