Texas schools board rewrites US history

PM sent.

FYI, I've had sex with women. I don't see the problem... Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

PM answered.

I don't see the problem with any choice you make either. Its none of my business as its none of your business or governments business what I do behind closed doors. But any one forcing an agenda without equal time for opposing views is hypocritcal. Its also ignorant to dismiss opposing views as bigoted, hypocritical or whatever adjective you assign.

But any one forcing an agenda without equal time for opposing views is hypocritcal. Its also ignorant to dismiss opposing views as bigoted, hypocritical or whatever adjective you assign. Originally Posted by bp6570

That is what they're doing in TX, they're changing the history books to reflect some individuals belief system and it is hypocritical of them to do so. If they don't like what their children are being taught, put them in a school where they focus on that curriculum, not change all the schoolbooks histories to suit themselves.
That is the point that I'm trying to make. What is good for some is not good for all.


I wasn't trying to derail onto what parents are or are not teaching their kids. That really isn't any of my business.

That is what they're doing in TX, they're changing the history books to reflect some individuals belief system and it is hypocritical of them to do so. If they don't like what their children are being taught, put them in a school where they focus on that curriculum, not change all the schoolbooks histories to suit themselves.
That is the point that I'm trying to make. What is good for some is not good for all.


I wasn't trying to derail onto what parents are or are not teaching their kids. That really isn't any of my business. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

First, what proof do we have that these new standards are deleting any previous history for another alternate view point? Nothing that I read in that article stating this to be the case. Secondly, history books have been eliminating important facts that do not fit into some folks social agenda for years. Maybe these standards are correcting flaws that have been present for years?

Try this one, it's more descriptive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...exas.html?_r=1

This is an excerpt from the original article that I posted:



Cynthia Dunbar does not have a high regard for her local schools. She has called them unconstitutional, tyrannical and tools of perversion. The conservative Texas lawyer has even likened sending children to her state's schools to "throwing them in to the enemy's flames". Her hostility runs so deep that she educated her own offspring at home and at private Christian establishments.
Now Dunbar is on the brink of fulfilling a promise to change all that, or at least point Texas schools toward salvation. She is one of a clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state's education board. This week they are expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.
The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favour of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy.
"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."
Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery.
Here: Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the "significant contributions" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war.
Here: The new curriculum asserts that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an important element of a democratic society. Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.
Here: There is also a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified.
Here: The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade", and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

BP I beg to differ. It is not ignorant to dismiss opposing views, whatever they may be, after giving those views sufficient thought and taken time to my remove emotions from the dismissal. If opposing thoughts deserve dismissal, then they will be dismissed, and it is only fair and right to do so.

For example, if someone thinks child labor laws should be ignored or repealed I will dismiss those particular ideas, because I have read histories of the United States and I understand that Child Labor laws were put in place to protect abuses.

Actual ignorance of the facts should be dismissed as ignorance. The dismissal of said ignorance is not ignorance it is a choice I make to refrain from cluttering my mind with bullshit spouted by the low information ranters, the completely uninformed, the otherwise ignorant and the blatantly foolish crap spewers. If I were to guess, I would say that you dismiss ideas presented by people who are obviously wrong, wrong headed, full of shit, or even crooked and trying to steal a buck every day. That is not ignorance. Its life.

People who have new ideas, people who do educate themselves and people who don't spew barely hidden bigotry are those who should and will be listened to.

If a person embraces views on one issue that diametrically oppose their views on another then they are being hypocritical. Some people may disagree or not know they are doing this. You for example BP did insinuate that it is difficult to explain to a child about homosexuality, and you won't even have a book about same parent households in your home. Yet you,(and I as well) are admitted whore-mongers. Both are considered by the main stream to be sexual deviance. Is it any less difficult to explain to a child why Daddy pays for a blow job, or a hot piece of hooktard ass compared to explaining why a different Daddy loves another man, or a gets a blow job from another man? To me therein lies a hypocrisy. Homosexuals and fucktards are both deviants, one is no worse than the other in my book. I guess what I am saying is people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Maybe having a third party teach these things isn't such a bad idea?

You are of course entitled to disagree, and I would listen to your argument. But if that argument is poor or ineffectual...well it gets dismissed and said dismissal is not ignorance. Its a choice.

I also say that it bears repeating that to dismiss arguments, statements and or other things that reflect hypocrisy, and also BS, lies, or actual ignorance is choice you make every day just as I do.

Here: Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the "significant contributions" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war.
Here: The new curriculum asserts that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an important element of a democratic society. Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.
Here: There is also a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified.
Here: The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade", and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that the Federal Government shall not establish a state religon. The roots of this amendment were the experiences of the pilgrims in England. The first white people in the Americas migrated here to escape the Church of England which was the state sponsored religon of Britian & punished those who had differing beliefs. Separation of Church & State has been preverted in the 20th century.

The founders intent with the Second Amendment was to prevent the Federal Government from usurping the authority of the people. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." Read the Federalist papers (shich are never mentioned or included in any High School text book or curriculum) for the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is the only one of the Bill of Rights to speciafically mention a right guaranteed to the people. Also, know your history, Hilter, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, the dictators of Turkey, etc. all enacted gun control BEFORE their riegn of terror.

Many scientific discoveries are the result of military necessity & innovation. The Freaking Internet being one.

The book "Radical Son"by David Horowitz offers much evidenced that Joe McCarthy was justified in the questions he asked during the 1950's.

The Palestians have never been a real nation & there by their only claim to land in the middle east is that they have lived their. But Jewish history in the region dates back 3,000 years. All other civilizations that date back that far no longer exist except as part of a subculture. They include coptic christians, assyrians, mesopotamians and others. Where do the Palestinians make their claim? Since the inception of Israel, the state has been in a constant state of war with its neighbors brought on by their neighbors. With in 2 years of the creation of the Israeli state, they were at war, started by Egypt, a muslim state. Who is the true agressor in this conflict? Its important to remember that the United Nations sanctioned, through a vote of the nations of the world, including the USSR, the creation of Israel.

Bp6570, I kinda ran out of things to say being as I've already posted all the opinions I care to on the matter. LOL
I think it's wrong.
You think it's right.
Truce?


(I'm really no fun to argue with, I get distracted and start thinking about penises)

BP I beg to differ. It is not ignorant to dismiss opposing views, whatever they may be, after giving those views sufficient thought and taken time to my remove emotions from the dismissal. If opposing thoughts deserve dismissal, then they will be dismissed, and it is only fair and right to do so.

For example, if someone thinks child labor laws should be ignored or repealed I will dismiss those particular ideas, because I have read histories of the United States and I understand that Child Labor laws were put in place to protect abuses.

Actual ignorance of the facts should be dismissed as ignorance. The dismissal of said ignorance is not ignorance it is a choice I make to refrain from cluttering my mind with bullshit spouted by the low information ranters, the completely uninformed, the otherwise ignorant and the blatantly foolish crap spewers. If I were to guess, I would say that you dismiss ideas presented by people who are obviously wrong, wrong headed, full of shit, or even crooked and trying to steal a buck every day. That is not ignorance. Its life.

People who have new ideas, people who do educate themselves and people who don't spew barely hidden bigotry are those who should and will be listened to.

If a person embraces views on one issue that diametrically oppose their views on another then they are being hypocritical. Some people may disagree or not know they are doing this. You for example BP did insinuate that it is difficult to explain to a child about homosexuality, and you won't even have a book about same parent households in your home. Yet you,(and I as well) are admitted whore-mongers. Both are considered by the main stream to be sexual deviance. Is it any less difficult to explain to a child why Daddy pays for a blow job, or a hot piece of hooktard ass compared to explaining why a different Daddy loves another man, or a gets a blow job from another man? To me therein lies a hypocrisy. Homosexuals and fucktards are both deviants, one is no worse than the other in my book.

You are of course entitled to disagree, and I would listen to your argument. But if that argument is poor or ineffectual...well it gets dismissed and said dismissal is not ignorance. Its a choice.

I also say that it bears repeating that to dismiss arguments, statements and or other things that reflect hypocrisy, and also BS, lies, or actual ignorance is choice you make every day just as I do. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I don't disagree with anything you have said. You are right, we dismiss the ridiculous everyday.

Government serves a purpose when they protect children from the abuse we have seen in the past. But this purpose is drawn from the consent of the people. It is logical & only the extreme will disagree.

I also agree that its is not my business what or how others choose to live their lives. If the choices they make are harming no one or no ones property then government has no business making moral choices for us. I include in this victimless crimes like prostitution & some drug crimes.

I never said that I wouldn't explain to my children what Homosexuality is in my understanding of it. What I reject is it being insinuated into my childs life because of some one else's agenda & being forced to address it even though I may not be ready to discuss it with my child. And again, my view of homosexuality is that its is a choice that is none of my business. Its not a choice I would make but I know & accept many friends who are.

Thanks for the reasoned response, many times we don't get that around here.

Just for the record I think people who are gay are born that way and discover it in spite of most of them being raised in a hetero environment.

I honestly have only known maybe half a dozen gay men, but they all felt homosexuality chose them not the other way around.

Anyhow, another discussion, another thread.

Thanks for the reasoned response, many times we don't get that around here.

Just for the record I think people who are gay are born that way and discover it in spite of most of them being raised in a hetero environment.

I honestly have only known maybe half a dozen gay men, but they all felt homosexuality chose them not the other way around.

Anyhow, another discussion, another thread. Originally Posted by Bartman1963

You have probably known more than you think, but your are a reasonable man & thus accepted folks for who they are without care as to what they are.

This country needs to heed Dr. King (who was a republican btw, had to get that last left hook in, LOL), "Judge me by the content of my character".

Enjoyed the debate Bartman & Allie, have a great weekend.