Reply With Quote
Of course I would. I asked the question.
It's not Socratic method. I'm asking you simple questions about this thing that has you shook.
Just answer. If you don't want to talk about the things you bring up, don't bring them up.
Stop moving the goal posts. The cat and mouse game of not reading links and asking questions like some re ed Socratic method is beyond tiresome. A simple google search shows that these materials are being used in thousands of classrooms. I’d post links, but we both know you won’t bother to read them.
Of course I would. I asked the question.
It's not Socratic method. I'm asking you simple questions about this thing that has you shook.
Just answer. If you don't want to talk about the things you bring up, don't bring them up.
Asking leading questions whose premise and thus conclusions are based on your arguments is exactly the Socratic method.
You have been trying to diminish the significance of what was done from different angles for days. Your question is just another passive aggressive furtherance of your same argument.
Nope.
I'm trying to find out exactly what the significance of what was done but no one actually wants to say.
Everyone just shuts the up when questioned because they don't want to actually explain themselves. You've done the same.
If millions of students are being taught exactly what was written in the 1619 Project, I'd like to see the proof of it.
I have already acknowledged what's wrong with it -- now I want to know something else about it.
Exactly and you are trying to get others to do make your arguments for you through your questions. Socrates was more about getting people to epiphany while you are more about dredging authority it is still the same method.
how can it be the same when I'm simply trying to get information and not getting people to epiphany?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I wish people went through normal textbooks and curricula they way they are going through the 1619 Project. It makes me wonder why the scrutiny for this particular item, but I won't ask you or anyone else because that just infuriates you further. God forbid I ask a man to discuss something on a discussion board.
As for the argument at hand, I just look at the stated purpose of the 1619 project, the history of civilian oversight of school curriculum over the past 100 years, and then look to who is taking which side. Participating in the conversation is a big waste of time.
Furthering your arguments via question is the socratic method. It is what it is. Your intent is besides the point.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I wish people went through normal textbooks and curricula they way they are going through the 1619 Project. It makes me wonder why the scrutiny for this particular item, but I won't ask you or anyone else because that just infuriates you further. God forbid I ask a man to discuss something on a discussion board.
And spare me the line about just looking for information. You already know the answer or at least think you do.
A cigar is also tobacco rolled in a leaf and a cause of cancer. Mutual exclusivity is the key.
I am trying to find out information about the topic and what other people think.
Don't be so paranoid on behalf of other people. You're boring because you only talk about posters and not about actual subjects of discussion, just like DMC or derp.
Why are you here?
You're not here to participate in the conversation, so why?
What you do is the socratic method. If you want me to spell out exactly how your question was leading to the premise of your significance argument I can. You pretty much already admitted to the connection already.
We both know that I will talk about the matter at hand. I just think its funny that because you've been derided for using the socratic method for so long that you defensively deny it. There is nothing wrong with the Socratic method.
Sure. Asking for straight information is Socratic method. Asking any question about anything is Socratic method, right? Oh -- I just Socrated you.
You just said you weren't going to talk about the subject.
Pick a lane.
I don't expect epiphanies here. I don't even expect people to answer my questions most of the time. Those times, they simply can't because they started out talking out of their asses.
This is exactly the hand wavy rhetorical stuff dressed up as logic I was talking about. Britain threatening to end slavery doesn't refute the existence of racialism, nor does the existence of abolitionism in the US refute the social, economic and political perseverance of slavery and concurrent ideologies reinforcing it. Pretending you've pierced syllogisms by attesting disparate facts is rhetorical and interpretive. Fine by me if you take issue with supposed premises of the 1619 project, but don't pretend yours is an exercise in dispassionate logic, it's interpretive zeal.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-11-2022 at 11:46 PM.
children's minds being corrupted by bad history, undermining foundational values, something like that?
This lady, with the laws of Florida at her back, has an effective strategy against bad history and wokist claptrap.
Apparently the ends justify the means.
Most of this is of little use preparing these kids for adulthood. More math, science and English. Major influx of information technology. Teach them financial basics and discipline. Bring back home ec and wood/auto.
Consider all these foreigners that migrated to the States for college and/or career. Few of them know or care about American history. And they are some of the most successful people here.
Congrats, you've now made those books 1000x more interesting to kids.
You are clearly having issues following along so I will have to spell it out.
Your question was asking them to prove your argument of insignificance wrong. That is a question that furthers an argument. The socratic method is using questions to further your arguments.
Intent is besides the point. My speaking about Socrates intent was to compare and contrast with how you use questions to further your arguments as opposed to what he was doing. He was trying to be enlightening. Youre very clearly not.
There are plenty of home grown Americans who don’t know history.
And there are plenty of places in the US that purposely try to skip or rewrite any dirty laundry.
Especially in Texas.
The anti-wokists aren't fishing where the fish are.
Hi! I’m Poopshoot Magoo!
Perhaps you guys know my attorney, Detective Jack Scrotum Esq. MD.
Nope. I certainly have my opinions but I absolutely didn't know what, if anything, was being taught.
I had no idea what is significant or not because I didn't know what was being taught. I do now no thanks to them or you because you ONLY post about other posters.
You're simply wrong. Don't whine about it.
Jewish name
Huh?
You're "it was an inquiry purely for knowledge" line is a new one. You led off initially with the diatribe about how you ask your questions and everyone just shuts up. How if there was proof you would like too see it and since there wasn't any. . . Now you come back and tell me not to whine? Over what? Your dissembling?
I really like this notion that I don't discuss issues, elections and the like. You think people are going to buy it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
