indoctrination at school

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

O.......kay......

Thank-you.

So not sure i can say much that is honest in response that wouldn't be likely to trigger a spiraling down into the hurling of dictionary definitions and ill will. 

Though in retrospect, i probably shouldn't have quoted you in my response.  Doing that kind of thing is more or less asking for it.  So my apologies there.     

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 10:19 AM, Scott said:

Do you really think that you can best me in a history contest?   I won't bet money as to giving it myself, but I will bet you $25,000 that I can best you in any US history contest there is.   Loser pays $25,000 no to the winner, but to the charity of the winners choice (which is completely legal).  I choose the Nature Conservancy.  You choose your charity.  Someone neutral on this forum can choose the contest. 

Are you willing to take that bet?   I am.   If you are, then put your money where your mouth is.  Right here with everyone as a witness.   I will do the same. 

PS, you aren't ignorant in history, you are just pretending to be or using a warped sense to push an agenda.

I would actually like a history quiz challenge with you.  At least you know some history and geography.  I tire of talking of history and geography with people who can't do simply things such as say how long the Hundreds Year's War is or point out Timbuktu on a map.  Bring it.

I am fully aware that there are plenty of left leaning racist.   I said most of them (who are against minorities), not all of them.  

PS, Neuro Typical thank you for being so civil on this forum.  You are always civil.

Also as far as the original topic of this thread goes, no one should be trying to push a rightist or leftist agenda in school.  Perhaps everyone can hopefully agree on this.  

 

Who exactly would be the judge?

I may be a Historian but popular opinion on the forum may not agree with a judgment put out by me.  Even more problematic, most Historians get highly specialized in one particular subject and period.  They may know almost all there is to know on that one subject, but become much more generalist on others.  On some subjects that are unrelated completely in history, they may not even know anything about it, or be amateur historians (For example, I am an Amateur Historian with Church History, it is a hobby of mine but I am by no means qualified to teach it or know as much as someone who got their Masters or Doctorate in it).

What are the conditions set by who wins and who doesn't?

Popular opinion, a legal judge, a historian, who?

I think the bigger problem than deciding which one of you can best the other in a history contest is to decide what terms even determine who is better in the history contest.  I think that could cause great debate from the get go and may never come to a conclusive determination or agreement.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 10/20/2018 at 9:08 AM, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

So not sure i can say much that is honest in response that wouldn't be likely to trigger a spiraling down into the hurling of dictionary definitions and ill will. 

Though in retrospect, i probably shouldn't have quoted you in my response.  Doing that kind of thing is more or less asking for it.  So my apologies there.     

You're apologizing to me for...what?

Quoting me or not, when you're supporting the idea that someone can come in and throw out a "you're all haters!" accusation because not everyone agrees with them, and you're suggesting there's some merit to their accusation...well I hope you're expect to get some push back on that.

Regardless...I hope people don't buy into the suggestion that lack of civil discourse is root of all evil. It's essentially saying, "if you just stop standing up to the devil then the devil will go away."

No...he won't. If you let the devil into your house he will murder you and your children.

[anatess2]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

Sorry, but that's flat out wrong.   The Democrats were not the left wing and the Republicans were not the right wing at the time of the Civil War.  Just the fact that you would even claim that means that you are either completely ignorant as to history or just trolling. 

 

Ad hominem.  Sigh.

 

By DEFINITION:  The Right Wing of Parliament is the Established Order, the Left Wing of Parliament is the Change to that Order.

It is pretty easy to point to who was the Left Wing or the Right Wing during the Civil War.  You just have to look at the Flag they are hoisting and the Constitution they are supporting.  The Established Order is the American Flag and the US Constitution.  A Change to that Order is the Confederate Flag and the Constitution of the Confederate States. 

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

The Southern Democrats of the time opposing segregation were conservative in most ideals.   Period.  

 

"Conservative in most ideals" have not much to do with Left Wing or Right Wing in the way you use the word Conservative here (Conservative vs Liberal political concepts is another topic).

Case in point is Britain/Canada/Australia.  The Tories are Right Wing.   Tories may have been conservative somewhere in their past, but they're not much of that anymore.  Labour/Liberal are Left Wing.  They have lots of fiscal conservatives there.  In the Philippines, most everybody is conservative (in the way you use the word), both left and right wings.

In the US, it's been a while since the Republicans have had conservatives running that show.  Social conservatives, sure... fiscal conservatives? A laugh.  Conservative to the Constitution?  Patriot Act anyone?  And there are definitely not much conservatism going on with the Democrat Party, fiscally nor socially nor constitutionally.  But, the Republicans remain on the Right, the Democrats remain on the Left in relation to each other even as the Republicans have been more to the left of center than on the right.  Well, until Trump.  He's had this weird effect of empowering Republicans to pull back to the Right with his adherence to Law and Order, National Defense, Limited Government, States Rights, and his choice of Constitutionalists to the judicial bench.

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

As soon as desegregation started happening, there was a mass migration of Southern Democrats over to the Republican Party.  Do you really deny this?  If you do then you are either ignorant as to history or trolling.   

 

This has nothing to do with Left Wing versus Right Wing.  Ad hominem included. 

But even then,  a "mass migration of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party" did not make the Democrats less racist nor the Republicans more racist.  The Republicans remained the Constitutionalists (Right Wing), the Democrats remained the Progressives (Left Wing), the Republicans remained the party of racial equality, the Democrats remained the party of racial segregation (now morphed into Affirmative Action and now this weird thing with "Cultural Appropriation").  And Robert Byrd, grand poobah of the KKK, remained a Democrat senator to the day he died.

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

I'm sure you could, but it's too bad that you can't make your ramblings more accurate and less one sided.  

I hear this a lot.  "I don't agree with you so, therefore, you're one-sided, don't know history, trolling".  Yeah, yeah.  Just a question, though... you sure you're not one-sided?  Asking for a friend.

Okay, okay... my inner 13-year-old can't help herself.

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

I am neither Republican or Democrat (I'm an independent), but your post demonstrate exactly why I don't want to be.   Both sides are so full of hate (including many members of this forum) that they can't use logic, (accurate) history, or logic to have a civil conversation.  That's exactly what's tearing this country apart.  Don't tell me it's all from one side.  That's nothing but hate talk.  

 

I'm Filipino, so...

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:19 PM, Scott said:

At least I try to be civil (though sometimes I cross the line, such as in this post).   

 

Well, you could start with getting rid of ad hominems.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 10/20/2018 at 3:26 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Who exactly would be the judge?

I may be a Historian but popular opinion on the forum may not agree with a judgment put out by me.  Even more problematic, most Historians get highly specialized in one particular subject and period.  They may know almost all there is to know on that one subject, but become much more generalist on others.  On some subjects that are unrelated completely in history, they may not even know anything about it, or be amateur historians (For example, I am an Amateur Historian with Church History, it is a hobby of mine but I am by no means qualified to teach it or know as much as someone who got their Masters or Doctorate in it).

What are the conditions set by who wins and who doesn't?

Popular opinion, a legal judge, a historian, who?

I think the bigger problem than deciding which one of you can best the other in a history contest is to decide what terms even determine who is better in the history contest.  I think that could cause great debate from the get go and may never come to a conclusive determination or agreement.

JJ, aren't you a professional historian?  I remember somebody introducing themselves as having a degree in history and for some reason I thought it was you.  (Yes, yes, too lazy to run the search button, sorry.)

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

JJ, aren't you a professional historian?  I remember somebody introducing themselves as having a degree in history and for some reason I thought it was you.  (Yes, yes, too lazy to run the search button, sorry.)

Yes, at least that's what I do for a living, or at least do the occasional research and trying to educate young minds (who normally seem to be there only for credits unless they are graduate students). 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, at least that's what I do for a living, or at least do the occasional research and trying to educate young minds (who normally seem to be there only for credits unless they are graduate students). 

I'll put up the $25,000 for you dude.  Is monopoly denominations acceptable?

Anyway, I know somebody is an expert in history when they don't claim they're experts in history.

[SilentOne]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Is monopoly denominations acceptable?

Does anybody know the exchange rates between Monopoly and The Game of Life?

[Vort]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Anyway, I know somebody is an expert in history when they don't claim they're experts in history.

Does that work with other subjects? Will my opinion regarding international politics be enhanced in your eyes if I state, "Now I'm no expert in international politics"? Because if so, I have a very long list of subjects in which I'm not an expert.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Does that work with other subjects? Will my opinion regarding international politics be enhanced in your eyes if I state, "Now I'm no expert in international politics"? Because if so, I have a very long list of subjects in which I'm not an expert.

You gotta have to present the goods, man.  Your expertise shows in your command of the knowledge base... not in what you tell people is your knowledge base.  

So, as a test of your expertise in international politics <rifles through my political book for daily use>...  

 

[pwrfrk]

I for one think it's ironic that we have all these people that tell how terrible racism is...yet they express the same hatred right back at the racists. If we're gonna accept and tolerate people because of race or color or political views, then we must also tolerate those that are not tolerant, that do not "like" people of race or color or politics. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

If a white family wants to hate another family because they are black, that's fine. Let them. That's their business. Maybe they have a reason. But does that mean that I can hate the white family? No. Why am I going to hate them? Because they hate someone I like? Maybe I don't like the black family either. But does that mean I can still hate the white family? No. If a kid in that black family stole something from me and the black daddy thinks it's ok, does tht mean that all blacks are thieves? No. Just that kid and his daddy is a piece of garbage. But that never represents the entire race. Instead, it's the individuals. I cannot justify expecting others to live by my standards just as they cannot justify expecting me to live by theirs. Just live and let live. Let others live to their standards and I'll live to mine. I'm not gonna hate people becuse of their color or politics or even if they are criminals.

Do you know why some people are black? It's because they ain't white! Whoop dee do! And just because you change a color or pigment does not change the person they are inside.
Do you know why some people are criminals? Just because they were convicted does not mean they broke the law. And if they did break the law, who knows what the reason is. Maybe the woman was busted for stealing. Why was she stealing? It could be she was trying to feed her kids. Maybe she needed the money to go visit her sister while her sister is dying from cancer. Who knows?  Maybe the guy next door spent 20 years in prison for murder. Is he evil? Maybe he didn't do it? What if he did do it? Maybe it was to keep himself or someone else alive? Maybe the guy he kilt just got done raping my neighbor's 3 year old daughter? Who knows?

Maybe if we quit judging people on their past, maybe they won't judge us for ours? Who said we're perfect?  I'm not by any means!

If we go the extra mile and love our neighbors instead of hating them, maybe they will learn to love as well. And when people learn to love and accept their neighbors they cannot jutify hating them. And if we could live like that, the world would be a much better place. And that's what the old school Mormons I knew when I was growing up taught me. Real Mormons don't hate. Real Mormons love.

(actually, this is an edited cut & paste from a post I made earlier in another forum I go to.  But, it fits....)

[The Folk Prophet]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Anyway, I know somebody is an expert in history when they don't claim they're experts in history.

That's the only criteria? Don't claim to be something and --- KABLAMMO -- you are one!

[mordorbund]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's the only criteria? Don't claim to be something and --- KABLAMMO -- you are one!

I'm not Vort, but he's already covered this ground.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

If we're gonna accept and tolerate people because of race or color or political views, then we must also tolerate those that are not tolerant, that do not "like" people of race or color or politics.

There's just so much wrong with this statement. First, the idea that one must "tolerate" race or color is racist. Second, choosing to tolerate one thing does not mean, in any regard, that we must tolerate another.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

I'm not Vort, but he's already covered this ground.

I saw that right after I replied.

[zil]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's the only criteria? Don't claim to be something and --- KABLAMMO -- you are one!

I'm not Vort, but he's already covered this ground.

Wait.  Does this mean you are Vort?  I'm so confuuuused.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, zil said:

Wait.  Does this mean you are Vort?  I'm so confuuuused.

Heaven forbid!

....er.....I mean........

I wish!

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Heaven forbid!

One is more than enough.

[pwrfrk]

Even one is too much....🤣

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There's just so much wrong with this statement. First, the idea that one must "tolerate" race or color is racist. Second, choosing to tolerate one thing does not mean, in any regard, that we must tolerate another.

 

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I saw that right after I replied.

And here's the reply.   Wanna put up $25K too?  @SilentOne and I are still not sure if we can use Monopoly or Game of Life currency.

 

 

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Wait.  Does this mean you are Vort?  I'm so confuuuused.

I'm the sockpuppet of a sockpuppet. It's a regular Sesame Street here.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Conservative in most ideals" have not much to do with Left Wing or Right Wing in the way you use the word Conservative here (Conservative vs Liberal political concepts is another topic).

I had to let this sit a few days.  Admittedly, it's hard to compare modern conservative and liberalism with the past and cases can be made for both.  I don't think we're getting anywhere trying to hash it out.  

How's this?   Would you agree with the following statement?

The confederates wanted a limited Federal Government and more State rights (and they considered Slavery to be a State right).   We could leave it at that.   How's that?  Would you agree?  

Anyway, you do seem to know your history at least pretty well.

The reason that some of yours and other posts are ones I call out is because they seem one sided and seem like they are only attacking one side.   

We'll leave it there thought; there is no need to expound further.  

As far as the history contest goes, we could forget about the money (if that's what you want).  That post was made in the heat of the moment.

We could however, still have a history contest if you would like.  One way would be to have someone neutral choose an online history test and we could video ourselves taking the test and compare scores, but that would be really boring.

A more interesting way to do it would be to ask each other questions that would be hard to google, but could still be verified.   That's how we do weather trivia on one of the other forums I am active on.  For example, here are some of the questions I asked:

What city in the Lower 48 has its all time record high temperature in March?

Which city in the Lower 48 has a record high in all months besides July that are higher in July?

Which locations in the US have reached both over 100F and -60F or below (I live next to one)?

One of my favorite:

Without cheating, match the record highs in each month to the month they belong to.  This is for the LAX station:

January

February

March 

April
May 

June
July 

August

October

November 

December

110

106

104

102

101

98

97

97

95

94

92

91

Which monthly record high temperature goes to which month?

Questions like the above were good because you can't simply plug the question into Google and get an answer, but the answers are all verifiable by using Google or other sources (at least they were before the thread itself now pops up on Google searches).  

The neat thing about such questions/contest are that all contestants learn something new.  

Here are some of my favorite history questions using the above themes on being hard to answer by plugging the question into Google, but still easy to verify using various sources.

World History

Which are the two man made religious sites in the Middle East and at a place mentioned in the Bible to which the number 3750 is significant?

US History

What is ironic about the naming of the longest glacier in California?

Church History

What did a lizard have to do with the timing of the abandonment of Salt Lake City when Brigham Young was prophet?

My favorite question, though it is "Google-able" with some work is why did Joseph Smith beat the tar (for lack of a better word) of a man in Missouri.   Neither man was angry at each other and as far as is known neither man disagreed with each other on anything.   Joseph Smith beat up the man (and rather severely) the first time they met.  Why?  

------------------------

Would you be interested in such a contest?   It would be fun.  

Quote

What evidence do you have that anyone here is full of hate? Please point out where honest-to-goodness, legitimate "hate" is being displayed on this forum.

I have seen plenty of post that I would consider to be hateful on this forum, even if it isn't admitted.  For example, there have been posts implying that people are unworthy, apostates, etc., if they don't hold a certain viewpoint or vote a certain way.  To me that is hateful.  Do you really want me to point out such posts?   I can here, but will it be useful?   I will if that's want you want, I will post some of them here right now, or I can PM them to you.  Your choice. 

Quote

So defending the faith and speaking truth is hateful?

No, simply defending the faith and speaking truth is not hateful.  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Scott said:

I had to let this sit a few days.  Admittedly, it's hard to compare modern conservative and liberalism with the past and cases can be made for both.  I don't think we're getting anywhere trying to hash it out.  

How's this?   Would you agree with the following statement?

The confederates wanted a limited Federal Government and more State rights (and they considered Slavery to be a State right).   We could leave it at that.   How's that?  Would you agree?  

I agree with this and this is something I have discussed with @Just_A_Guy a long time ago in this same forum.

That doesn't make the confederates the Right Wing.  They remain the Left Wing.  Limiting the Feds doesn't make you Right Wing because, the US Constitution DOES grant the Federal Government clear authority on certain things such as the protection of certain rights of citizens.  So, limiting THAT which is clearly authorized by the US Constitution is to the Left of the Constitution.

So under the US Constitution, you may have all the liberty in the planet to do anything... but that liberty ends where somebody else's begins and the Feds guarantee where that line is.  The Civil War is a disagreement between the Right Wing of the Constitution that declares slave owner's liberty ends where the slaves' liberties begin while Left Wing decided they don't want to adhere to that interpretation of the Constitution so they're going to secede and create their own.  Racism resided in the Left Wing.

 

19 hours ago, Scott said:

The reason that some of yours and other posts are ones I call out is because they seem one sided and seem like they are only attacking one side.   

I'm simply stating the Sky is Blue under the Noon Day Sun.  Don't care which side that falls under.

 

19 hours ago, Scott said:

We'll leave it there thought; there is no need to expound further.  

Ok. 

Anyway, I'm always game for political discussion.  I like talking about it.  I'm not into historical trivia.  It's what I hated about history class... "What day did Magellan land in Limasawa island?"  "Who cares?  He landed in Limasawa in the early 16th century, what does it matter the exact date?".  Yeah, my history teachers didn't like me much.

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by anatess2

[SilentOne]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not into historical trivia.  It's what I hated about history class... "What day did Magellan land in Limasawa island?"  "Who cares?  He landed in Limasawa in the early 16th century, what does it matter the exact date?".  Yeah, my history teachers didn't like me much.

As a child, I thought I hated history because of this.

[Just_A_Guy]

21 hours ago, Scott said:

I had to let this sit a few days.  Admittedly, it's hard to compare modern conservative and liberalism with the past and cases can be made for both.  I don't think we're getting anywhere trying to hash it out.  

How's this?   Would you agree with the following statement?

The confederates wanted a limited Federal Government and more State rights (and they considered Slavery to be a State right).   We could leave it at that.   How's that?  Would you agree?  

I think presentism can’t help but pollute these sorts of discussions to some degree or other.  But it seems to me that the confederates were fine with exercise of most of the core functions of government that were enumerated in the constitution (taxation, tariffs, resolution of interstate disputes, etc).  And they were happy to deny states the power to free their slaves; and gleefully anticipated harnessing the entire resources of the territory they controlled in order to create a slave empire stretching through the Caribbean and, eventually, into the whole of Latin and South America.

Most folks, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, like federal power when they can control it and mistrust it when they can’t.  The South's historical allegiance to state’s rights strikes me as less a matter of principle and more a matter of giving them some semblance of ideological righteousness in spite of being on the losing end of a long series of national political questions.  (The same could probably be said of American Mormonism, by the way.)

Edited October 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy