Rewriting History, Conservative Style; The Texas Textbook Massacre

[iNow]

iNow, in context: You were arguing elsewhere, five boys by wearing "red, white and blue" on 'cinco de mayo' was intended to be confrontational, an intentional provocative act. By promoting the identical and most certainly a louder voice (organized/publicized) you were arguing against the same things, you were currently practicing actions for (an atheist program on Sunday). I can't imagine a more hypocritical scenario and the point I was making.

Did you really just suggest that my posting of a link on an internet forum informing people that there is going to be a gathering around the capitol building tomorrow in Texas to try to ensure kids get taught accurate information in schools which is not biased and based on political or religious ideology... did you really just suggest that is equivalent to five boys intentionally and provocatively wearing their flag shirts and jeering mexican american students on Cinco de Mayo in an attempt to make them feel like outcasts and to deliberately make them feel uncomfortable and out of place merely for having mexican heritage?

 

Wow.

Yes, you're right. My posting a link as an FYI is EXACTLY parallel to that.

 

 

 

I can offer you no further arguments...

Jackson - Just because an atheist group is trying to spread the word about an event does not ipso facto mean that event is itself an atheistic one. That was my only point. If you can't see that, then I'm done here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I mean seriously...a capitalist republic that utterly fails to teach capitalism and the concept of the republic any deeper than glossary definitions? All High School graduates should be absolute experts in economics, the constitution and the responsibility inherent in a self-governed republic. Most kids don't even know the difference between republic and democracy, and foolishly consider ourselves a democracy.

 

Yet, I don't bitch and cry to the school board to force everyone to learn it.

My initial response to this is that there is a difference between teaching versus not teaching something, and teaching something accurate versus teaching something inaccurate. Either way, I won't belabor it.

 

I am curious, however, after reading the above, how you feel about college accreditation. Are you basically suggesting that a math degree from a school which teaches from demonstrated principles be equivalent to a math degree from a school that teaches that 2+2 = pie... After all, you are stating explicitly that the difference is little more than one value system versus another, and implicitly arguing that the two are exactly the same.

Edited May 15, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

I am curious, however, after reading the above, how you feel about college accreditation. Are you basically suggesting that a math degree from a school which teaches from demonstrated principles be equivalent to a math degree from a school that teaches that 2+2 = pie?

 

Well if you're talking about the ACICS, then I like it; it's entirely private. I have no issues with private entities freely creating labels and systems of merit that others find value in. There's no coersion by law here, and it serves us well. I would like to see the same thing with K-12 education - if it's even K-12 anymore. Hell, maybe the idea of school years and 13 discrete units of achievement is outdated.

 

And this is why I found your previous post on 2+2=pie to be absurd. Yes, people would be free to do such things, but then how do they make a living or benefit from it? My company has no interest in hiring people who synthesize math and desert (unless you meant pie as in 3.14?). What value does a technician bring to the job when they've been taught weird, incorrect ideas about their trade?

 

I actually don't have any issues with government suggestion about standards, and endorsing preferred practices - I simply prefer parental choice over their children. It's fundamental. We trust parents with so much more life threatening decisions than this, long before they make it to the school yard.

 

And further still, if somehow they could benefit from such a ridiculous education, then I'd be forced to ask....what's the probem then?

Edited May 15, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

And this is why I found your previous post on 2+2=pie to be absurd. Yes, people would be free to do such things, but then how do they make a living or benefit from it? My company has no interest in hiring people who synthesize math and desert (unless you meant pie as in 3.14?).

And likewise, our nation has no interest in training the next generation of children based on flawed and inaccurate information fed by little more than ideology. Our nation has no interest in training the next generation to be a bunch of uncompetitive paste eaters who can't keep up or thrive in a global economy.

 

Oh... but wait... That's PRECISELY what our nation has an interest in... at least, here in Texas, and as being discussed in this thread.

 

 

Also, since it's a thread regarding education, I thought I'd point out that the letter s appears twice in dessert and that the mathematical concept (3.14) is spelled pi. Now, I just hope I didn't Skitt's Law this thing...

[ParanoiA]

And likewise, our nation has no interest in training the next generation of children based on flawed and inaccurate information fed by little more than ideology. Our nation has no interest in training the next generation to be a bunch of uncompetitive paste eaters who can't keep up or thrive in a global economy.

 

Oh... but wait... That's PRECISELY what our nation has an interest in... at least, here in Texas, and as being discussed in this thread.

 

So what? If what you say is true, and it isn't, then it will fail on its own. You really believe that schools can churn out "uncompetitive paste eaters" and thrive in the market? If so, you must be under the impression that they will find a way to benefit from being a "uncompetitive paste eater" - so, what's the problem then?

 

No, instead, the conservatives are adding their little spin to their education, and it will all be just fine. If we all had our choice, you would find that schools will teach the same fundamentals of math, english and etc - but will differ on the subjects that are more edification than necessary detail - like evolution and creationism. Most of us don't need to know either, in terms of economic success. Unless of course one wants to be a scientist...but then, creationism isn't science, so where's the problem?

 

It's more phantom problems. Choice is the solution to many of our problems. We really do not need to force our views onto everyone else.

 

Also, since it's a thread regarding education, I thought I'd point out that the letter s appears twice in dessert and that the mathematical concept (3.14) is spelled pi. Now, I just hope I didn't Skitt's Law this thing...

 

Well I did attend public schools. So there. Although, in my defense, I haven't looked at math beyond simple addition and subtraction for about 20 years. I was happy I remembered 3.14.

[jackson33]

iNow quotes;

 

Jackson - Just because an atheist group is trying to spread the word about an event does not ipso facto mean that event is itself an atheistic one. That was my only point. [/Quote]

 

Oh, I very well have understood your attempted obfuscation of the arguments presented, both here and "that" elsewhere, the pretense that just because the organizer was one thing and the issue something else, that was simply somehow coincidental.

 

...did you really just suggest that is equivalent to five boys intentionally and provocatively wearing their flag shirts and jeering mexican american students on Cinco de Mayo in an attempt to make them feel like outcasts and to deliberately make them feel uncomfortable and out of place merely for having mexican heritage? [/Quote]

 

More blatant misrepresenting the facts; No US Public School, is about to celebrate a Mexican Battle Victory over a French Army 150 years ago (Mexico really doesn't either nor do Americans (Anglo/Latino/Native/Black or whatever) celebrate D-Day in American Schools. Where are you coming up with "jeering", they (4 of the 5) were simply sent home for not turning their t-shirts inside out, because a VP and Principle felt they MIGHT be misunderstood, by other students, Americans with Mexican Heritage, maybe Americans with French Heritage or Mexican Nationals currently attending their MIDDLE SCHOOL. The Superintendent of that School District, put the entire matter in perspective the same or next day, saying nobody is going to be sent home for showing patriotism on any day...For the SF Bay Area, that's a profound statement.

 

I'll get some results of the Atheist demonstration, over local news out of Texas (Cable) but do hope you will post your version of the results.

 

One other tidbit, not worthy of a thread;

 

Joe Zamecki, Texas State Director for American Atheists, declared that the public schools "should not become pulpits or vehicles for promoting one religion over another, or religion in general." [/Quote]

 

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/467523-rerminder-texas-rally-set-for-sunday-may-16-11am

 

Pelosi Urges Catholic Clergy to Preach Amnesty“I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is -- the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels.’ Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘Preach the gospel - sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at the Catholic Community Conference. [/Quote]

 

http://townhall.com/video/pelosi-urges-catholic-clergy-to-preach-amnesty

 

 

 

Not speaking as a Legislature, does she have the legal right to make such a request??? If you say yes, as I would, you would be breaking your own definition of 'separation'...

[iNow]

Oh, I very well have understood your attempted obfuscation of the arguments presented

 

<...>

 

More blatant misrepresenting the facts;

 

<...>

 

I'll get some results of the Atheist demonstration, over local news out of Texas (Cable) but do hope you will post your version of the results.

As I said, Jackson. It was posted as an FYI. I will be traveling for work and won't be in attendance. I will speculate though that my anticipated version of the "results" will be increased national awareness of the issue and hopefully a more optimal educational solution for our young people.

 

Finally, you should confirm your understanding of the word obfuscation, as I've done nothing of the sort, neither here nor elsewhere. Thanks for the subtle ad hom, though.

[bascule]

This is worse than I've ever realized:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

 

Apparently the founding fathers didn't support the separation of church and state. Anything less would be "a denial that this was a nation founded under God." It's not slavery, it's "triangular trade" (and yes, I also learned about triangular trade in school... however it was in the context of a slave trade). The civil rights movement had "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes".

 

I really don't know how to interpret this except thinking that the Texas textbooks are now firmly in the hands of some bible-thumping racists.

[swansont]

Instead of a group of grown idiots with the free time to attend PTA deciding what my son or daughter should learn, how about I decide that? I get to decide what they eat, drink, wear, their healthcare, life or death decisions next to hospital bed - but what they learn is just too much parental control? Give me a break...logic please, everyone.

 

I think it is logical, in principle. The average adult probably does not have the level of competence to choose the curriculum. But a school board or textbook committee is supposed to be there to promote education, rather than indoctrination.

 

 

My previous post was satire, BTW, referring to the creation science/ID tactics. Children don't have the skills or education to decide what is accepted science.

[ParanoiA]

I think it is logical, in principle. The average adult probably does not have the level of competence to choose the curriculum. But a school board or textbook committee is supposed to be there to promote education, rather than indoctrination.

 

 

 

The average person, adult or not, does not have the level of competence to do most anything you can think of, better than a supposed expert. Yet, we still are trusted to do these things, including handling gasoline despite most people not knowing what the flash point is.

 

Seriously, we live in 99% ignorance. Of the thousands of decisions you make everyday, how many of those are actually well informed, thought out, expert level decisions? Only a tiny fraction.

 

Because parents aren't experts in education is not a compelling reason to cherry pick that fundamental right from them. They also aren't dietary experts, nor are they competent sex educators or hazardous materials handlers, but we're not rationalizing injecting ourselves in those decisions? Or...is that next?

 

Interference predicated on these insulting notions of people, or some class of people, being too stupid to understand the "correct" choice doesn't offer any meaningful limit at all whatsoever - if I accept that faulty premise, then I must accept rule by experts only in order to avoid incompetent decisions.

 

Rule by some external force of supposed superior reason is subordination logic, somewhat antithetical to a republic, and fails to account for the quality of decisions made by the subject itself - I know what's best for me better than you know what's best for me. You can only know what you prefer to be best for me.

 

It don't matter if parents ain't real bright 'bout schoolin' and such...if'n they give 'er a try, they'll figure it out...

[john5746]

It don't matter if parents ain't real bright 'bout schoolin' and such...if'n they give 'er a try, they'll figure it out...

 

A parent can choose to home school their kids, but not dictate how the public system educates them. Same with hospitals, etc. You make decisions regarding the treatments for the child, but don't dictate what drugs and procedures are available to everyone else. Besides, you can still talk to the child after school

[pioneer]

The public schools in America are more geared toward liberal indoctrination, with history rewritten in their own image, several decades ago. It might be a good idea to give the children other options beyond the liberal indoctrination, since the liberal indoctrination tends to promote a dual standard which weakens reasoning skills.

 

Let me give a simple example:

 

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.

 

To the liberal mind, the white male is from the dark side bringing all the evil of the world (Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics ). This liberal indoctrination is racist thinking according to the definition. Yet to the irrational liberal mind, this simple logic is way over their head.

 

The liberals also believe in quotas based on race. (certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment). This too is racism, yet in the liberal world where cause and effect break down, an apple is an orange because they say so.

 

Within the dual standard of liberal alternate reality, where cause and effect can break down, the indoctrination of many things, including the hostility toward religion, uses similar dual standard and illogical templates. The liberal control of education needs to teach illogic, since if they taught logic, children would question these inconsistencies. But since they lack these skills, by design, they will parrot and repeat.

 

The liberals are worried that alternate ideas will impact their own version of indoctrination, especially if logical inconsistencies are pointed out and their children learn how to reason.

[Pangloss]

Two posts have been temporarily removed pending moderator review.

 

Ridicule is not acceptable discourse on this forum. The proper response is reason and level-headed discussion, and/or the Reported Post feature. Thanks.

[bascule]

To the liberal mind, the white male is from the dark side bringing all the evil of the world

 

Well Pangloss, care to lead by example? I'd like to see some level headed discussion on this point.

[Pangloss]

Fair enough, I can do that.

 

The public schools in America are more geared toward liberal indoctrination, with history rewritten in their own image, several decades ago. It might be a good idea to give the children other options beyond the liberal indoctrination, since the liberal indoctrination tends to promote a dual standard which weakens reasoning skills.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Other opinions exist.

 

I disagree with the idea of feeding children conservative-biased information to balance liberal-biased information. It's a very flawed argument for a couple of reasons, but mainly because even if it's true (which is a case you haven't made), two wrongs don't make a right.

 

And in this case it's a particularly heinous kind of wrong, because it won't address the last problem you raised -- weakening reasoning skills -- to give them MORE information that you already know to be false.

 

 

To the liberal mind, the white male is from the dark side bringing all the evil of the world (Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics [/b']). This liberal indoctrination is racist thinking according to the definition. Yet to the irrational liberal mind, this simple logic is way over their head.

 

For some extremists, perhaps. You haven't made the case that all liberals are like that.

 

 

 

The liberals also believe in quotas based on race. (certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment[/i']). This too is racism, yet in the liberal world where cause and effect break down, an apple is an orange because they say so.

 

Not "because they say so" -- there's a perfectly reasonable opinion driving that perspective. It's one I happen to not agree with, but they're not being dictatorial (they haven't the basis). They're saying that they feel it's necessary to balance one bad act with another. Kinda like what you were proposing to balance their biased input. It won't work for them for the same reason it won't work for you -- two wrongs don't make a right, they just make more wrong.

 

 

The liberal control of education needs to teach illogic' date=' since if they taught logic, children would question these inconsistencies. But since they lack these skills, by design, they will parrot and repeat.

[/quote']

 

It's true that children parrot and repeat, but that's true whether the source is liberal, conservative, or objectively normal. Children eventually question all premises, or not, based on their education AND personal motivations.

[iNow]

For Jackson33 and others who are curious about the event this weekend, here is a short story from the local ABC affiliate.

 

 

 

K16taQ_vv0s

 

 

 

FYI - There is another rally scheduled today to begin in 3 hours.

 

http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=involved_latest_campaigns_white_out_rally&AddInterest=1281

"Don't White-Out Our History" Rally

Wednesday, May 19, at 1:00 p.m.

William B. Travis Building

1701 Congress Ave., Austin

[swansont]

The public schools in America are more geared toward liberal indoctrination, with history rewritten in their own image, several decades ago. It might be a good idea to give the children other options beyond the liberal indoctrination, since the liberal indoctrination tends to promote a dual standard which weakens reasoning skills.

 

Let me give a simple example:

 

 

 

To the liberal mind, the white male is from the dark side bringing all the evil of the world (Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics ). This liberal indoctrination is racist thinking according to the definition. Yet to the irrational liberal mind, this simple logic is way over their head.

 

The liberals also believe in quotas based on race. (certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment). This too is racism, yet in the liberal world where cause and effect break down, an apple is an orange because they say so.

 

Within the dual standard of liberal alternate reality, where cause and effect can break down, the indoctrination of many things, including the hostility toward religion, uses similar dual standard and illogical templates. The liberal control of education needs to teach illogic, since if they taught logic, children would question these inconsistencies. But since they lack these skills, by design, they will parrot and repeat.

 

The liberals are worried that alternate ideas will impact their own version of indoctrination, especially if logical inconsistencies are pointed out and their children learn how to reason.

 

What you've done here is take the positions of a small number of liberals and extrapolated that behavior to all liberals, which is a logical fallacy, i.e. it is, by definition, illogical. Based on your premise, this means you are the product of liberal indoctrination, and thus a liberal. I, on the other hand, have used logic to arrive at this, and having withstood the indoctrination into illogical thinking, must thus be a conservative.

 

But I am not, so by contradiction we see that your post cannot be true, and is without merit. Short version: anyone who wants to tell you what liberals believe (or what conservatives believe) probably doesn't know what they are talking about, and such an introduction should only serve as a warning that a huge strawman is about to arrive.