Critical thinking would preclude using quotes on a highly doctored phrase.
Nope, good grammar does that, he just failed to state he was paraphrasing.
In other words, they don't mean what you attempted to portray them to mean.
The actual meaning of the quote was NOT lost. ie: it explicitly states they oppose CT because they believe it will lead children to doubt their parents or as they put it "undermining parental authority", the wording also strongly implies they don't want the "authority" of fixed beliefs "undermined". The subtext of the quote is that parents and fixed beliefs are infallible and should not be questioned.
In simpler words the policy as you have quoted it says - We don't want educated children, we want obedient children.
Disclaimer: I spent seven years in the 90's as technical lead on an automated job dispatch system that handled thousand of workers and tens of thousands of jobs each day, it covered the continent of Australia, at that time it was by far the largest mobile dispatch system in the southern hemisphere in volume of work and geographical coverage. The backend used "linear programming" techniques (WW2 logistics), no human could beat the daily work plan it churned out. A bunch of execs would get up at 5am and paw all over the plan, add some "special constraints" and end up with a less efficient solution. Often the "special constraints" were accepted anyway, since - we can't have (say) the telecoms minister waiting 2 days for a new install in his office, it has to be done first thing today, and it has to be done by employee X who drinks at the same pub, who gives a flying fuck if 25 nobodys drop off the original work plan?
"critical thinking" is the new buzzword.
I'm 55, the phrase has been around for a long time, Carl Sagan was fond of it (unfortunately my HS never mentioned it) so it wasn't until I dropped out and saw Sagan and Randi talking about it on TV that I became personally aware that it was a skill that can be taught. Perhaps it's been hijacked lately in the US to mean something else but I haven't noticed. To me it has always meant 'skepticism', in particular self-skepticism. Sagan also referred to it as his "bullshit detection kit". As for TFA, memorising facts* is essential but insufficient, ie: you can't even start to think about things that you don't remember, which is what Newton was getting at with his "shoulders of giants" comment.
*Facts as in - "two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their combined mass and the distance between them", that the force is ~9.8m/s on Earth's surface is trivia, handy to know but not essential to the concept that's being memorised since it can easily be looked up or measured. A physics teacher who sets up a gravity problem and expects students to know the value of 'g' from memory, is doing it wrong. Of course there are exceptions where memorising numbers is a useful "short-cut" for the student, multiplication tables being the most obvious
BTW "Modern full scale combat" is a nuclear holocaust, and yes, it would almost certainly put an end to human conflict forever.
Avoiding extradition to the US has nothing to do with it.
Say what? The UK will not extradite anyone to a country where they have a reasonable chance of receiving the death penalty, Sweden has no such qualms. When the UK decided to extradite him to Sweden he moved into the Ecuador embassy to prevent that happening.
I believe the point is that they made the math to match the observations.
Maths that accurately describes the physical world is DISCOVERED not "made up". Seriously, read a fucking text book and immunise yourself against that populist nonsense.
It's an endless source of humour looking back at it, at the time I thought she was joking when she saw the logo on a NASA web page I was reading and started asking me about how to find aliens in NASA's basement via the internet. Looking back at it now, I'm sure she wasn't joking.
So they bilt this not only in one day but the very day after the earth was craterd? I don't think.
Haven't read TFA but I do know Roman battalions advanced by marching for a few days, stopping at a strategic point, and proceed to turn a nearby forest into a 3 storey fort in a single day. The forts were all of the same design and required ~5,000 trees to build, each man was an expert at a specific task. Reinforcements moved from fort to fort and signal towers were set up in between so that there was a visual link along the entire path. Today, we call this strategy a "supply line".
The Romans did a similar thing building up their Navy with spectacular speed when circumstances required, it was a classic "assembly line production" that existed 2000yrs before Henry Ford "invented" it. They also stole the boat design from the Carthaginians who had kindly numbered all the individual planks for them (no IP lawyers back then).
For a modern army or even a well organised militia, erecting a fake ruin in a day is definitely doable, so it boils down to motivation, which both sides have in spades.
The worst case of heritage destruction I can recall recently was on the 3rd day of the Iraq war when the US sacked the entire public service and then sat on their hands while the locals went on a looting spree. It was an extremely foolish decision that backfired badly, no cops, no ambulance, no garbage collection, no school, etc. After the looting rampage was over the US had well and truly lost the "hearts and minds" battle with ordinary Iraqi's.
To reach the hall, you could navigate the roof and descend from the awnings
Coincidentally, the earliest known stone villages appeared in Turkey ~12,000 years ago, they had no streets and the houses had no doors, they were all squashed together as one big flat building, people entered individual homes by navigating the roof and descending through a hole into their "cubicle". They also had a habit of burying dead relatives in the living room. Similar architecture and burial practices were common across the N. Hemisphere for the next 10,000yrs.