Politically Correct Council wants to Destroy Textbook

[whichphilosophy]

What if a textbook had to have some educational purpose. Racist prejudice is not an educational purpose. If all the people can attend public school, we should not have books that promote racist prejudice. We also don't need books on "intelligent design" in a biology classroom.

The schools and universities can choose their books that best give a good education. Some of these may even quote such nonsense. It is good to quote these or not prevent people from reading these so that they could be used for ridiculing those who printed such stereotypes.

 

[ronburgundy]

More accurately, ...

No, it's not more accurately.

...you find yourself incapable of giving a rational argument against real instances on this board where people have pointed to PC excesses.

Anecdotal evidence and/or following hysteria of pc "examples" doesn't mean there is an epidemic or that there is not hysteria.

When the incidents are not one-time isolated things but institutionalized policies at a large % of Universities restricting free speech, and when more than half of Democrats 18-34 years old favor government prohibiting speech that merely might offend some minority groups, then there is a serious widespread problem and a dangerous ideological shift on the left towards the very kind of authoritarian intolerance that the term "politically incorrect" originally referred to when used by liberals against the hard line communists.

So, you invent your own strawman anti-PC complaint

No, I just started something out of virtually nothing like many of the so-called PC issues.

You invented your own fake complaint and then falsely equated it with most complaints about PC over-reach with which your strawman has nothing in common. The only possible motive for creating your own mock complaint would be because the many actual complaints already offered on this board don't actually possess the easy to attack characteristics of your strawman.

...that you can then mock as though it was an argument from the people whose real arguments you are incapable of responding to.

Since I have responded to such arguments, your untrue assertion is disproved.

You have not responded to such arguments. That requires rational discourse and actually accounting for evidence and logic in those arguments,which you never do. You just engaged in the same kind of fallacious hand-waiving rhetoric that you did in this OP.

Thus, the op.

Thus the op either went over your head or you are providing cover for right-wingers.

No, I get the OP completely. It is your standard practice of logical fallacy and deliberate misrepresentation of position that you are not capable of responding to on their merits. And PC critics did not originate frome nor are they limited now to "right wingers". They are complaints by actual liberals that care about liberty made against left-wing authoritarians.

It's a tired blend of a strawman and false equivocation. 2 fallacies in one OP. Give yourself a stuffed teddy bear for a prize.

I'm tired of your bloviating and not getting obvious points. Don't give yourself a prize until you actually earn it.

I realize to someone without a clue as to what a sound logical argument looks like that pointing out the clear fallacies in your rhetoric sounds like "bloviating", much like human speech sounds to a dog. But don't worry, blowing your nonsense out the water is too easy for me to think I deserve a prize for doing it yet again.

 

[blastula]

It's not just that passage, there are lots of problems with the text. Just a few here:

FE = Factual errors both represent incorrect facts, and/or assertions of opinion as facts.

“No other civilization [Aztecs] created, singlehandedly, such a reign of terror.” IE This is an assertion of fact that is not based on any scholarship. For a comparison, see the Germany Nazi Holocaust that resulted in the deaths of over 6 million Jews.

“It (U.S. Constitution) also anchored the moral philosophy of the nation in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the equality of man, acknowledging the Judeo-Christian principles espoused within British common law—the legal philosophy underlying much of the political framework of American government.” FE The U.S. Constitution is not based on “Judeo-Christian principles” as noted by multiple constitutional scholars. Here the authors falsely link together Lord Bolingbroke’s anti-religious reference to a late 1930s reference, “Judeo-Christian.”

Pantheistic definition: “A belief that plants, animals, and objects in nature have spirits that should be honored and sometimes feared.” FE Pantheism is a European philosophical belief that God exists throughout the universe. This definition more closely represents the anthropological definition of "animism" not polytheism.

“The Protestant Reformation significantly changed Europe so that, newly freed from Popes and absolutist kings, settlers were looking for religious freedom and business ventures.” FE Prior to the Protestant Reformation the concept of limited monarchy existed in England and Spain, particular over issues of taxes. IF While the Protestant Reformation representative a significant event that lead to a series of religious wars it was not the causally factor for the decline in absolutists monarchs. A more complex process occurred related to notions of human rights, and philosophical understandings of society and rule that was expressed by both Protestants and Catholics.

“Protestant belief in separating church and state authority meant that there was no Crusade to be fought and no political and religious kingdom to bring Indians into.” FE The notion of separation of church state was not part of Protestantism, indeed, the rise for the emergence of Puritanism was in response to the Church of England, the state church, which they wished to alter to align with their beliefs.

It has not just amateurish errors, it reads like a polemical political treatise, not a good faith objective text. Not surprising since the publisher is run by "Cynthia Dunbar, who served a four-year term on the state education board and wrote a book in 2008, One Nation Under God, subtitled How the Left is Trying to Erase What Made Us Great."

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's not just that passage, there are lots of problems with the text. Just a few here:

FE = Factual errors both represent incorrect facts, and/or assertions of opinion as facts.

“No other civilization [Aztecs] created, singlehandedly, such a reign of terror.” IE This is an assertion of fact that is not based on any scholarship. For a comparison, see the Germany Nazi Holocaust that resulted in the deaths of over 6 million Jews.

“It (U.S. Constitution) also anchored the moral philosophy of the nation in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the equality of man, acknowledging the Judeo-Christian principles espoused within British common law—the legal philosophy underlying much of the political framework of American government.” FE The U.S. Constitution is not based on “Judeo-Christian principles” as noted by multiple constitutional scholars. Here the authors falsely link together Lord Bolingbroke’s anti-religious reference to a late 1930s reference, “Judeo-Christian.”

Pantheistic definition: “A belief that plants, animals, and objects in nature have spirits that should be honored and sometimes feared.” FE Pantheism is a European philosophical belief that God exists throughout the universe. This definition more closely represents the anthropological definition of "animism" not polytheism.

“The Protestant Reformation significantly changed Europe so that, newly freed from Popes and absolutist kings, settlers were looking for religious freedom and business ventures.” FE Prior to the Protestant Reformation the concept of limited monarchy existed in England and Spain, particular over issues of taxes. IF While the Protestant Reformation representative a significant event that lead to a series of religious wars it was not the causally factor for the decline in absolutists monarchs. A more complex process occurred related to notions of human rights, and philosophical understandings of society and rule that was expressed by both Protestants and Catholics.

“Protestant belief in separating church and state authority meant that there was no Crusade to be fought and no political and religious kingdom to bring Indians into.” FE The notion of separation of church state was not part of Protestantism, indeed, the rise for the emergence of Puritanism was in response to the Church of England, the state church, which they wished to alter to align with their beliefs.

It has not just amateurish errors, it reads like a polemical political treatise, not a good faith objective text. Not surprising since the publisher is run by "Cynthia Dunbar, who served a four-year term on the state education board and wrote a book in 2008, One Nation Under God, subtitled How the Left is Trying to Erase What Made Us Great."

Sounds like she's qualified to be a 'censor.'