Their "side"... Texas Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett:

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 18:26:35 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:20:25 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Or maybe most of them understood what I was saying to Cane. Or maybe they don’t care about the subject. Or maybe looking for ways to hold others feet to the fire on a daily basis holds no interest for them. Or maybe it’s none of the above. Food for thought.

Lol. You should know by now that I don’t give a toss about how other people post in comparison to how I do.

The attorney in me is going to dig down to get to the bottom of a question. Answer or don’t. Your choice.

That’s fine if you’re in court. But, this isn’t a deposition.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 18:31:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:18:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Again...all possibilities, except that isn't what happened, so other than being an interesting trivia question, meh....

<shrug> You asked. I think it goes beyond trivia, using today's issues as examples. Slavery was , imo, a short term business decision that had social implications, long term. Understanding at its core what it was is certainly noteworthy, for me. The never mind I posted might suggest not appropriate for anything less than an HS AP elective. So again, never mind. But the diaspora component is more than trivia.

A little levity from Don Rickles and Mr T.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 19:29:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:26:35 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Lol. You should know by now that I don’t give a toss about how other people post in comparison to how I do.

The attorney in me is going to dig down to get to the bottom of a question. Answer or don’t. Your choice.

That’s fine if you’re in court. But, this isn’t a deposition.

But it is a discussion board, and while you’re certainly free to avoid inconvenient parts of that discussion, it won’t go unnoticed.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 19:46:25 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 19:29:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

That’s fine if you’re in court. But, this isn’t a deposition.

But it is a discussion board, and while you’re certainly free to avoid inconvenient parts of that discussion, it won’t go unnoticed.

Then treat things as a discussion instead of a cross examination. FYI, it won’t go unnoticed. Again…food for thought.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 20:40:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 19:46:25 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

But it is a discussion board, and while you’re certainly free to avoid inconvenient parts of that discussion, it won’t go unnoticed.

Then treat things as a discussion instead of a cross examination. FYI, it won’t go unnoticed. Again…food for thought.

Then don’t bail when you get tough questions. Or waffle. Acknowledge when your POVs might legitimately bear some criticism.

Food for thought, indeed.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 20:57:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 20:40:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Then treat things as a discussion instead of a cross examination. FYI, it won’t go unnoticed. Again…food for thought.

Then don’t bail when you get tough questions. Or waffle. Acknowledge when your POVs might legitimately bear some criticism.

Food for thought, indeed.

I don’t bail or waffle. I also don’t waste my time when someone can’t accept an answer and simply move on. For example, I have no desire to spend 3 days on things like the word “wealth” being used in relation to Gaza.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 21:15:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 20:57:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Then don’t bail when you get tough questions. Or waffle. Acknowledge when your POVs might legitimately bear some criticism.

Food for thought, indeed.

I don’t bail or waffle. I also don’t waste my time when someone can’t accept an answer and simply move on. For example, I have no desire to spend 3 days on things like the word “wealth” being used in relation to Gaza.

We disagree on the question of bailing when you’re asked why you’ve decided to include certain specific aspects of a whole but not others, and your response is effectively, because I said so.

[dilligaf]

Nov 22, 2024 21:22:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 21:15:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I don’t bail or waffle. I also don’t waste my time when someone can’t accept an answer and simply move on. For example, I have no desire to spend 3 days on things like the word “wealth” being used in relation to Gaza.

We disagree on the question of bailing when you’re asked why you’ve decided to include certain specific aspects of a whole but not others, and your response is effectively, because I said so.

No one owes YOU an explanation of why they think like they do.  If their explanation is "because I say so," deal with it.
Your approval or disapproval of others' opinions means NOTHING.
It's really not too hard to understand.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 21:38:41 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Nov 22, 2024 21:22:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

We disagree on the question of bailing when you’re asked why you’ve decided to include certain specific aspects of a whole but not others, and your response is effectively, because I said so.

No one owes YOU an explanation of why they think like they do.  If their explanation is "because I say so," deal with it.
Your approval or disapproval of others' opinions means NOTHING.
It's really not too hard to understand.

I do deal with it. By condemning it for the chickenshit response that it is.

[Panama pfRedd]

It's unreal how that little dog never gives up and keeps darting out from under the couch. It's really sort of pitiful actually. Oh well, everyone has their cross to bear.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 21:38:41 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Nov 22, 2024 21:22:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

We disagree on the question of bailing when you’re asked why you’ve decided to include certain specific aspects of a whole but not others, and your response is effectively, because I said so.

No one owes YOU an explanation of why they think like they do.  If their explanation is "because I say so," deal with it.
Your approval or disapproval of others' opinions means NOTHING.
It's really not too hard to understand.

Not hard at all to understand. And to boot, I never told him “because I say so.” That’s pretty much his go to accusation when he doesn’t get the answer he’s seeking.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 23, 2024 11:07:37 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 21:38:41 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

No one owes YOU an explanation of why they think like they do.  If their explanation is "because I say so," deal with it.
Your approval or disapproval of others' opinions means NOTHING.
It's really not too hard to understand.

Not hard at all to understand. And to boot, I never told him “because I say so.” That’s pretty much his go to accusation when he doesn’t get the answer he’s seeking.

Or, more precisely, you give a disingenuous answer.

We've established a few things. We both agree (I think) that there is a large number of facts that, by necessity, are left out of your basic American history course by reason. Clearly, not everything can be covered in the depth that some might believe is necessary. I'm on board so far.

However, you've doubled down on THIS PARTICULAR FACT as one you want included. Out of the hundreds or thousands of others that might have been chosen. The only logical question that stems from your demand is why do you want that particular fact included as opposed to any number of others? Why have you identified that one in particular?

That's where you get cagey, and don't really offer an answer as to the motivation. Except something along the lines of, "because I just think that more facts should be taught". That's not an answer as to specifically why that one, and you know it.

So, here we are...same place you got with Walt when you refused to answer his question.

[oujour76]

Nov 23, 2024 11:14:53 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 23, 2024 11:07:37 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Not hard at all to understand. And to boot, I never told him “because I say so.” That’s pretty much his go to accusation when he doesn’t get the answer he’s seeking.

Or, more precisely, you give a disingenuous answer.

We've established a few things. We both agree (I think) that there is a large number of facts that, by necessity, are left out of your basic American history course by reason. Clearly, not everything can be covered in the depth that some might believe is necessary. I'm on board so far.

However, you've doubled down on THIS PARTICULAR FACT as one you want included. Out of the hundreds or thousands of others that might have been chosen. The only logical question that stems from your demand is why do you want that particular fact included as opposed to any number of others? Why have you identified that one in particular?

That's where you get cagey, and don't really offer an answer as to the motivation. Except something along the lines of, "because I just think that more facts should be taught". That's not an answer as to specifically why that one, and you know it.

So, here we are...same place you got with Walt when you refused to answer his question.

LOL. I never drew the line in the sand that you're claiming....you did that. You made that accusation, doubled down on it and now expect me to defend something I never said in the first place. I'm not playing that game with you.

Feel free to post where I said what you're claiming....i.e. where I "demanded" that one fact be included and opposed any number of others. You made the accusation, so back it up.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 23, 2024 14:18:41 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 23, 2024 11:14:53 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Or, more precisely, you give a disingenuous answer.

We've established a few things. We both agree (I think) that there is a large number of facts that, by necessity, are left out of your basic American history course by reason. Clearly, not everything can be covered in the depth that some might believe is necessary. I'm on board so far.

However, you've doubled down on THIS PARTICULAR FACT as one you want included. Out of the hundreds or thousands of others that might have been chosen. The only logical question that stems from your demand is why do you want that particular fact included as opposed to any number of others? Why have you identified that one in particular?

That's where you get cagey, and don't really offer an answer as to the motivation. Except something along the lines of, "because I just think that more facts should be taught". That's not an answer as to specifically why that one, and you know it.

So, here we are...same place you got with Walt when you refused to answer his question.

LOL. I never drew the line in the sand that you're claiming....you did that. You made that accusation, doubled down on it and now expect me to defend something I never said in the first place. I'm not playing that game with you.

Bullshit. Walt was referencing this exact conversation long before I came along, so clearly he recognized and attempted to address this exact issue long before I did. I didn’t draw the lines. You did. Or perhaps Walt did. But in either event…this discussion began before me.

Feel free to post where I said what you're claiming....i.e. where I "demanded" that one fact be included and opposed any number of others. You made the accusation, so back it up.

It’s in two parts. The first is this…

“If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?”

At best, you recognize by this point that the notion of “teaching the full story” is misleading at best. Some people spend an entire career learning about the “full story”, so your notions of distilling the full story down to a one semester, or one year course will never tell the full story. You know this. So…we must pick and choose which aspects of the full story we should include, right?

The second part is this…

“I disagree that the numbers are not meaningful. And I haven’t made any claims that those numbers make the U.S. superior. The numbers are what they are, so teach them. Don’t ignore them. That’s all I’m saying.”

Since we’ve established that we have to pick and choose which facts are included, you’ve focused on THAT fact as meaningful enough as to be included within the dynamic of the “full story”.

So…you’ve claimed it. Why are they meaningful enough to be included in a discussion about American history? What’s the motivation?

Here’s where you’ll likely retreat back to the “well because it’s the full story”. No, it’s not, and you know it. We’ve already agreed that we can’t teach the full story. We’re teaching a broadly generalized version of the full story, leaving out, by necessity, all sorts of facts that are pertinent to the full story. But…ball’s in your court. Explain why you feel that THAT particular fact should be included within the distilled version of American history that we teach?

[nu5ncbigred]

Nov 22, 2024 21:15:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 20:57:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Then don’t bail when you get tough questions. Or waffle. Acknowledge when your POVs might legitimately bear some criticism.

Food for thought, indeed.

I don’t bail or waffle. I also don’t waste my time when someone can’t accept an answer and simply move on. For example, I have no desire to spend 3 days on things like the word “wealth” being used in relation to Gaza.

That was insanely stupid on his part.