• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why you can't let liberals write school books!

Captain Adverse said:
Wait!!! Scientist's put Goofy's dog to sleep? Why would they do that??? :shock:

WHAT?!?! It was because people thought he was a planet? He was Goofy's dog, not a planet. Gee, science can be real mean. :(

LOL ;)
Click to expand...

Done by the same vicious lying scientists that claim the Earth is over 5800 years old. Madmen I tell you, madmen.

Woof.
 
Well being that this is the gun control debate politics forum I thought maybe I'd stay on topic. If you have innacuracies in other areas perhaps you should find another forum to raise them.


opendebate said:
This goes on all the time doesn't it. Do the inaccuracies only outrage you when the issue is gun control or do you have concerns about all of the inaccuracies ? Serious question
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Well being that this is the gun control debate politics forum I thought maybe I'd stay on topic. If you have innacuracies in other areas perhaps you should find another forum to raise them.
Click to expand...

Warm and welcoming as always.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The summary should be corrected to reflect the current Constitutional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right separate from the necessity of milita membership (Heller) which has been incorporated under the 14th Amendment as applicable to the States (McDonald).
Click to expand...

Why? It's a high school history textbook, not a constitutional law textbook. The primary concern here is the historical meaning of the second amendment. The fact that the second amendment changed in 2008 to refer to an individual right rather than a militia right doesn't belong in a chapter about the eighteenth century.
 
specklebang said:
It's good to see some of you sticking up for your dismissed planet. Maybe there's hope for you after all.
Click to expand...
it appears to be a circular argument!
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are wrong. That is historically accurate. So, this is what happens when you let historians write history books.
Click to expand...

LOL that is moronic. The person(s) who wrote that trype are idiots and frauds
 
Guy Incognito said:
Why? It's a high school history textbook, not a constitutional law textbook. The primary concern here is the historical meaning of the second amendment. The fact that the second amendment changed in 2008 to refer to an individual right rather than a militia right doesn't belong in a chapter about the eighteenth century.
Click to expand...

yeah we have seen that nonsense from you before-something that has been dismissed by everyone from Liberals LIke Amar and Levinson to conservatives like Volokh and Koppel

you are wrong
 
opendebate said:
This goes on all the time doesn't it. Do the inaccuracies only outrage you when the issue is gun control or do you have concerns about all of the inaccuracies ? Serious question
Click to expand...

This is based on the faulty premise that the textbook contains an inaccuracy. It doesn't. The historical meaning of the second amendment was, in fact, related to the militia. It has changed over the centuries, like much of the constitution. But it is well known among historians that the original meaning was related to militia service.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I have reviewed the actual document found here (see page 102):

http://www.conejo.k12.ca.us/Portals/49/Departments/Social Science/Palotay/Amsco.pdf

The section quoted is a "summary" of what each clause of the Bill of Rights is interpreted to mean:



Clearly a limited and biased interpretation, especially since it was produced after the SCOTUS Heller decision in 2008, but before the Scotus McDonald decision in 2010.

The summary should be corrected to reflect the current Constitutional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right separate from the necessity of milita membership (Heller) which has been incorporated under the 14th Amendment as applicable to the States (McDonald).

See:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Click to expand...


This book says it's preparation for the advanced placement exam, so the correct wording in the book will depend on what they're looking for in the exam...
 
FederalRepublic said:
This book says it's preparation for the advanced placement exam, so the correct wording in the book will depend on what they're looking for in the exam...
Click to expand...

Since it is "history" it is safe to assume that what they are looking for is the meaning as it was understood in the eighteenth century. In that case the text is correct.

I doubt a history class covers 21st century changes in interpretation, but if it does then there should be some explanation that the militia meaning is the ORIGINAL meaning, but this meaning changed with Heller.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Since it is "history" it is safe to assume that what they are looking for is the meaning as it was understood in the eighteenth century. In that case the text is correct.

I doubt a history class covers 21st century changes in interpretation, but if it does then there should be some explanation that the militia meaning is the ORIGINAL meaning, but this meaning changed with Heller.
Click to expand...

Its this sort of nonsense that causes our HS kids to fall behind. No one can rationally believe that the textbook claims are based on some arcane contrarian attempt to interpret the constitution rather than an obvious leftwing agenda that is anti gun
 
opendebate said:
This goes on all the time doesn't it. Do the inaccuracies only outrage you when the issue is gun control or do you have concerns about all of the inaccuracies ? Serious question
Click to expand...

Post a couple of examples & we can find out.
 
Why you can't let liberals write school books!

Well you've got to, haven't you ,since all the 'conservatives' are not only racist and stupid but largely illiterate.
 
No you'd be wrong, and I'm shocked you'd call yourself a libertarian. I think they want their card back you don't belong in that constitutionalist realm of libertarians.

Guy Incognito said:
You are wrong. That is historically accurate. So, this is what happens when you let historians write history books.
Click to expand...
 
aberrant85 said:
I'd much prefer the Texas schoolbook that explains how evolution and creationism are both valid theories.
Click to expand...

Well seeing as concrete proof for either is likely to alude us why not present the two sides of the coin and let the students decide what they wanna belive?
 
YoungConserv said:
Well seeing as concrete proof for either is likely to alude us why not present the two sides of the coin and let the students decide what they wanna belive?
Click to expand...


Oh, mostly because there aren't "two sides of the coin" in the evolution debate. There is "concrete proof" for evolution and none for creationism. So why should the uneducated be allowed to believe what they "wanna belive"
 
Interesting - I think - that a district which voted 65% for Romney would allow such "liberal trash" in its school books.
 
I don't see a reason to incorrectly summarize the Bill of Rights unless it's a conscious attempt to deceive the reader. If a teacher wants to summarize the actual bill of rights by saying to the classroom the intent when the founders wrote such an amendment was primarily to allow the militia to keep arms and that many states considered males who were "able bodied", and later between the ages of 17 and 45 years old (depending on the state). At least an attempt at being unbiased should be attempted.


Edit: After thinking about this for a few minutes - perhaps ignorance of the Bill of Rights could be another reason.
 
Somerville said:
Oh, mostly because there aren't "two sides of the coin" in the evolution debate. There is "concrete proof" for evolution and none for creationism. So why should the uneducated be allowed to believe what they "wanna belive"
Click to expand...

If it's "both" sides, then actually that's only two sides. As long as we're introducing competing theories, I'd like to see each textbook teach the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom