Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
I'm talking about your argument. You said the laws were "Lying to everyone". Well, a lie is a claim the speaker doesn't believe. If the legislators believe what they said then it isn't a lie, which means your argument had a hole in it.What's with you and all this "believe" stuff? Does my or the legislator's belief determine whether or not CRT was part of Florida School Curriculum? What in the hell are you talking about?No, you didn't say how the laws lie to everyone. You only said how the laws tell everyone something you don't believe. You didn't say how that's a lie -- you didn't say how the laws tell everyone something the laws' authors don't believe.
I'm a computer programmer. That means I spend much of my life debugging software that doesn't work right. The way to debug software is to look at the output and look at the code and walk through it one step at a time trying to spot loose threads -- anything that looks out of place. When you find a loose thread you pull on it to see what it's connected to, and then you pull on that, and then you pull on the next thing, until either you find out the original loose thread doesn't matter, or you find out the whole fabric comes apart and you see why the software didn't work. A brain is just a soggy computer, and people's reasons for believing things are data that guides the machine through a series of state changes -- i.e., they're software. What's with me and all this "believe" stuff is I'm trying to debug the reasons that led you to your conclusions, so I'm pulling on whatever loose threads I see in your posts. When you said "Lying to everyone", that looked like a loose thread, so I pulled it.
Since I asked if you had evidence the legislators believed CRT wasn't part of the curriculum and you didn't offer any and you're trying to shut down the inquiry as irrelevant, I'm guessing you were speaking figuratively when you said the laws were "lying" -- that was merely your artistic way of saying they were telling everyone something that isn't true. Is that correct? It sounds like you are in effect stipulating that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT.
So if that's what the "lying" thread turned out to be connected to, that takes us to the next question. You seem very sure that CRT isn't in the schools. You haven't been zoomed into every class in Florida schools, whereas parents who have been zoomed in keep popping up saying their kids were getting CRT, but their eyewitness testimony doesn't shake your confidence that you know better. So you must have some strong evidence to make you that confident. And I can guess what that evidence probably is. Please tell me if your evidence is something different, but I'm guessing the way you know CRT isn't in K through 12 is because CRT is college-level material. Is that what you're basing your certainty on? If so, well, that's a pretty darn good reason.
So if you think CRT can't be in grade-school because it's too advanced a subject, but you grant that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT, pulling on that thread takes us to another question. Why is the evidence that's so convincing to you so unconvincing to them? It's not like nobody bothered to tell them CRT is a college subject.
I'm open to any theory on that point you have evidence for; but as the saying goes, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. The obvious hypothesis that most easily explains how two people can reach such different conclusions from the same evidence is that they simply disagree about what "CRT" means. The Republicans and the Democrats are using the term in two different senses.
So that means as we continue to follow the threads in the fabric of reasoning, we need to check each occurrence of "CRT" to see whether that use of the term stands for what Republicans mean by CRT or what Democrats mean by CRT. For instance,
"The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease."
That appears to mean "The same whitey this anti-what Republicans mean by 'CRT' law is meant to appease."
"CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."
That appears to mean "What Democrats mean by 'CRT' was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."
"The only purpose this addition to Florida Law is to tell a bunch of punk ass white people not to worry about that thing that isn't happening because the precrime police is on the job."
That conclusion appears to be derived from reasoning that relies on using the term "CRT" in different senses at different stages. I.e., your "precrime" contention is based on an equivocation fallacy.
Knock yourself out. Hey man, I didn't claim CRT is in the schools. I came into this thread to point out the OP was making a propagandistic trumped-up accusation against his political opponents, and people shouldn't do that. That is entirely consistent with the possibility that his political opponents are wrong.There is no evidence that CRT was being taught in any Florida school, so not until you or anyone can present evidence that it was will I state otherwise.
What are you asking? Do you want to know whether I believe what Democrats mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? No, I don't. Or do you want to know whether I believe what Republicans mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? I wouldn't know -- what evidence I've seen isn't definitive one way or the other. Or do you want to know whether I believe the Platonic Form of what 'CRT' Truly Is was a part of Florida School Curriculum? No, I don't believe in Platonic Forms. I observe that two speech communities use the same word in two different senses; but that sort of thing happens all the time and it doesn't automatically mean one community is using it right and the other is using it wrong, any more than it's wrong for some people to speak Vietnamese instead of English.Do you believe CRT was a part of Florida School Curriculum?
You now appear to be switching from anti-CRT hysteria to whether HB7 is sound public policy. A worthy subject, but one I don't currently have bandwidth to get into.The law is "revising requirements for required instruction on the history of African Americans." You read that right. It's only revising how African American History is taught. This same theme leaks into their attempts to address fair treatment in the private sector as well to make European Americans feel better. Here are examples.
...
What particular race statistically out performs others in holding the position to oppress? Again, this is more language with the purpose to make European Americans people feel better.