[Pants-of-dog]

Stating something is inaccurate, despite the evidence showing it's not, is not an argument. Where are your primary sources to falsify the criticism of the 1619 Project's account of the primary reasons for the American Revolution by historians like Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz? Will you finally post them?

I believe I addressed those already in the thread.

If you feel I have not addressed a particular argument, please let me know what it. Or if I have failed to support any of my arguments. Thank you.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog no, you have not and you have yet to provide a primary source they falsifies the information provided by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz.

I'm still waiting for you to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog no, you have not and you have yet to provide a primary source they falsifies the information provided by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz.

I'm still waiting for you to do so.

Yes, I did address it.

Please reread the thread.

If you feel there is anything I have missed, please let me know and I will address it.

Thank you.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you missed the primary source that falsifies the historical research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz. The rest of your claims were addressed but maybe you have a primary source that can confirm them?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog you missed the primary source that falsifies the historical research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz. The rest of your claims were addressed but maybe you have a primary source that can confirm them?

Again, I have no idea which argument you want me to support.

Until you clarify that, I cannot provide evidence for it.

[wat0n]

Again, I have no idea which argument you want me to support.

Until you clarify that, I cannot provide evidence for it.

You are the one who wants to use the 1619 Project for history classes. You could begin by defending its historicity.

[Drlee]

Well @Pants-of-dog You want @wat0n to "reread the thread" but you are not willing to just look at my posts. As I said. Intellectually lazy or just a very poor and obvious debating technique.

Now do what you advise and reread the thread. Then you can argue with my points.

Feel free to reference the salient parts of my posts in your rebuttal.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee
@wat0n

Since neither of you are specifying which arguments that I have made that you would like me to defend, nor care to repeat those arguments that you think I did not address, our conversations seem to be done.

Have a nice day.

[wat0n]

@Drlee
@wat0n

Since neither of you are specifying which arguments that I have made that you would like me to defend, nor care to repeat those arguments that you think I did not address, our conversations seem to be done.

Have a nice day.

I'm having a nice day, I find it hilarious to see you spin this hard

But just so you are not too sad: As I mentioned earlier ITT, I don't agree with the resolution by FL's Board of Education as I think CRT is most certainly something that should be open to discussion in civics class. I just oppose teaching its tenets and derivative stuff like the 1619 Project as facts when their factual nature is very shaky at best.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes, your support for the censorship of the 1619 project is noted.

Please note that the inaccuracies you used to justify this censorship were more inaccurate than the ones written by the Pulitzer prize winning author.

She recently was denied a tenure position because of conservatives who opposed giving her a tenure position.

Should she have been deprived of this position?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Yes, your support for the censorship of the 1619 project is noted.

Please note that the inaccuracies you used to justify this censorship were more inaccurate than the ones written by the Pulitzer prize winning author.

She recently was denied a tenure position because of conservatives who opposed giving her a tenure position.

Should she have been deprived of this position?

Please explain why:

1) You haven't posted primary sources to falsify the research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz with regards to the American Revolution

2) Is my position censorship when I'm saying CRT should be discussed in civics class and not as a fact

3) It's not censorship to ban teaching creationism as fact even though creationism lacks the scientific evidence necessary to claim it has been proven as fact

[Drlee]

As long as we agree the whenever @Pants-of-dog uses the word "censor-ship" he refers to the normal decisions made in any curriculum development.

And as long as we all agree that to insist on academic rigor is "censorship" then I am sure we can understand his hyperbole quite well.

Oh. And as long as we understand that all teachers are possessed of the same skill in teaching. I am surprised though. Progressives like what POD thinks he is usually are kinder to teachers and certainly kinder to students. It seems a shame to upset and even crush the aspirations of so many students to make some silly rhetorical point.

It is true though @wat0n He usually does not run this hard from the posts of others.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please explain why:

1) You haven't posted primary sources to falsify the research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz with regards to the American Revolution

Because I have no idea which arguments you think I need to defend.

I have politely asked you to do do several times, and now I am please asking you again.

2) Is my position censorship when I'm saying CRT should be discussed in civics class and not as a fact

Your position is that the 1619 Project should be censored because it is not factually correct. Is that not your position?

3) It's not censorship to ban teaching creationism as fact even though creationism lacks the scientific evidence necessary to claim it has been proven as fact

And this is your same argument for banning the 1619 Project.

I assume you also support the political interference that stopped her from getting tenure.

—————————

As long as we agree the whenever @Pants-of-dog uses the word "censor-ship" he refers to the normal decisions made in any curriculum development.

This is what I mean by censorship:

Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence

I think explicitly pointing to specific works and saying point blank that teachers are not allowed to use them is censorship.

And as long as we all agree that to insist on academic rigor is "censorship" then I am sure we can understand his hyperbole quite well.

The only inaccuracy you and @wat0n were able to show is not that inaccurate. Slavery was important to many revolutionaries. To argue that it was not important is just as inaccurate.

Oh. And as long as we understand that all teachers are possessed of the same skill in teaching. I am surprised though. Progressives like what POD thinks he is usually are kinder to teachers and certainly kinder to students. It seems a shame to upset and even crush the aspirations of so many students to make some silly rhetorical point.

No one is crushing any kids aspirations.

I explained why before. Would you like me to repeat it?

It is true though @wat0n He usually does not run this hard from the posts of others.

Please note that you have not provided a good reason for this censorship.

I assume you also support the political interference that stopped her from getting tenure.

[wat0n]

Because I have no idea which arguments you think I need to defend.

I have politely asked you to do do several times, and now I am please asking you again.

I even went as far as to directly quote Nikole Harris-Jones here. You could go back and read it.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the primary sources that falsify the research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz by the way.

Your position is that the 1619 Project should be censored because it is not factually correct. Is that not your position?

No. My position is that it should not be taught in history classes, as a fact. It can be also discussed in civics class, just like other CRT crap.

And this is your same argument for banning the 1619 Project.

Should creationism be taught in science classes in public schools?

[Pants-of-dog]

I even went as far as to directly quote Nikole Harris-Jones here. You could go back and read it.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the primary sources that falsify the research by Drs Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz by the way.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Because I have no idea which arguments you think I need to defend.

I have politely asked you to do do several times, and now I am please asking you again.

No. My position is that it should not be taught in history classes, as a fact. It can be also discussed in civics class, just like other CRT crap.

So you think it should be banned from history classes.

And your only evidence for that seems to a single accusation of inaccuracy, and when we looked at the claim, we saw it was just as “inaccurate” as the oposing
statement.

I assume you also support the political interference that stopped her from getting tenure. Do you think that conservatives should always be present to discuss hiring conditions?

[wat0n]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Because I have no idea which arguments you think I need to defend.

I have politely asked you to do do several times, and now I am please asking you again.

Asked and answered. Go back and do as you were telling others to do: Read the thread.

So you think it should be banned from history classes.

And your only evidence for that seems to a single accusation of inaccuracy, and when we looked at the claim, we saw it was just as “inaccurate” as the oposing
statement.

No, we didn't see that. I'm still waiting for you to provide the primary sources that falsify the works of historians like Leslie M. Harris and Sean Wilentz.

I assume you also support the political interference that stopped her from getting tenure. Do you think that conservatives should always be present to discuss hiring conditions?

No, you shouldn't assume that.

So is it censorship to refuse to teach creationism in science classes? Will you answer that question?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. I have shown that the 1619 Project is not entirely inaccurate and that the criticism that has been discusssed is more a mtter of clarity than incorrectness.

I am more than willing to discuss any claims made by historians. Telling me over and over again that I missed something but refusing to clarify what it is does not move the discussion forward.

2. Since the refusal to give her tenure has been mentioned many times and you did not show any opinion whatsoever, and you feel her work is inaccurate, the logical assumption is that you think she does not deserve tenure.

3. How does creationism in science class relate to the topic of Florida banning discussion of systemic racism and the 1619 Project?

[Drlee]

I think explicitly pointing to specific works and saying point blank that teachers are not allowed to use them is censorship.

Nonsense. It is a curriculum decision based upon facts. Most experts agree that the 1619 project forwards facts not in evidence to be kind. It is not censorship to forbid teachers from teaching the 2X2=7.

The fact that you do not "think" that students could be harmed by teaching CRT is simply your opinion. And it is not, as is mine, based upon consideration for the student first but rather on your eagerness to teach a controversial subject that matches your world view.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nonsense. It is a curriculum decision based upon facts. Most experts agree that the 1619 project forwards facts not in evidence to be kind.

Okay. Name one.

The fact that you do not "think" that students could be harmed by teaching CRT is simply your opinion. And it is not, as is mine, based upon consideration for the student first but rather on your eagerness to teach a controversial subject that matches your world view.

How so?

Also, you are still not using the notification system properly. You can tell as it does not say that I wrote the text you are quoting.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. I have shown that the 1619 Project is not entirely inaccurate and that the criticism that has been discusssed is more a mtter of clarity than incorrectness.

Is it? Claiming slavery was a primary reason for the American Revolution and that it would have not happened if it wasn't because of a supposed drive by the British to abolish slavery in the Thirteen Colonies is not accurate at all. What you are doing, in fact, is a strawman fallacy with regards to what Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed.

I am more than willing to discuss any claims made by historians. Telling me over and over again that I missed something but refusing to clarify what it is does not move the discussion forward.

If you are, I think you know what to do: Produce primary sources that falsify their claims. They actually did state their factual reasons for their claims regarding the accuracy of Nikole Hannah-Jones' claims.

2. Since the refusal to give her tenure has been mentioned many times and you did not show any opinion whatsoever, and you feel her work is inaccurate, the logical assumption is that you think she does not deserve tenure.

What does this have to do with the merits of the 1619 Project? Does the FL Board of Education decide who gets tenure at UNC Chapel Hill?

But anyway, I personally wouldn't give her tenure because of the fact she published articles with questionable factual basis and because her team ignored the feedback of historians like Leslie M. Harris in the process of doing so, but I also wouldn't interfere in the decisions made by UNC Chapel Hill.

Unless of course you believe the public has no right to question the merits of the decisions by public universities, perhaps (who knows) maybe you believe the public should be censored from doing so. Are you sure you oppose censorship?

3. How does creationism in science class relate to the topic of Florida banning discussion of systemic racism and the 1619 Project?

You are the one who's claiming that opposing teaching concepts whose factual content rests on shaky grounds as facts is censorship. So I'm asking you if it's censorship to refuse to teach a creationism as a fact, even though its factual content also rests on shaky grounds.

I want to see if you are consistent in your apparent definition of "censorship in teaching" or not.