Book banning and other stuff tangent from Trump assassination attempts thread

Depends. Is the student using it as a way to insult others? Is he saying that "The Merchant of Venice" justifies the Holocaust?

Well, actually, it is a prerequisite, because unlike you I am qualified to set curriculum. I don't care what a childless, uneducated boob like you has to say about curriculum. The first step, if you don't want to educate yourself (and you don't), is to actually have a kid and at least have some experience with a school that isn't decades in the past.

The fallacy here is your slippery slope.

Of course their rights are not unlimited, but homeschooling to a minimal standard IS one of those rights. They are not obligated to accept your curriculum.

It would be one thing if it were a range of opinions, and not primiting one point of view. The goal is not fomenting spirited debate, but "This is the one correct way, and if you don't play along you are a bigot."

Is he refusing to refer to a boy as a girl?

Is he refusing to accept that he needs to acknowledge the responsibilities of inherited racial guilt?

I have no doubt you tell anyone who will listen how "in charge" you are, little Napolean.

You sidestepped the social programming angle to answer yet another question nobody fucking asked.

And this is why your opinion is useless.
It is presented as a range of opinions. Which you wound know if you had any experience, any whatsoever, with education.

A slippery slope fallacy is presenting a statement you make about one scenario as applying to other more extreme scenarios.
That's not what has been happening here, since you made a series of absolute statements and continued to defend them as applying in all circumstances, including when specifically questioned. Only to now reverse yourself, of course.

I agree. It's nice that you've now conceded that. It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just done it in the first place.

Now the debate becomes about what the "minimal standard" consists of. And I'd suggest that there can legitimately be different perspectives on that, with some nuance and understanding required in order to resolve the matter. Dogmatically sticking to our slogans is unlikely to achieve it.

It says a lot about you that you are so fucking sensitive about how little experience in anything that you possess.

Also, all education is social programming, you fucking idiot. It's not even worth addressing.

Objectively true? Common Core? Say it ain't so!

Learning to wear clothing instead of running around nude is "social programming".
If UA is butt-sore that he can't weld in nothing but an apron, I wouldn't at all be stunned.

What in the actual fuck are you guys even talking about

Split off all the off-topic arguing.

If things are presented as "This is the one correct way, and if you don't play along you are a bigot" as you are now saying, your earlier statement "But they are not presented as objective, immutable truth." is incorrect. Things are presented as an objective, immutable truth. Just one you disagree with/don't like.

If things are typically taught with multiple viewpoints, your latest statement that things are taught where there is one correct way is incorrect and your response to my point that we need to throw out the teaching about the literature, history, philosophy etc, because of them not being taught in an "objectively true" fashion is also undermined.

I'm not sure where UA went to school, but none of the schools in went to or taught at ever tried to clamp down on debate. Even the Catholic high school i went to encouraged spirited philosophical debates, where I often engaged in heated discussions about Catholic doctrine with the theology professors.
The closest I saw to what Albert is describing was my bio teacher saying up front she wouldn't acknowledge any "But it's just a theory!" bullshit on evolution, regardless of religious beliefs. And, again, that was in a Catholic high school. In the 90's.
This is why I say he can't be taken seriously since he clearly, clearly has no idea what it's actually like in a classroom these days.

yep toughest fingers on the internet. short mans syndrome(SMS) on display here just not sure if it's physical or mental

go do something you understand.......make a sammich don't fergit the extra pickles

Their current insult to logic is "all education is social programming, therefore no programming can be excluded or refused."

True or false: One point of view on identity politics is advanced as the correct one.

Not "SOME people think all white people owe reparations."

Not "SOME people think biology is subordinate to emotion."

I know it's possible to be expelled for denying someone's bullshit "gender identity," which you rationalize and tapdance around woth you usual dishonest bullshit.

Um, false?
I've not known reparations to be discussed in any history class below college levels.
And whatever your "biology is subordinate to emotion" line refers to, that isn't discussed in classrooms either.
So, you're ignorant AND an idiot.

Link?

fuck... you can't even get through the first sentence without setting up for false binaries.

doesn't follow as "identity politics" is something you and your ilk have made up as a catch-all for anyone who doesn't identify the way you'd enforce.

I'm sure SOME people would like to frame it that way so as to advance a claim they're being victimized by the historically disenfranchised.

I would say this is a false dilemma you're putting forth here, because it's not as simple as "true or false" across the board.

I am sure there are teachers/schools/school systems that do advance certain topics on race/gender/sexuality/etc. as objectively true. It is probably taught in most schools that people of all races, religions, etc. do have and should have equal rights, for an example.

I would expect that most schools teach that there is nothing wrong with being gay and indeed those people should be proud of their identities as gay. There are some schools that teach that it is shameful/sinful.

I'd expect on the subject of reparations, there is not a school anywhere that teaches that subject from the perspective of "It is obvious that reparations are owed" or "It is obvious that reparations are not owed." I would imagine that to the extent it is taught at all, there is at least some acknowledgement that there are multiple sides to the issue. If you have a specific example where the concept of reparations is taught as "Whites must pay for this injustice in this way," feel free to cite to it.

I don't even know what you mean by "SOME people think biology is subordinate to emotion" so I don't know how to address that.

ETA: Oh, belatedly I guess this is supposed to be about transgenderism, like: "Some people believe that being biologically male or female is is less important than believing you are male or female." I don't know how much this is taught at any school level in coursework or even counseling. I think this is probably more of a bugaboo of the right. But if you have specific examples where it is taught in actual classes, feel free to link to them.

Anyway, my point is you seem to have put yourself in a logical Catch-22.

If it is true that schools generally teach a subject in the history/social studies/arts type arenas as "objectively true," then your statement that they generally present those as not objectively true is false.

If it is true that there are a variety of ways that schools teach those subjects, then it would seem that you are saying those subjects should not be taught because they are not "objectively true."

If I'm missing something here, feel free to explain.

So, as for book banning:


https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/s...tent/287-f2f71b27-0538-454f-8e58-a0741a3a7d6a

Salient quote:

So, Id love to hear how exactly these "lawmakers" expect bookstores to comply. Will they have to pull pretty much all their books from the shelves? Will they have to prohibit anyone under 18 from entering the store? Or maybe they'll all just close up shop in Texas.
I mean, holy shit, welcome to your slippery slope, guys.
Now let's see @Uncle Albert come here and say this is a good thing, actually.

I remember when we had to learn sex education in the 4th grade. Now this was way, way waaaaaaay back in the 1980s, back during Reagan's "Morning in America" and all that horseshit. Our assistant principle took the girls into one classroom, and our principal took the boys into the other classroom.

He began explaining how the human reproductive system worked, using an overhead projector to occasionally show images of body parts. Of course, it being the 4th grade, a lot of us laughed when he said the word "penis," and "scrotum," and all of that, but he would admonish us gently that this wasn't something to laugh at, that this was how life worked, that it was beautiful, that it was something God gave us the capacity to do, and that we should be responsible and knowledgeable about how our bodies worked.

He was a deeply devout Christian man, and he wasn't afraid to talk about sex. The issue for these modern day assholes is that our principal was speaking from a position of protection, he believed knowledge was power, and that we had a right over our own bodies, and that we should take care of them. The modern Christian Nationalist/Evangelicals would have torn him limb from limb. I do recall some parents claiming that he was trying to "teach filth," because they were ashamed of their own bodies, they had been taught that shame.

Our principal tried to teach us to love ourselves, to accept ourselves. That sex was a part of life, and that we needed to know enough about it to make smart decisions. It was the most basic of information, nothing tawdry, nothing filthy, nothing obscene. He was a good man doing the right thing educating growing children on how their bodies worked.

Also, "penis" "butt," and "vagina" became the words on the playground for the next few weeks. You know, because kids.

This stuff isn't hard to understand, but if you went by the UAs of the world, kids are being taught to shit in litter boxes and are being force fed trans medications, because people like him are exactly like the Satanic Panic perverts of the 1980s, they don't know what the fuck is going on, but they're terrified by their own imaginations of what *might* be going on.

These assholes keep tossing "harmful" around like that's "settled science".
Like it's self-evident.
They haven't lifted a pinky finger toward proving that premise.
They have a whole Mount Everest to climb, and they won't even pack the equipment.

Their whole thing is "I just know it's bad! I just know!! I!! Just!! Knooooww!!".
But, ditto gender roles, and abortion.

But!! The side that wants freedom are the authoritarians.
Because something, something, "inflicting" something....

4th? Jesus, mine didn't kick in until 7th.
Guess I'll chock it up to different states. I thought Maine was the "hip and with it" state, but guess not.

Yep, 4th grade.
We did get a refresher in 7th grade that went into more detail of how the reproductive systems of the human body worked in general. In my 10th grade biology class, we dug into XY, XX, XXY chromosomes and so on, which is why I laugh my ass off when people say "it's basic biology that there is only male and female," because even my 10th grade biology class was like "nah, that's bullshit."

Now, keep in mind that in the 10th grade, my fundamentalist Evangelical arc was in full swing, and I simply couldn't believe this was true, but my overachieving ass did the homework, and it stayed with me for a very long time.

Books are keys to understanding. They unlock doors to knowledge, and knowledge is not only power, it's essential to living. I love books. The idea that someone would want to burn them makes my blood boil. I remember after 9/11, I knew a few people who were burning Qurans. It just struck me as dark ages shit. I was still a Christian at that point, and even I was like "no, burning someone's holy book is just wrong. Blaming terrorism on an entire group of people without examination is just wrong."

Meanwhile, in Utah, an 18th book has been banned: Water for Elephants.
I guess carny life is too extreme for Utahns.
All but 1 of the banned books are written by women, by the way.
Also also: The ban includes personal use, so kids can't even bring their own copies to read at school.
Parents rights! Right, @Uncle Albert ?

If a teacher tries to take away the book, I guess they would have the right to use deadly force to prevent it. Because, it's mine and if you don't want to get killed don't try to take what's mine! Right?

Back in the 70s (or was it the 80's?) Penthouse Magazine had an interview with a UK priest named Chad Vara. At one point he was appalled because a girl committed suicide because she thought she was pregnant, when she just was ignorant of how menstrual cycles work. After that he told himself "I shall tell young people about sex." He was one of the few people in authority during the 50's and 60's willing to tell children the blunt truth about sex. The shit he took was unbelievable simply because he saw a need that was going unfilled and took it on himself to fill it. We need more people like Coloratura's principal and Rev Vara because too many people are too embarrassed and/or ignorant to tell their kids the truth.