Look what the schools are doing to our children

It is good real America corrects the naive and misinformed of the Alt Right.

 

Ahh what the matter Jake, not sure enough of yourself so you post a childish "I know you are but what am I" without a quote

 

BUT ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!

FMD some of these people need serious & long term help. Possibly medication.

 

They have quite the persecution complex

 

righties tactic. Make up facts, can't present evidence and when called on it, whine and deflect.

Thanks letting us know you are full of hot air.

 

The OP presented his argument. If you disagree present your argument and discredit his if you can. It's called debate which some of us are here for. Just saying "prove it" is the cowards way out and you set yourself up as judge and jury. Neat trick but I won't play.

 

How dare they!

 

The alt right, above, as usual, fails in this argument.

 

The question that should be asked is, were they educated on all positions concerning the second amendment, the reason why some people are compelled to murder small, and large scale.

There is a notable difference in education and indoctrination, a good measure of which is being performed would be the percentage of for or against! If you find a class of thirty and they all parrot the same ideology "Guns are bad" then you can be certain that indoctrination was the tool used and not education.

 

You won't "play" because you can't defend a childish logic. There is nothing to discuss or disprove when the idiotic premise is this:

"The schools and the MSM have brainwashed our children into thinking they can tell their parents they have no second amendment rights to own guns."

There is nothing to "debate" this this line of logic.

 

Sorry, that's a pure bull crap story. You can post some actual research on the actual numbers of home school children vs. school taught children entering college, of course.

Right?

 

We are all "brainwashed" as kids to some degree. The question is more in relation to the nature of that brainwashing.

 

Then conservatives can get off their lazy asses and get teaching credentials and start schools and universities. All I see here is constant 5 year-old whining about "liberal" colleges and teachers - not a single person who says, "I'm going to get my teaching credential or Masters or Doctorate so I can teach and change things." Whatever. It's just bull crap parroting of some right-wing radio host wailing like the same 5 year-old about "bad people" who got off their asses to get their degrees.

 

It is your thread and your claim - the onus is then on you to prove your claim true - not on someone else to prove it wrong.

For example. Premise "the moon around Pluto is made of Green Cheese" - Not being able to prove this claim false -does not make it true.

That said - let me make your argument for you.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the main principle on which this nation was founded : That individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Kids then have no clue when the Gov't is acting outside its legitimate authority.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach kids the basics of Philosophy (Logic, Logical Fallacy, What constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking)
Kids then have little ability to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them from Politicians and the MSM on a daily basis.

Lacking these basic tools - the raging masses are then susceptible to propaganda - they will buy into dumb arguments (which is a form of mind control/brainwashing)

The plague of Utilitarian justification for law is one example. Utilitarianism is justification for law on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective". This justification ignores individual liberty (and on this basis alone is should be scrapped in all but the most grey of situations).

Despite you arguing for individual liberty - You may have succumbed to some of these bad arguments !

Such as: "if it saves one life" or "Harm reduction" as justification for law.

These arguments are very insidious because they sound good on the surface "Who does not want to save one life" ?

If "If it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? Would that not save one life ? What about boating .. one could drown ? Driving a car ? Forget it. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

As it turns out this is a terrible justification for law .. it is totalitarianism in Sheeps clothing.

Arguments against Pot, Prostitution, Guns, privacy rights, Sugar and arguments for censorship, asset forfeiture, arbitrary detainment search and seizure ... are all based on "fallacious Utilitarianism"

If you have agreed with these arguments in relation to the above - YOU are under the influence of mind control.

 

Godwin's law never says to close the thread. It's just a description of what inevitably happens.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120829094739/http://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law

 

I used cursive in school as well. (through grad school), but since then, I rarely use it outside of signatures. I type things that I want others to read. I can type faster than I can either print or write (in cursive) legibly.

 

Might want to get those peepers checked or at least point out where you see any political affiliation in my post?

 

rdfoolin needs to be repeated again for the alt right haters.

There is nothing to discuss or disprove when the idiotic premise is this: "The schools and the MSM have brainwashed our children into thinking they can tell their parents they have no second amendment rights to own guns."

 

I refer you to the following:

The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.

So, what this means in practical terms:

If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.

If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.

If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the other side.
​

I believe at least 2 of the 3 above has been reached.

 

Same here. 74 wpm on an upright Royal in 1952.

 

Why not begin sharing our definitions of constitutional intent, just to demonstrate that the people are the only ones that can define what is not listed? In doing this, the doctrine of reserved rights, the 9th Amendment is brought forth to assure we can adapt socially.

This does more than deal with the misrepresentations that the gov and MSM are working for, it sets the stage for a lawful and peaceful resolution to all of the BS.

 

I quoted the actual origin of Godwin's law. Nothing about a conversation ending.

 

Has anyone supported with objective factual evidence the OP that this is what our children are being taught in school: "Social Justice, victimization and that whiteness is privilege""

 

What would you accept as evidence? Teachers out with their students demanding that the government do something to save them from the menace of an armed populace?

 

No one on the far right can offer factual objective evidence that our school curriculum is "Social Justice, victimization and that whiteness is privilege."

The OP is sheer stupidity.