New critical race theory laws have teachers scared, confused and self-censoring

You have to be a total imbecile , to write this and actually think it means something.

It means: 'You could be a blue-eyed Slave in Rome. You could be a slant-eyed Slave building the Great Wall of China. You could be olive-skinned Slave building a Pyramid ... in Egypt ... in Mayan Central America.'

All of us have ancestors that were Slaves. Especially those of us that have ancestors in the Old World and have fled to the New World. If you were a Baron, Earl, Duke, or Prince, you wouldn't leave and come to the New World.
 
What a clown , he shows his sexual leaning and is ashamed of it so he attacks it. but then tells us this "Let kids be kids and not learn to hate and denigrate" while he spreads his hate and he denigrates,what a idiot. Mindless simpletons with twisted view of what is right and wrong. Kind of like the Nazi and the Gays and Jews and mentally incompetent.

jbander obviously has no clue what he is talking about but thinks he is a psychologist. I don't want religious views taught in the classroom, either, but that does not mean I am anti (or pro) religion.
 
Kind of hard to figure what is worse selling slaves or buying slaves. Its kind of like what is worse , pissing and the flag and constitution or trying to destroy our democracy to put in a piece of shit for a dictator. same people. Scum, bottom rungers , the lowest form of humanity.

We don't have to decide which is "worse" when we can condemn both. We do not have to divide everything into worse or better.
 
No. But I think you may be in NegroWorld, where Slavery only existed since 1619, and it only involved people from Africa.

Well, the post we were responding to said: "Why did Africans sell their own people into Slavery?" The post kind of put slavery in that context.
 
Sexual orientation is not about physical sex.

It is still a social value and needs to be taught by someone other than the gasbag we hire to teach them to read. There is nothing, and I really mean nothing, at all that makes any teacher more expert at teaching about these things or, clearly it is indicated by what they have tried to teach, that gives them the ability to be able to understand what is age appropriate. Believe me. I have read the books they use to teach these folks to become teachers, it simply does not prepare them to teach this stuff at all.

Simply social values need to be taught by the parents. Just as me teaching them about heterosexuality. Heterosexuality "isn't about sex" either....

The reality is: If you would get upset if Pat Robertson was teaching your kid about social mores and where to find them, then folks on the other side have an equal ability to get upset over your values being taught. It isn't whether it is about "sex" or not, it is whether it is even close to something somebody who has a degree in early childhood education (I've read those textbooks, my wife recently got that degree they do NOT prepare teachers for this) to appropriately teach children.

Let them teach them reading, writing, maths, science... save the social mores for the folks at home, that's where folks that have that responsibility reside and can decide on what is age appropriate for their own children.
 
We don't have to decide which is "worse" when we can condemn both. We do not have to divide everything into worse or better.
The all sin is sin theory, so that even a white lie will send you to Hell?

Interestingly, this isn't how human brains really work. But I agree. There is no "worse" or "better" when slavery is the topic. Selling or buying humans are both atrocities.
 
I think the younger generation is less judgmental than their parents. It does not bother them that others are gay or not. And they are less racist.

This is about parents wanting their children to be racists and bigots.
 
Well, the post we were responding to said: "Why did Africans sell their own people into Slavery?" The post kind of put slavery in that context.

Pretty sure people around the World have been putting other people in 'Slavery' since the Beginning of Man.

"When was the first recording of slavery?
Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia, which dates back as far as 3500 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BCE), which refers to it as an established institution."

History of slavery - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_slavery
 
The all sin is sin theory, so that even a white lie will send you to Hell?

Interestingly, this isn't how human brains really work. But I agree. There is no "worse" or "better" when slavery is the topic. Selling or buying humans are both atrocities.

Any problem with throwing Virgins into a Volcano?
How about tying people to a large Stake, and then burning them alive?
I could go on but ...
 
It is still a social value and needs to be taught by someone other than the gasbag we hire to teach them to read. There is nothing, and I really mean nothing, at all that makes any teacher more expert at teaching about these things or, clearly it is indicated by what they have tried to teach, that gives them the ability to be able to understand what is age appropriate. Believe me. I have read the books they use to teach these folks to become teachers, it simply does not prepare them to teach this stuff at all.

Simply social values need to be taught by the parents. Just as me teaching them about heterosexuality. Heterosexuality "isn't about sex" either....

The reality is: If you would get upset if Pat Robertson was teaching your kid about social mores and where to find them, then folks on the other side have an equal ability to get upset over your values being taught. It isn't whether it is about "sex" or not, it is whether it is even close to something somebody who has a degree in early childhood education (I've read those textbooks, my wife recently got that degree they do NOT prepare teachers for this) to appropriately teach children.

Let them teach them reading, writing, maths, science... save the social mores for the folks at home, that's where folks that have that responsibility reside and can decide on what is age appropriate for their own children.

Outstanding.
 
Pretty sure people around the World have been putting other people in 'Slavery' since the Beginning of Man.

"When was the first recording of slavery?
Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia, which dates back as far as 3500 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BCE), which refers to it as an established institution."

History of slavery - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_slavery

The post referred to slaves being sold by Africans. That is much more limited than just referring to slavery.
 
I'm sure we can measure the evil and weigh it out if you'd like.

'One Death is a Tragedy, One Million Deaths is a Statistic'.

'Slavery' was an accepted norm in the Past.
Rather than being killed in Battle, you surrendered to become a 'Slave'.

Unless we can build a Time Machine, there's no way to change the Past.
'Moaning' over the 'Past' seems to be a great pasttime now.
Not really productive in my my mind.
 
The post referred to slaves being sold by Africans. That is much more limited than just referring to slavery.

When do you think 'Slavery' started in Africa?

"When did slavery first start in the world?
Reading it should be your first step toward learning the full facts about slavery worldwide. In perusing the FreeTheSlaves website, the first fact that emerges is it was nearly 9,000 years ago that slavery first appeared, in Mesopotamia (6800 B.C.)."

'After All, Didn't America Invent Slavery?' - Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com › sites › tomlindsay › 2019/08/30
 
'One Death is a Tragedy, One Million Deaths is a Statistic'.

'Slavery' was an accepted norm in the Past.
Rather than being killed in Battle, you surrendered to become a 'Slave'.

Unless we can build a Time Machine, there's no way to change the Past.
'Moaning' over the 'Past' seems to be a great pasttime now.
Not really productive in my my mind.

It does not matter if it was an "accepted norm". The natural state of man is to be free, whatever takes that freedom from a man without consent (yes, consent is important) is an evil even if it is a "social norm".

At one time it was a social norm to put people in prison for being gay, we now know that was a travesty. Pretending that is was "okay" because it was the "norm of the time" is an attempt to normalize it now. Apartheid was a social norm, and it was still wrong. It was a social norm in Germany to hate "the Juden".. that was also wrong.

Just saying "Social norm" does not make something "not evil" or insurmountably "good" in some fashion it just becomes a weak man's way of trying to pretend that we cannot judge the past to be worse than today.
 
It does not matter if it was an "accepted norm". The natural state of man is to be free, whatever takes that freedom from a man without consent (yes, consent is important) is an evil even if it is a "social norm".

At one time it was a social norm to put people in prison for being gay, we now know that was a travesty. Pretending that is was "okay" because it was the "norm of the time" is an attempt to normalize it now. Apartheid was a social norm, and it was still wrong. It was a social norm in Germany to hate "the Juden".. that was also wrong.

Just saying "Social norm" does not make something "not evil" or insurmountably "good" in some fashion it just becomes a weak man's way of trying to pretend that we cannot judge the past to be worse than today.

I can't disagree about any of that.
Do you have a Time Machine to go back in time to 'correct' all that we view as 'wrong' now?

How much time should we spend on lamenting over the Past?
I don't see Asians spending a lot of time crying in their Noodles about Past Injustices.
I don't see Gays regurgitating the Past Injustices.
I don't see Women rehashing their Past Station in Life.

Jews bring up WW2. A rather Current Event. I can understand how that is fresh in the mind of those affected.
 
Back
Top