Muons, Leptons and CRT

[beagle9]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Can you explain what critical race theory is?

LOL... More wasted time where a dummy is trying to set someone up. People aren't as dumb as you think boy, so go back to your computer game's while grown folks are discussing the issues.

 

[Crepitus]

Christianity is proven,

Lol, whut?

Don't what me boy. All you have to do is go back and weigh the consequences along with the positives verse's negatives in outcomes surrounding Christianity, and you will have your answer. Christianity on the scale will be proven the better when it comes to positives verse's the negatives in outcomes.

Sure, sure.

Crucified your own messiah, you know..

 

[Crepitus]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Can you explain what critical race theory is?

LOL... More wasted time where a dummy is trying to set someone up. People aren't as dumb as you think boy, so go back to your computer game's while grown folks are discussing the issues.

So that would be a "no" then?

I didn't think you could.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

Yes, many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, especially in the urban plantations.
Here is one Chinese-American mom who recognizes it for what it is, "America's Cultural Revolution" and she is warning us that CRT needs to be stopped ASP.

Mom who survived Mao’s China calls critical race theory America’s Cultural Revolution

Xi Van Fleet said critical race theory “should have no place in our schools.”

nypost.com

Oh God.... Not another crazy lady at a school board meeting.
If many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, then name at least one.

I don’t know which, if any, schools are teaching CRT but even if none are at the moment, there is a movement by certain groups to teach it. That’s what opponents of teaching CRT are arguing against.

As far as I know it’s currently being taught only at Universities, which is fine as long as it’s presented for what it is, an argument based on opinions. You’re right though there has been a push in certain districts to teach it in primary education, which is why some states are moving to stop it in its tracks before it gets there.

Which districts?

Wisconsin, Georgia, Maryland, Texas, just to name a few. Haven’t you been paying attention? why do you think parents and teachers are up in arms about it? Do you think they just manufactured their concerns out of thin air and decided they had nothing better to do than to voice objections to something that doesn’t exist?

Credible link?

What does that mean? has your right to DuckDuckGo been suppressed or something? I have no idea what you consider a “credible link”. If you can’t find anything using a search engine then it just means that you’re not using it correctly and I’m not about to waste my time trying to teach you how to use one.

Now, feel free to move on to your next NON-ARGUMENT, you have a lot to learn regarding how to utilize the Socratic Method effectively.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Christianity is proven,

Lol, whut?

Don't what me boy. All you have to do is go back and weigh the consequences along with the positives verse's negatives in outcomes surrounding Christianity, and you will have your answer. Christianity on the scale will be proven the better when it comes to positives verse's the negatives in outcomes.

Sure, sure.

Crucified your own messiah, you know..

Jews crucified the messiah.

 

[Darkwind]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

A credible answer is not just one you agree with.

Perhaps that is why no one bothers to jump through your hoops. You were provided a credible source as to why the forum member believes that CRT is bunk.

Now, jump through your own set of hoops and explain why the 1776 Commission report is wrong.

 

[kyzr]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Isn't Christianity a theory and ideology??

We are talking history here, so you might not like it, but its history.

1. Christianity is a religion. It is a belief system, not a scientific "theory" or "ideology" at least according to the definitions.
2. What "history" are you referring to? Actual confirmed and referenced history, or the fake/bullshit kind? All "history" is not factually based. If the history you are referring to is bullshit, we will call it bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Isn't Christianity a theory and ideology??

No, Christianity ISN’T a theory but it is an ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive if one takes into account that “theory” carries with it the notion of being derived via the scientific method in most peoples minds thus to characterize Christianity as a theory would be highly misleading.

We are talking history here, so you might not like it, but its history.

No, with CRT you’re not “talking history” you’re talking an argument based on opinions formulated by cherry picking historical facts and legal arguments in isolation.

Teach the history to children, leaving the aggregated and highly suggestive opinions out of it.

Do you think the history of black people in the US has been taught as honestly and completely as it has been for white people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

I don't think I've told anybody they were wrong.

Fair enough, so you’re not defending the CRT then? If that’s the case I apologize for misreading your motive.

I'm just asking you to explain your point of view. So far, nobody has done that.

Excuse Me? I DID explain my point of view, however your responses so far have been underwhelming to say the least.

Lots of people are saying it is wrong, but cant point out specifically what part is wrong,

I never said it was wrong, what I said is that it isn’t a theory it’s an argument and I explained why I believed that was the case, and then pointed out why it shouldn’t be taught to school children.

I also pointed out why I believe your initial question regarding its underpinnings was irrelevant given the fact that it’s an argument not theory.

What more do you want?

To be clear, your opposition is because you don't believe we should teach beliefs of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments? You realize that is the full curriculum of every law school in the country, if not the world, don't you? Since it isn't being taught in any K/12 school in the country, why do you oppose it being taught in law school?

No one opposes it being taught in college so that is a strawman argument. And for the slow and stupid ( ya that includes you) a list was already provided where it is being taught and we have explained that more school districts are trying to start teaching it and are being opposed.
Most of us have explained our reasons and you just ignore them when presented.

 

[InspectorDetector]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

BRAVO!!!

 

[InspectorDetector]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Physics requires proof?*?
How about you believing some celestial ghost snapping his fingers and the universe just appeared???
Where's your proof of that?
Do you realise how tenuous your grip on on reality is?

That's called "Faith" sonny. Faith is believing in those things NOT seen.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Isn't Christianity a theory and ideology??

No, Christianity ISN’T a theory but it is an ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive if one takes into account that “theory” carries with it the notion of being derived via the scientific method in most peoples minds thus to characterize Christianity as a theory would be highly misleading.

We are talking history here, so you might not like it, but its history.

No, with CRT you’re not “talking history” you’re talking an argument based on opinions formulated by cherry picking historical facts and legal arguments in isolation.

Teach the history to children, leaving the aggregated and highly suggestive opinions out of it.

Do you think the history of black people in the US has been taught as honestly and completely as it has been for white people?

Umm.. yeah, as I said, you A LOT to learn about how to use the Socratic Method effectively. It doesn’t involve continuously trying to deflect from the issue at hand by redefining it every time your assertions are shown to be invalid.

Do you want to attempt to get back on to the topic of the CRT specifically or have you run out of road on that subject and now want to engage in an entirely different discussion?

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

Yes, many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, especially in the urban plantations.
Here is one Chinese-American mom who recognizes it for what it is, "America's Cultural Revolution" and she is warning us that CRT needs to be stopped ASP.

Mom who survived Mao’s China calls critical race theory America’s Cultural Revolution

Xi Van Fleet said critical race theory “should have no place in our schools.”

nypost.com

Oh God.... Not another crazy lady at a school board meeting.
If many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, then name at least one.

I don’t know which, if any, schools are teaching CRT but even if none are at the moment, there is a movement by certain groups to teach it. That’s what opponents of teaching CRT are arguing against.

As far as I know it’s currently being taught only at Universities, which is fine as long as it’s presented for what it is, an argument based on opinions. You’re right though there has been a push in certain districts to teach it in primary education, which is why some states are moving to stop it in its tracks before it gets there.

Which districts?

Wisconsin, Georgia, Maryland, Texas, just to name a few. Haven’t you been paying attention? why do you think parents and teachers are up in arms about it? Do you think they just manufactured their concerns out of thin air and decided they had nothing better to do than to voice objections to something that doesn’t exist?

Credible link?

What does that mean? has your right to DuckDuckGo been suppressed or something? I have no idea what you consider a “credible link”. If you can’t find anything using a search engine then it just means that you’re not using it correctly and I’m not about to waste my time trying to teach you how to use one.

Now, feel free to move on to your next NON-ARGUMENT, you have a lot to learn regarding how to utilize the Socratic Method effectively.

States are not districts. Yes I do think they think their concerns were manufactured out of thin air but they decided to voice objections to something that doesn’t exist because right wing pundits told them it did exist. Just because a state votes to outlaw something doesn't mean it really exists. Texas passed ordinances to prevent the military takeover of the state during Jade Helm. That was embarrassing, but crazy politicians did it. If Critical Race Theory was really being discussed as a real possibility, there would be more proof of it than a crazy lady at a school board meeting. Actual documentation of a school district preparing to teach Critical Race Theory would be credible. A Hannity rant would not be. .

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

I don't think I've told anybody they were wrong.

Fair enough, so you’re not defending the CRT then? If that’s the case I apologize for misreading your motive.

I'm just asking you to explain your point of view. So far, nobody has done that.

Excuse Me? I DID explain my point of view, however your responses so far have been underwhelming to say the least.

Lots of people are saying it is wrong, but cant point out specifically what part is wrong,

I never said it was wrong, what I said is that it isn’t a theory it’s an argument and I explained why I believed that was the case, and then pointed out why it shouldn’t be taught to school children.

I also pointed out why I believe your initial question regarding its underpinnings was irrelevant given the fact that it’s an argument not theory.

What more do you want?

To be clear, your opposition is because you don't believe we should teach beliefs of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments? You realize that is the full curriculum of every law school in the country, if not the world, don't you? Since it isn't being taught in any K/12 school in the country, why do you oppose it being taught in law school?

No one opposes it being taught in college so that is a strawman argument. And for the slow and stupid ( ya that includes you) a list was already provided where it is being taught and we have explained that more school districts are trying to start teaching it and are being opposed.
Most of us have explained our reasons and you just ignore them when presented.

So where is the list of school districts teaching it. Google doesn't have it and neither does DuckDuckGo.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

I don't think I've told anybody they were wrong.

Fair enough, so you’re not defending the CRT then? If that’s the case I apologize for misreading your motive.

I'm just asking you to explain your point of view. So far, nobody has done that.

Excuse Me? I DID explain my point of view, however your responses so far have been underwhelming to say the least.

Lots of people are saying it is wrong, but cant point out specifically what part is wrong,

I never said it was wrong, what I said is that it isn’t a theory it’s an argument and I explained why I believed that was the case, and then pointed out why it shouldn’t be taught to school children.

I also pointed out why I believe your initial question regarding its underpinnings was irrelevant given the fact that it’s an argument not theory.

What more do you want?

To be clear, your opposition is because you don't believe we should teach beliefs of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments? You realize that is the full curriculum of every law school in the country, if not the world, don't you? Since it isn't being taught in any K/12 school in the country, why do you oppose it being taught in law school?

No one opposes it being taught in college so that is a strawman argument. And for the slow and stupid ( ya that includes you) a list was already provided where it is being taught and we have explained that more school districts are trying to start teaching it and are being opposed.
Most of us have explained our reasons and you just ignore them when presented.

So where is the list of school districts teaching it. Google doesn't have it and neither does DuckDuckGo.

a link was provided in this thread go use it. And no I am not going to link to a post already in this thread.

 

[beagle9]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Physics requires proof?*?
How about you believing some celestial ghost snapping his fingers and the universe just appeared???
Where's your proof of that?
Do you realise how tenuous your grip on on reality is?

That's called "Faith" sonny. Faith is believing in those things NOT seen.

Not seen, but actually is experienced when applied.

Example : I have faith that my mind is doing the right thing, and the results are the very thing that confirms the faith that I have for my own thought in which can't be seen, but is realized by it's results once I applied the very thing in which I have faith in.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Isn't Christianity a theory and ideology??

No, Christianity ISN’T a theory but it is an ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive if one takes into account that “theory” carries with it the notion of being derived via the scientific method in most peoples minds thus to characterize Christianity as a theory would be highly misleading.

We are talking history here, so you might not like it, but its history.

No, with CRT you’re not “talking history” you’re talking an argument based on opinions formulated by cherry picking historical facts and legal arguments in isolation.

Teach the history to children, leaving the aggregated and highly suggestive opinions out of it.

Do you think the history of black people in the US has been taught as honestly and completely as it has been for white people?

Umm.. yeah, as I said, you A LOT to learn about how to use the Socratic Method effectively. It doesn’t involve continuously trying to deflect from the issue at hand by redefining it every time your assertions are shown to be invalid.

Do you want to attempt to get back on to the topic of the CRT specifically or have you run out of road on that subject and now want to engage in an entirely different discussion?

You were the one who mentioned teaching history to children.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

Yes, many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, especially in the urban plantations.
Here is one Chinese-American mom who recognizes it for what it is, "America's Cultural Revolution" and she is warning us that CRT needs to be stopped ASP.

Mom who survived Mao’s China calls critical race theory America’s Cultural Revolution

Xi Van Fleet said critical race theory “should have no place in our schools.”

nypost.com

Oh God.... Not another crazy lady at a school board meeting.
If many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, then name at least one.

I don’t know which, if any, schools are teaching CRT but even if none are at the moment, there is a movement by certain groups to teach it. That’s what opponents of teaching CRT are arguing against.

As far as I know it’s currently being taught only at Universities, which is fine as long as it’s presented for what it is, an argument based on opinions. You’re right though there has been a push in certain districts to teach it in primary education, which is why some states are moving to stop it in its tracks before it gets there.

Which districts?

Wisconsin, Georgia, Maryland, Texas, just to name a few. Haven’t you been paying attention? why do you think parents and teachers are up in arms about it? Do you think they just manufactured their concerns out of thin air and decided they had nothing better to do than to voice objections to something that doesn’t exist?

Credible link?

What does that mean? has your right to DuckDuckGo been suppressed or something? I have no idea what you consider a “credible link”. If you can’t find anything using a search engine then it just means that you’re not using it correctly and I’m not about to waste my time trying to teach you how to use one.

Now, feel free to move on to your next NON-ARGUMENT, you have a lot to learn regarding how to utilize the Socratic Method effectively.

States are not districts.

You’re aware that States do contain multiple school districts, right? If you were actually interested in the particulars of which school districts in those states are the sources of controversy, you would have gone and looked it for yourself but instead you choose to attempt to deflect because apparently you’re operating under the false assumption that I’m foolish enough to fall for the old “Go get me some links so I can dismiss them based on the source” trick, Sorry to disappoint you but you’ll need to be a tad more creative with your non-arguments than that , because that one is NOT GOING TO WORK.

Yes I do think they think their concerns were manufactured out of thin air but they decided to voice objections to something that doesn’t exist because right wing pundits told them it did exist. Just because a state votes to outlaw something doesn't mean it really exists. Texas passed ordinances to prevent the military takeover of the state during Jade Helm. That was embarrassing, but crazy politicians did it. If Critical Race Theory was really being discussed as a real possibility, there would be more proof of it than a crazy lady at a school board meeting. Actual documentation of a school district preparing to teach Critical Race Theory would be credible. A Hannity rant would not be. .

Ah yes, the old “right wing pundits made them do it” fallacy rears it’s ugly head once again, I mean it’s cute and all but at the end of the day doesn’t carry any weight with those of us that recognize the difference between misleading journalism and MASS MIND CONTROL.

So far you’re not giving me much reason to think that your motives involve anything beyond me helping you feed your own confirmation bias. I was really hoping that you would have something to say that would be worthy of consideration on the subject of this thread.

 

[Penelope]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

Critical race theory is a hypotheses.

Christianity is a hypotheses.

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Physics requires proof?*?
How about you believing some celestial ghost snapping his fingers and the universe just appeared???
Where's your proof of that?
Do you realise how tenuous your grip on on reality is?

That's called "Faith" sonny. Faith is believing in those things NOT seen.

Exactly, a hypothesis.

 

[Penelope]

Christianity is proven,

Lol, whut?

Don't what me boy. All you have to do is go back and weigh the consequences along with the positives verse's negatives in outcomes surrounding Christianity, and you will have your answer. Christianity on the scale will be proven the better when it comes to positives verse's the negatives in outcomes.

Sure, sure.

Crucified your own messiah, you know..

Jews crucified the messiah.

Prove that??