• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

jt512 said:
OK, so what I wrote initially was actually correct. By "public education" I meant "public schools," which, in the United States, means the ones that aren't privately owned, that is, those that are part of public school districts.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the issue. The state still maintains its obligation to educate the population and extracts taxes for that purpose. But then it avoids Constitutional entanglement with religious indoctrination through a public-private partnership. This effectively exempts state-provided education from supervision by the judiciary. Those who fear that taxpayer-funded education will be used for religious indoctrination really do have a leg to stand on, and there is no judicial remedy.
 
Pixel42 said:
Do you think children have any rights when it comes to how they are educated, or is it just their parents?
Click to expand...
They do. But how power do we want to give governments to determine what a proper education is? The state of California, for example, thinks kids should be indoctrinated into critical race theory, antisemitism, and radical gender ideology in elementary school, against the wishes of parents.
 
Donald says that to reporters in the Oval Office "everybody loves" his proposal for the US to "take over" Gaza



"Everybody loves it" but it wasn't the right time for further questions
 
Safe-Keeper said:
@jt512
Okay, I'll bite. Can you define critical race theory with your own words, and tell us specifically what your problem with CRT is? No vagueries like "political correctness", "bias", or "communism", actual points and why you disagree they should be taught. We'll wait.
Click to expand...
I've done that multiple times on this website and elsewhere. Somewhere there is a whole thread about it, where such discussion would be on-topic.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
[Citation needed]
Click to expand...

Safe-Keeper said:
@jt512
Okay, I'll bite. Can you define critical race theory with your own words, and tell us specifically what your problem with CRT is? No vagueries like "political correctness", "bias", or "communism", actual points and why you disagree they should be taught. We'll wait.
Click to expand...

thaiboxerken said:
He should define anti-semitism and "radical gender ideology" while he's at it. I suspect he gets his definitions from The Party.
Click to expand...
My guess, from his use of the word "indoctrinated," is that you won't get citations or definitions so much as you'll get caricatures. In fact, and somewhat ironically, the use of "indoctrinated" here suggests a certain amount of indoctrination.
 
turingtest said:
My guess, from his use of the word "indoctrinated," is that you won't get citations or definitions so much as you'll get caricatures. In fact, and somewhat ironically, the use of "indoctrinated" here suggests a certain amount of indoctrination.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are plenty of claims that California is teaching these advanced topics to third-graders. All the ones I've chased down ultimately end in undocumented hearsay. This seems to be par for the course, so I tend to disregard the frantic pearl-clutching along those lines. In the abstract, I can understand why some parent might be upset that her third-grader has to respect 17 genders, or whatever. Granting arguendo that this happens, I don't see why the answer is also to fund teachings that Joseph Smith is a vessel for the word of God and that anyone thinking there are more than 2 genders is a second-class citizen. As long as we extract taxes for public education, I think there should be public debate over what is taught. But my impression of where that debate stands indicates that people are still confusing secular with anti-religion.
 
turingtest said:
Prolly shouldn't have introduced it here yourself then, huh?
Click to expand...
It was ovviously relevant to introduce it as an example of the risk of governments determining curricula. Elaborating on it is another matter, just as obviously.
 
JayUtah said:
Oh, there are plenty of claims that California is teaching these advanced topics to third-graders. All the ones I've chased down ultimately end in undocumented hearsay. This seems to be par for the course, so I tend to disregard the frantic pearl-clutching along those lines. In the abstract, I can understand why some parent might be upset that her third-grader has to respect 17 genders, or whatever. Granting arguendo that this happens, I don't see why the answer is also to fund teachings that Joseph Smith is a vessel for the word of God and that anyone thinking there are more than 2 genders is a second-class citizen. As long as we extract taxes for public education, I think there should be public debate over what is taught. But my impression of where that debate stands indicates that people are still confusing secular with anti-religion.
Click to expand...
That really is kind of at the heart of it. I think even most conventionally religious people understand that "secular" doesn't actually mean anything more than "neutral." The problem is with the more stridently religious, the ones who are behind the push for public funding for their private beliefs in education- people who believe they are privy to The Truth aren't going to be able to see anyone who doesn't share their convictions as anything but an enemy to it and to them; an indifference to their faith isn't any better than an avowed denial of it.
 
jt512 said:
It was ovviously relevant to introduce it as an example of the risk of governments determining curricula. Elaborating on it is another matter, just as obviously.
Click to expand...
Oh, obviously- "I can make any off-topic claim here that I want to, but, gosh, I shouldn't have to support the claim where I made it!" Ok then- how about a link to the discussions where (you claim) you've done both?
 
turingtest said:
My guess, from his use of the word "indoctrinated," is that you won't get citations or definitions so much as you'll get caricatures. In fact, and somewhat ironically, the use of "indoctrinated" here suggests a certain amount of indoctrination.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I love to ask them to define their buzzwords just to watch them squirm. Or, more frequently, go completely quiet.
 
jt512 said:
That’s delusional.
Click to expand...
I'm finding it hard to know what is real and what isn't these days. I go to bed and wake up to another assault on the institutions of democracy. I see a dictator at work who has the intelligence and foresight of a three year old. I see a system of checks and balances has abrogated their role in deference to a psychopath.

Let's be clear here. No other President in the history of the United States has acted like Trump has since he took office in this term. None. Not even close. The Constitution was not drawn up to facilitate this kind of behaviour.

He has shown no regard at for for the basic rule of law.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Yeah, I love to ask them to define their buzzwords just to watch them squirm. Or, more frequently, go completely quiet.
Click to expand...
Or, as here, an outright refusal, on the ground that supporting a claim of an example they themselves made here would suddenly (and obviously) be irrelevant here. Which I suppose is a sort of squirm...
 
I will repeat my assertion that Trump is no more than a babbling, mindless, dissolute sock-puppet operated by the law-disdainng authors of Project 2025 in the shadows. Donny is useful now only as a humourous distraction, and as a rhinocerous-skinned lightning rod for global ire.

To shut Trump down, first his faceless minions need to be removed. They are actually an easier target than the SCOTUS-shielded toad rectum personally. Without them, Trump becomes just a cartoon caricature.

Start with Musk. Arrest him and his "team" for break and enter of government properties and theft of government data. I understand that can lead to sentences of many years in jail. Their actions need to be researched and evaluated, followed by appropriate trials, convictions and sentencing. Sure, they will be pardoned. But Trump’s pardon power extends only to sentences, not to the trials and public shaming.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom