|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Whether it is a good bill or not, I am not so sure. But the claims made appear to be contradictory to the text and to the evidence of what has actually happened. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How is it possible to remove a book that wasn’t in the library in the first place?
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here's 51-83 with what it actually doesn't allow instruction of. What part do you think is a problem and want to debate instead of the books that it obviously doesn't ban? 51. 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are 52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or 53 national origin. 54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, 55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, 56 whether consciously or unconsciously. 57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either 58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her 59 race, color, sex, or national origin. 60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin 61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to 62 race, color, sex, or national origin. 63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, 64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be 65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, 66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, 67 color, sex, or national origin. 68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, 69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive 70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. 71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or 72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or 73 her race, color, sex, or national origin. 74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, 75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or 76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, 77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, 78 color, sex, or national origin. 79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit 80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of 81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction 82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the 83 concepts. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The actual story itself isn't about politics, it is actually about humanity, racism, and discrimination, which should be an apolitical topic and something that all decent humans should be concerned about. The sad truth though is that politicians then take and weaponize such topics for their own means and gain. It is a disgusting and totally dehumanizing tactic they use to cause rifts in populations and helps to distract many from focusing on ALL the politicians' own greed and lack of often doing any actual good for anyone, other than themselves and those they conspire with. Net54 has various people that buy into this rhetoric, and have no problem aiming and spewing it at others on here. Let me make a suggestion to you. Rather than stopping to read anything in the Water Cooler section at all, why not figure out and take advantage of the forum's IGNORE function? Trust me, the removal of seeing the crap such people spew more than offsets the pretty much little they ever really seem to actually contribute to the forum and others in regards to the hobby itself. Now if there was only some way we could get the forum to extend that IGNORE function so that it also hides what they say when someone quotes them when responding. LOL, that would be really nice. And congrats on your daughter being a librarian, that is great. Maybe you can ask her to check out this Roberto Clemente book and see what exactly it is that is apparently so bad they specifically had to pull it for further review and keep it away from school kids. Last edited by BobC; 02-12-2023 at 10:55 AM. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
While acknowledging Friday that critical race theory is not taught in Florida schools, DeSantis claimed its "principles" are entering into class instruction, especially in how history and social science is taught. He got the Florida Board of Education last year to specifically ban its use in schools.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry, tlhss, Cory |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 10:56 AM. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
" An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, 55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, 56 whether consciously or unconsciously." If we are saying we want to teach children the opposite here and this ban is morally bad, I have to disagree. I do not think it is good to teach that a person is inherently bad because of their race, color or sex, and that this is clearly racist or sexist to do so. If critical race theory means teaching children that they are inherently bad things because of their skin color or sex, then I am strongly against it. Why would we want to teach this? " 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, 64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be 65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, 66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, 67 color, sex, or national origin." Again, are we saying this is a bad idea? Should we teach that people of a skin color should be discriminated against? I don't see anything to object too. Isn't this the opposite of racism? If critical race theory means teaching that a person is responsible for evils committed by other people they have nothing to do with on the basis of their race, color or sex I think that is is silly and by definition obviously racist. I can find no reasonable objection to the idea here. Why would we want to teach this? |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 11:09 AM. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Do you feel this way about every law and regulation determining what is and is not taught in schools? There are tons of them, and I have never seen outrage over their existence or the idea that the state determines what is taught (which I am not comfortable with personally, but that has been an idea very very few have ever shared). This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. This is a very liberal law banning schools from teaching racism - it just protects all races the same. EDIT: It doesn't even ban these things from being taught - it just requires that they be taught in an objective manner and not endorsed or advocated as right by the teacher. Lines 79-83. Last edited by G1911; 02-12-2023 at 11:17 AM. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 11:23 AM. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We've gone from objecting to fictional book bans to to 'okay, it doesn't, but it's bad because it regulates speech', but we don't want to toss out every other law regulating what is taught in schools, so now 'it's just vague' is the argument? It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible. I have first amendment concerns on every education bill, but if there is no actual argument against this bill specifically, I cannot see how it should be treated any different than the thousands of others on the books regulating teaching. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 11:34 AM. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 02-12-2023 at 11:44 AM. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 11:51 AM. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That you can't really find anything in the law to object too should be telling that maybe one should set aside the partisan narratives. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 12:02 PM. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so. Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
139 pages, give me a minute
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Look at discussion starting at 60.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
After reading it, my main problem with this ruling is that it dodges around the logical problems instead of addressing them.
Some of what the professors are teaching and specifically listed is clearly not banned by this law at all, and some of it is (the parts that openly racist, just racism directed against the correct race). That a teacher feels a need to self-censor their racism (38) I have a difficult time finding much empathy with. Just as if a teacher was preaching white supremacy to their class, I would expect them to face repercussion and be fired (as they 100% would be), I find it difficult to understand why it's exact reverse is somehow good. The court certainly doesn't want to ever touch on allowing this kind of speech in universities from whites with the wrong view. The primary argument against this in the text is the first amendment concerns, which is also my problem with the law. However, the big problem is that this law isn't special. If it is in violation of the first amendment by regulating what can and cannot be taught in the classroom (and I think a good argument is made here and via common sense that it is), pretty much every education law in the nation needs to be thrown out too for violation of the same. This is a niche position of an element of the libertarian right, and so of course it cannot be endorsed, only applied to this specific law, and no others that regulate classroom instruction, materials, and subject. That's my big problem here. The outrage over this is not "the state should not censor at all, a teacher should be able to say anything they want no matter how reprehensible as the 1st allows", it's outrage that they can't teach racism in general, to any race. If the bill banned teaching only white supremacy, it would be unanimous. It's only because it bans teaching racism against ANY race that there is a public outcry and anger. None of this addressed, it goes out of it's way to try and not explain how this law and this law alone is a violation of the first; it only argues that this law violates the first, which it very well may. It does acknowledge that public education is "committed to the control of state and local authorities", which it then seeks to undermine as much as possible because while that outcome is generally desired, it is bad in this one instance. It's use of Bishop is pretty weak, and I don't see that case having much bearing here. On the other side, I found the state's argument of Title IX is also very weak and uncompelling. Page 102 states there is not a savings clause in the IFA bill, unlike the anti-semitism statute. This is plainly false, and other parts of this court ruling (including just 9 pages later) acknowledge the savings clause. Unless I'm misreading it, this is patently absurd. 79-83 are this clause, very, very explicitly. There are a number of points where this ruling seems to not be responding to the law at all, but political opinion. The ruling tries not to endorse the right of a teacher to say whatever they want, by effectively requiring the university itself to agree with it (and thus, protecting far left ideology that universities tend to lean too without having to protect other viewpoints) (105). The ruling attacks the vagueness with some sarcasm, though it seems to have difficulty stipulating which words are problematic, as terms like critical race theory are not present and the language is quite direct. It ends up focusing on the savings clause, that just a few pages ago it insisted didn't exist, that permits "discussion" if "given in an objective matter without endorsement". Fact vs. advocacy I have a hard time seeing a problem separating. Again, if this is the standard, we need to throw out the vast majority of US law as well. The ones I have to deal with are certainly much more vague than this. The conclusion is pure political theater, complete with an Orwellian reference to wrap it up (without ever explaining, of course, how not openly teaching racism in the classroom is a great curb of free speech but other education laws are not). I did skim read the questions of standing, which aren't really applicable to the subject. I am still no closer to being able to find what specifically is objectionable in this bill, unless we argue that all education bills are objectionable because what is taught should not be dictated to the teacher and should not be chosen by the state. Which is a pretty far right decision. If we are fine with all other (or most) such bills though - how is this one different and objectionable? Nobody can ever answer this question without using political statements and op-eds filled with falsehoods that have nothing to do with the actual law. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Page 60 and the next several pages specifically explain what the court thinks arguably could violate the language of the statute. It is just one man's read of course, albeit a federal judge. But to me it underscores that some of the language is vague and could be applied in an undesirable way.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 01:42 PM. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Some of this is plainly not banned by the law. For example, Novoa's 3 bulletpoints for the history of sport plainly do not violate the third provision. It is not banned to say people experienced racism (in fact, it is required to do so by the law, in a part nobody wants to talk about). Others are banned by this law. I have a hard time seeing the objection though, again, unless we want to throw out all education law. For example, Novoa's others course that it is said teaches collective cross-generation responsibility for wrongs against certain groups (and only certain groups, only people of certain races are, of course, to be held responsible for the actions of others). Why would this be a good thing to teach children? Why would we want to teach racism? Again, if we don't object to anything here specifically but only general 1st grounds, why are we not objecting to almost every education law in the United States that determines what is and is not taught in schools? It makes no sense whatsoever to hold this law to a different standard from every other law of its type, because people who want to preach their racist dislike of a single race to children are upset. |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
People at the school and community level can make a judgment not to teach critical race theory in K-12 without needing a law explicitly banning it. And I am all in favor of allowing a professor to teach it in college, such is academic freedom. I don't like the theory, but then again I did not grow up and experience the world as a black person so I try to withhold judgment a bit.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 02:07 PM. |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
What would you think of a law that banned schools from teaching books that use the N word?
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. I can't get you to make any actual statement of what the objection is, or to address the actual law, or to address how it is logically consistent to hold this in violation of the first but not every other such law, or answer really any question lol. No one wants to explain how it's okay to teach white people are bad for X but to teach back people are bad for Y should still be banned. I have 1st amendment concerns on pretty much every education bill, but I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am more than open to an argument that one of the 8 specific things it bans advocacy of (not discussion, 79-83, but advocacy) - but nobody can explain which or how they do make bad policy. Which one do you think is bad policy? If some of them are, it should be very easy and we don't have to keep dodging every question. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This Court finds that by endorsing Critical Race Theory and assigning articles supporting various forms of race consciousness (or the perils of ignoring race), Professor Austin arguably promotes or compels belief in concepts three, four, six, and eight. See §§ 1000.05(4)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8., Fla. Stat. (2022); Regulation 10.005(1)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8. Professor Austin’s declarations establish that (1) she would teach several classes where Critical Race Theory and various forms of race consciousness are arguably promoted but for the IFA; (2) this proposed speech is arguably proscribed as promotion of or compulsion to believe in the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts under the IFA and Regulation 10.005; and (3) Regulation 10.005’s framework creates a credible threat of enforcement from UF and the members of the Board of Governors. Accordingly, Professor Austin has demonstrated that it would be reasonable for her to self-censor, conferring an injury for purposes of standing as to the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts. If this analysis of the text is right, then I think it's bad policy. If even one concept bans what this Professor is doing, it's bad policy. This is the clearest one that jumped out at me. I'll study it again in more detail later and add to this.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 02:36 PM. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I fail to see how they ban most of what it is claimed Austin is teaching, except for the white privilege that may fall under 3. It is difficult to ascertain because no specifics are given of what they are actually teaching specifically. If the Professor is teaching that a persons moral character or status as privileged or oppresses is determined solely by their skin color, then it falls afoul of 3. What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race? |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What say you to my N word hypothetical?
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Like Hucklberry Finn?
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
And most of Faulkner. This is my concern, that cancel culture will eventually get there. All it would take was a benign sounding law, that forbids the teaching of any material that depicts members of one race as inferior, or in a demeaning way.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 02:56 PM. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don't think your hypothetical is analogous. Banning a word formerly in common usage and often without negative intent in its day bans many abolitionist texts and historical documents. It's not banning an extremist prejudice from being advocated, it's banning anything with a formerly common word no matter its view or advocacy. It's wildly different. I don't see the sense in it. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 03:06 PM. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her 59 race, color, sex, or national origin." Alright, so back to a couple posts ago on 3: "What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?" |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 02-12-2023 at 03:16 PM. |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Every thread needs a card (and it's a 1 of 10!):
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry, tlhss, Cory |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So it is bad, if a teacher teaches this about blacks, and acceptable but maybe not good if they teach it about whites? It is only the one context where it is bad? That's obviously the actual outrage objection to the law and always has been, that there isn't a carve out where it is okay to criticize the race that we want to attack in schools, but to protect the others from the same. I have a difficult time finding it okay to teach racism against a particular race, but that's my hot take. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida | BobC | WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics | 1 | 02-13-2023 01:03 PM |
Sold: 1993 Florida Marlins Inaugural Yr Team Signed Official Florida Marlins Baseball | greenmonster66 | Autographs & Game Used B/S/T | 5 | 06-23-2021 11:07 AM |
WTB: Roberto Clemente PSA 7/8's | fuzzybub | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 1 | 02-06-2016 06:29 PM |
FS: Roberto Clemente PSA 5's 56,67,70 | bigfanNY | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 05-14-2015 09:48 PM |
FS: 1962 Roberto Clemente PSA 6 1966 Clemente PSA 6 | Mphilking | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 06-26-2010 11:41 AM |