Florida Bans CRT in Schools - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15178214
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please see my last post, specifically, the part where I ask you to write complete sentences and quote relevant text.

Thank you.


All the text is relevant. Note that the incident took place right after the battle at Lexington, the proclamation was issued on November.

As for your Q&A, you decided to ask many questions hence you got many answers :)
#15178216
wat0n wrote:All the text is relevant.


Then please quote all of it.

Note that the incident took place right after the battle at Lexington, the proclamation was issued on November.


You should clarify which incident you are discussing here, as well as which proclamation, and explain why November is important.

Also, a semicolon instead of a comma seems more appropriate.

As for your Q&A, you decided to ask many questions hence you got many answers :)


I am not going to respond to incoherent one word answers. If you do not feel it is worth your time to clearly communicate your argument, then I will assume it is not worth my time to address the argument.
#15178218
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then please quote all of it.


No need. You can click the link yourself.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You should clarify which incident you are discussing here, as well as which proclamation, and explain why November is important.

Also, a semicolon instead of a comma seems more appropriate.


The incident being the gunpowder incident, the proclamation being Dunmore's proclamation and November is important because the latter was issued on November while the former took place in April.

Is there anything else you will pretend to be unable to understand?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not going to respond to incoherent one word answers. If you do not feel it is worth your time to clearly communicate your argument, then I will assume it is not worth my time to address the argument.


If you won't follow responses to your own questions then you shouldn't turn this discussion into a Q&A session.
#15178221
wat0n wrote:No need. You can click the link yourself.


No. This tangent will be dismissed as unsupported.

The incident being the gunpowder incident, the proclamation being Dunmore's proclamation and November is important because the latter was issued on November while the former took place in April.

Is there anything else you will pretend to be unable to understand?


How is all of this an argument?

If you won't follow responses to your own questions then you shouldn't turn this discussion into a Q&A session.


I expected you to write clear answers. My mistake.
#15178223
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This tangent will be dismissed as unsupported.


No, your dismissal is now dismissed as unsupported, and therefore you have no reason to claim there were no militias on the move in Virginia by the time Dunmore issued his proclamation. Your dismissal is motivated by the fact that you cannot admit you are just wrong.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is all of this an argument?


Virginia's militias were on the move several months before Dunmore issued his proclamation to free slaves, hence it's unlikely they mobilized to defend slavery.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I expected you to write clear answers. My mistake.


The answers are pretty clear. My mistake though was to expect you to admit you could be wrong about the history of the American Revolution even more so since historians who are specialized on the American Revolution confirm you are.
#15178308
You are sounding like those who want safe spaces here, @Drlee.


Oh bullshit. Nice try. I am speaking of children under 18 and I am speaking of a potentially very damaging subject taught by potentially inept people. This is not some abstract idea for a young black child when he/she is taught that their entire country is out to oppress them. And that is precisely the entire point of CRT.

Students have every right to debate controversial topics in school, and CRT is definitely among the most controversial topics right now.


No. Actually they don't. They are in school to be taught and adults are responsible for deciding what they ought to be taught, when, and by whom.


Just banning discussion does a disservice to them and just postpones the inevitable (that they'll be exposed to these ideas at some point...


There is no disservice by not teaching sex education to a five year old. And postponing CRT until university is exactly my point. And even then taught only by a carefully prepared and VETTED professor and with sufficient time and latitude for opposing views to be heard.

And FWIW chances are that they already have, as systemic racism is something that gets discussed on the big TV channels too).


There is a vast difference between a student seeing something on television and being forced to see and discuss it in school. It is an entirely different power dynamic and social dynamic. Why are you avoiding discussing the points I made about this?
#15178311
@Drlee

I can understand teaching CRT at the university level. It would certainly cause an uproar with racist white parents who teach their white kids racism in their families at the high school level. You need tenured professors teaching CRT at the university level so that racist white parents or racist members of the community can't get the professor fired or interfere with the legitimate education process of the students. It kinda sucks for the tenured professors though because then they have to undo all the bullshit racist programming some of the college students received from their families.

And the professor can appropriately fail students who do not perform in class without consequence to the professor for doing his or her job. Problem is, students would need to understand how the college game works first to go to college and a lot of working class or poor and disadvantaged people don't know how the college game works and thus might not get to that class or not go to college when they could have.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 25 Jun 2021 01:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15178312
Drlee wrote:Oh bullshit. Nice try. I am speaking of children under 18 and I am speaking of a potentially very damaging subject taught by potentially inept people. This is not some abstract idea for a young black child when he/she is taught that their entire country is out to oppress them. And that is precisely the entire point of CRT.


Again, you are underestimating 16-18 years old (I don't think those below 11th grade are mature or knowledgeable enough for the discussion)

Drlee wrote:No. Actually they don't. They are in school to be taught and adults are responsible for deciding what they ought to be taught, when, and by whom.


And one thing they are there to learn is how to discuss controversial topics. This includes doing so in a mature way.

Drlee wrote:There is no disservice by not teaching sex education to a five year old. And postponing CRT until university is exactly my point. And even then taught only by a carefully prepared and VETTED professor and with sufficient time and latitude for opposing views to be heard.


So you think teachers can't do that in 2021 America?

Drlee wrote:There is a vast difference between a student seeing something on television and being forced to see and discuss it in school. It is an entirely different power dynamic and social dynamic. Why are you avoiding discussing the points I made about this?


Do you really think teenagers don't discuss politics among themselves?

Anyway, a while ago there was a thread on the Confederate flag where high school students discussed if it should be banned. I watched the whole discussion and it was very civil:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=178734

Why can't CRT be discussed in a similar way?
#15178338
wat0n wrote:Its proponents aiming to have it taught in schools, at all levels, across the US. I don't think saying so is or should be controversial.

You can even read children's books that touch on some of these topics, geared towards the corresponding age group of course, too. I'd even say it's a fairly lucrative business at that.

Want an example? My girlfriend loves these things so she had me buy her this book:

Image

Instead of banning CRT, why don't they just ban political activism by teachers/curriculum in schools? Wouldn't that be way less controversial and partisan also?
#15178343
Unthinking Majority wrote:Instead of banning CRT, why don't they just ban political activism by teachers/curriculum in schools? Wouldn't that be way less controversial and partisan also?


I assume that's already banned.
#15178348
So you think teachers can't do that in 2021 America?


A few could. But you are doomed from the start. The obvious thing would to have an AA teacher do the class. Three problems with this. It is inherently racist. AA students would give the opinions of the teacher more weight, justified or not. There is no guarantee that an AA teacher would be any more skilled than his/her white counterpart.

But imagine this. "Well Doctor Jones, I know you are far more qualified and that this is your civics class but we don't what a white person teaching about race". Then Doctor Jones goes to the press.....and the courts..... The net result would be that in the attempt to teach a progressive viewpoint you had racists a HUGE moral and political victory. And this victory further disadvantages black people. There really is such a thing as "white backlash". We saw it in a big way in the last election.

Do you really think teenagers don't discuss politics among themselves?
More than superficially? Very few. Most teenage political discussions are perfunctory at best. And you know it. Please spare us googling some stupid poll. We know this.

Anyway, a while ago there was a thread on the Confederate flag where high school students discussed if it should be banned. I watched the whole discussion and it was very civil:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=178734

Why can't CRT be discussed in a similar way?


This is a very poor comparison. Very poor. It is not the same thing at all.
#15178351
Drlee wrote:A few could. But you are doomed from the start. The obvious thing would to have an AA teacher do the class. Three problems with this. It is inherently racist. AA students would give the opinions of the teacher more weight, justified or not. There is no guarantee that an AA teacher would be any more skilled than his/her white counterpart.

But imagine this. "Well Doctor Jones, I know you are far more qualified and that this is your civics class but we don't what a white person teaching about race". Then Doctor Jones goes to the press.....and the courts..... The net result would be that in the attempt to teach a progressive viewpoint you had racists a HUGE moral and political victory. And this victory further disadvantages black people. There really is such a thing as "white backlash". We saw it in a big way in the last election.


I think you are being overly pessimistic. And no, I don't think it would only be possible to debate this with a Black teacher.

Also, the backlash you mention would happen regardless of the teacher's race.

Drlee wrote: More than superficially? Very few. Most teenage political discussions are perfunctory at best. And you know it. Please spare us googling some stupid poll. We know this.


But they do, that's the point! They are going to be discussing CRT anyway, and they will not have the chance to do it in a more orderly way.

Drlee wrote:This is a very poor comparison. Very poor. It is not the same thing at all.


Why? It's a debate about flying the Confederate flag in government buildings.
#15178364
wat0n wrote:No, your dismissal is now dismissed as unsupported, and therefore you have no reason to claim there were no militias on the move in Virginia by the time Dunmore issued his proclamation. Your dismissal is motivated by the fact that you cannot admit you are just wrong.

Virginia's militias were on the move several months before Dunmore issued his proclamation to free slaves, hence it's unlikely they mobilized to defend slavery.


No. The only action any militia saw in Virginia at the time was a failed attempt to scare Dunmore into not taking a bunch of gunpowder from an armory and putting it onto a British ship.

Dunmore made his proclamation in November of 1775. The first violence in Virginia occurred a month later.

The answers are pretty clear. My mistake though was to expect you to admit you could be wrong about the history of the American Revolution even more so since historians who are specialized on the American Revolution confirm you are.


You informed me that I could read your argument by going back and piecing together your arguments from the last six or seven posts we wrote.

This logically implies that your argument is not written out clearly anywhere and would require the reader to puzzle it together from the previously mentioned posts.

If that is how you wish to present your arguments, feel free.

——————-

@Drlee

Please provide evidence for the claim that CRT was being taught in Florida to children in elementary or secondary schools.
#15178368
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The only action any militia saw in Virginia at the time was a failed attempt to scare Dunmore into not taking a bunch of gunpowder from an armory and putting it onto a British ship.

Dunmore made his proclamation in November of 1775. The first violence in Virginia occurred a month later.


Mobilization of militias is still mobilization of militias. The only reason violence was averted is that both sides were still preparing for it by April.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You informed me that I could read your argument by going back and piecing together your arguments from the last six or seven posts we wrote.

This logically implies that your argument is not written out clearly anywhere and would require the reader to puzzle it together from the previously mentioned posts.

If that is how you wish to present your arguments, feel free.


The only reason that's the case was that you asked many questions.

Will you finally admit you refuse to listen to actual historians who are specialized on the topic of the American Revolution?
#15178370
wat0n wrote:Mobilization of militias is still mobilization of militias. The only reason violence was averted is that both sides were still preparing for it by April.


Whatever.

Since this does not contradict the fact that Virginia only started its revolt after the threat of freeing the slaves, I do not care.

The only reason that's the case was that you asked many questions.

Will you finally admit you refuse to listen to actual historians who are specialized on the topic of the American Revolution?


I asked those questions for a reason. That reason was because every single one of those sentences was unclear. Most of the time it was because you used a pronoun as the subject of the sentence instead of simply naming the subject. I can provide examples of how this creates a lack pf clarity in your posts, if you wish.
#15178371
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whatever.

Since this does not contradict the fact that Virginia only started its revolt after the threat of freeing the slaves, I do not care.


Again, a post-hoc fallacy. The militia had begun to mobilize precisely because it was gearing for a fight, based on what happened at Lexington and Concord.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I asked those questions for a reason. That reason was because every single one of those sentences was unclear. Most of the time it was because you used a pronoun as the subject of the sentence instead of simply naming the subject. I can provide examples of how this creates a lack pf clarity in your posts, if you wish.


What I wish is to know why don't you listen what historians who are specialized on the American Revolution have to say about the 1619 Project's factual claims.
#15178374
wat0n wrote:Again, a post-hoc fallacy. The militia had begun to mobilize precisely because it was gearing for a fight, based on what happened at Lexington and Concord.


No, it mobilised in a failed attempt to scare the governor into not grabbing a bunch of gunpowder. Instead, the governor simply ended up paying for it and all conflict was averted.

It is called the gunpowder incident if you want to look it up.

What I wish is to know why don't you listen what historians who are specialized on the American Revolution have to say about the 1619 Project's factual claims.


Yes, you like your loaded questions.
#15178377
@Pants-of-dog
@Drlee

Please provide evidence for the claim that CRT was being taught in Florida to children in elementary or secondary schools.


Please try to keep up. Read my posts. Please post where I said it was.
#15178379
@Drlee

Your posts implied that this censorship was justified to protect kids from the evil lies of CRT.

This implies that CRT was being taught to kids at some point.

We can now agree that this was never the case.

And since that is the case, we can also see that this is a solution for a problem that never existed.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 16
Japan Sontaku again.

According to the Wiki entry, 'sontaku' is close to[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

:roll: Getting a vaccine, during a pandemic is ha[…]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57984[…]

I am personally fearful of possible adverse effec[…]