"Texas Senate Passes Bill Banning Educators From Teaching KKK as Morally Wrong"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
BattleofHodow
New member
KKK was terrible.
Yet, most USA presidents killed more than the KKK.
Hmm.. but that's more or less KOSHER.
Yet, most USA presidents killed more than the KKK.
Hmm.. but that's more or less KOSHER.
BattleofHodow
New member
Uncomfortable fact for Lefties on slavery in the USA.
The Black slave population in the USA grew faster in population than any population in Europe at the same time frame
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I read the links. The argument in all of them amounts to a non-sequitur fallacy. That is, the conclusions don't follow the premise. In fact, a premise really isn't even given, just conclusions. The bill as written, and quoted on a very limited basis, doesn't come close to validating the conclusions raised. I'm not saying the bill is good or that it should be passed here, but rather that the arguments given in the articles against it are pure bullshit.
Each article tells you of the supposedly horrible consequences if this bill passes but never shows a valid causal link between the bill's wording and those consequences. That is, the reader is supposed to accept and be angry about the consequences given by the writer but not question how the writer got to those conclusions. It's pure propaganda. You can't understand the consequences if you don't understand the premise.
My bet, since all the articles use very similar language, is that one of these articles was written by someone who hates the bill, hasn't read it, drew up their own conclusions, and based on their position at the news source was copied almost verbatim by other news sources without question because the writers there hold similar political views. No critical thinking needed...
(7) the history of white supremacy, including but not
limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and
the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong;
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB3/id/2423654
8. We’re not trying to win elections
Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.
The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can’t compete with it in a popular vote.
The goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible. So there’s absolutely no incentive to work with you in promoting candidates, which is the primary function of your political activity. You’re right when you say “No candidate is good enough” for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04...op-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice-to-you/
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
My point is the articles don't quote anything from the bill, just give conclusions--a non sequitur fallacy.
Well they struck it out. So apparently teachers are allowed to teach that KKK wasn't morally wrong.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Thanks for sharing!
But we believe we are a nation of laws!
And we realize you would like to throw them all out! NO THANKS!
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Reading the bill, that strikeout you list above is just part of a much larger section struck out because, examining it, required a long litany of Leftist views and readings on a polyglot of subjects related to race, gender, and politics. Some of these were incredibly vague like (C)(v) any other founding persons of the United States. Similar language was struck out of Section 2 (1)(D)(vi). The intent in both cases can be seen from the wording to include persons who were related to the Founders but not actually direct participants.
That major strikeout in Section 2 (2)(C) appears as a whole to eliminate a specific set of requirements to load civics courses with a particular, Progressive / Leftist, viewpoint from the overall sources listed and coursework required. The intent of what was struck out was clearly meant to present a very specific point of view to students. It should have been struck out.
What Leftist views and readings?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's the 100% truth.
First, it is. Tennessee law for now. It will later be a Texas law. They share their legislation back and forth.
It bans teaching anything that makes apologists for slavery feel uncomfortable. Basically, you will no longer be able to say slavery was bad, or why it was bad. It quite literally bans facts that cause "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress."
Which is meaningless and prohibits nothing in practice. It is not a teacher's job to teach something is "bad." You just teach the facts and students can easily make those judgments for themselves. It doesn't affect the curriculum requirements that include all the elements of slavery and civil rights and schools are free to add anything to those requirements.
England's population was 10.1 million in 1810, and went to 28.9 million by 1860. That is a 186% population increase. The slave population grew from 1.01 million to 1.78 million in the same period. That is only a 76% increase.
But it gets more complex. Lets say a slaveholder has four children, two to his wife, and two to his slaves. The two slave children are not pure slave genetics. There was a gradual shift of population from free to slave over generations, as slaveholders raped their slaves.
BattleofHodow
New member
I read the Black population was 4 million by 1865.
The law (which can't pass the House as long as they are out of state) did not prohibit teaching slavery is wrong. It changed the language of another law not yet in force that requires teaching the KKK/slavery is wrong. So, it does not prohibit anything.
Senate Bill 3 states that a "teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs."
It prohibits teachers from teaching facts that cause "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress", which turns out to be quite a few facts.
You obviously do not have children. Especially with young children, it is the teacher's job to teach them what is good and what is bad.
Teachers and schools have lost a lot of their power to add to curriculums.
Now you are including the entire Black population? Not just slaves?
It is an expanded population. If child had one Black, and one white parent, he is counted as Black.