|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 06 2015 02:31 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 01:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 06 2015 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 00:16 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2015 21:55 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote:
Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. I love how the guy who wasn't concerned at all about voter id laws resulting in hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote is suddenly extremely concerned about a net difference of four electoral votes due to the presence of illegal immigrants in blue and red states. Could it be because in this case the impact does not favor Republicans?! Lol, because that's totally what I said. Nor am I "extremely concerned." please The cis-hetero white "Christian" male is losing their place on a pedestal in America As an Independent (with liberal leanings), cis-hetero, white [Atheistic] male, reading this just makes me roll my eyes. There is no faster way for you to make me care less about what you're about to say next. I realize you're all about tearing down the establishment, but it's a sure-fire way to alienate any allies you might have in that group of people. If that alienates someone, they weren't really an ally to start with. We may share some common interests, but an ally wouldn't be alienated by it. Frankly, I'm not sure what about it would be alienating in the first place? So, we can ignore religious beliefs and political affiliations because those are both personal choice. But if we look at the other three things - race, sexual identity, and gender - these are all things beyond my control. Being a white, cis male is a part of my identity, just as much as your race/sexual identity/gender are to you, whatever they may be. By making that statement, you've thrown me (and others matching parts of that description) in a bucket and demonized traits that are personally inherent. It make you no better in that regard than those who do the same to other minority groups. I'm not saying there aren't problems that still need to be addressed - there absolutely are. But I find it counter productive when you make statements like that. It's entirely possible that you don't see me as part of the problem, but you instantly make me feel like your adversary with that sweeping generalization. Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:On October 06 2015 01:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 06 2015 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 00:16 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2015 21:55 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote:
Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. I love how the guy who wasn't concerned at all about voter id laws resulting in hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote is suddenly extremely concerned about a net difference of four electoral votes due to the presence of illegal immigrants in blue and red states. Could it be because in this case the impact does not favor Republicans?! Lol, because that's totally what I said. Nor am I "extremely concerned." please The cis-hetero white "Christian" male is losing their place on a pedestal in America As an Independent (with liberal leanings), cis-hetero, white [Atheistic] male, reading this just makes me roll my eyes. There is no faster way for you to make me care less about what you're about to say next. I realize you're all about tearing down the establishment, but it's a sure-fire way to alienate any allies you might have in that group of people. Not really. Have you not heard about the "War against christianity"? According to all of conservative media it's been going on for like 7 years now. They even got some casualties the other day!!! As said above, I agree that there are concerning issues, especially coming most often from the religious fundamentalists. But I know far more people, religious and non-religious alike, who find it as ridiculous as most people here do.
Sounds like a "you" problem. I fall into that category (except I'm not Christian) and I find absolutely no problem with that statement.
|
On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever.
I am not religious and agree with you on this particular issue, but the religious explanation for all the bad shit that happens is a little more complicated than that right? Isn't the argument that, even though God is omnipotent, if he gave us everything for free and got rid of all the bad things in the world, we wouldn't appreciate it and act like spoiled bitches?
We have to earn it by pretending like he doesn't have any power at all. And that's how we get into heaven or something.
|
On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever.
I think it's a little convenient to pick out the religious opposition again, while at the same time disability groups regularly oppose such legislation. After all these are the people these laws affect the most. The routinely seem to have very little to say in these discussions.
|
On October 06 2015 06:31 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever. I am not religious and agree with you on this particular issue, but the religious explanation for all the bad shit that happens is a little more complicated than that right? Isn't the argument that, even though God is omnipotent, if he gave us everything for free and got rid of all the bad things in the world, we wouldn't appreciate it and act like spoiled bitches? We have to earn it by pretending like he doesn't have any power at all. And that's how we get into heaven or something.
it can get complicated yeah. Leibniz had a bunch of philosophical stuff on it and people are still arguing about it to this day.
the main arguements for it and against it are pretty strightforward though
pro
Result of free will
Some sort of test
best of all possible worlds
con
nobody could reasonably conclude that this is the best of all possible worlds or that god couldn't make it better. (one philosopher compared earth to a beat up, run down, leaking dormitory.)
obviously thats a super simplified version of it
|
It started with a text from a Houston-area ninth-grader to his mother.
On reading a caption in his geography textbook that described slaves as “workers”, Coby Burren sent a photo and an annoyed message to his mother. “We was real hard workers wasn’t we,” he wrote.
Roni Dean-Burren was also disturbed by the language, and posted about the book online. Her comments went viral and the publisher swiftly decided to rewrite the section.
The offending passage was in pages titled Patterns of Immigration in McGraw-Hill Education’s World Geography book. A colourful map of the US was adorned with a speech bubble which said: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Dean-Burren, and thousands of others who reacted on social media, objected to a choice of words which seems to imply that slaves were economic migrants.
“Immigrants. Yeah, that word matters – immigrants,” she said. “So it is now considered immigration.”
She pointed to a section on the facing page that described Europeans who came to the US to work as indentured servants, for little or no pay.
Source
|
On October 06 2015 11:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +It started with a text from a Houston-area ninth-grader to his mother.
On reading a caption in his geography textbook that described slaves as “workers”, Coby Burren sent a photo and an annoyed message to his mother. “We was real hard workers wasn’t we,” he wrote.
Roni Dean-Burren was also disturbed by the language, and posted about the book online. Her comments went viral and the publisher swiftly decided to rewrite the section.
The offending passage was in pages titled Patterns of Immigration in McGraw-Hill Education’s World Geography book. A colourful map of the US was adorned with a speech bubble which said: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Dean-Burren, and thousands of others who reacted on social media, objected to a choice of words which seems to imply that slaves were economic migrants.
“Immigrants. Yeah, that word matters – immigrants,” she said. “So it is now considered immigration.”
She pointed to a section on the facing page that described Europeans who came to the US to work as indentured servants, for little or no pay. Source
well according to the dictionary the slave trade is still technically immigration
"to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence.
2.
to pass or come into a new habitat or place, as an organism.
"
it doesn't necessarily say voluntarily. and work doesn't necesarily mean money. I can work for no pay, you could be doing work in the physics sense of the word. Its still problematic though since the more common use of the term and the way people are likely to read is is different then the way their using it so their sneaking it in since they never defined how their using the terms. (I'm arguing semantics because I'm bored. It's a pretty terribly written textbook.)
|
"brought" is pretty euphemistic also. I expect nothing less from Texas though.
|
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think.
|
On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think.
Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks?
I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all.
I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort.
|
On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort.
I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact.
|
On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact.
The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter?
|
On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter?
The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what.
|
On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what.
You realize this was in Texas right? Then you said you are familiar with how textbooks work in Texas and you still need clarification?
Not to mention I already told you they tried to replace the word slave in "slave trade" (so it's a phrase they pay attention to, and it's context, when referenced).
There's no question what Texas is trying to do in general. My assertion that it's typical Texas isn't really dependent on it being explicitly mandated.
Trying to suggest it's simply the result of some "idiot author" is really hard to take seriously. Though it fits right in with the thinking that would lead to the last article you posted.
|
On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what.
I am not sure if this is true but it has been explained to me that for logistical reasons it is impractical for textbook companies to print variations to suite different standards. As a result, a hyper conservative group of officials have taken over the committee that determines standards in Texas and leveraged the value of their market to get the books used by the whole country to reflect their values.
Whether or not this has been changed over the years I don't know but it has made Texas the go-to example of backward education policy.
|
On October 06 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. You realize this was in Texas right? Then you said you are familiar with how textbooks work in Texas and you still need clarification? Not to mention I already told you they tried to replace the word slave in "slave trade" (so it's a phrase they pay attention to, and it's context, when referenced). There's no question what Texas is trying to do in general. My assertion that it's typical Texas isn't really dependent on it being explicitly mandated. Trying to suggest it's simply the result of some "idiot author" is really hard to take seriously. Though it fits right in with the thinking that would lead to the last article you posted.
So you assume it to be true. All I needed to know. I mean, the company is apologizing, and this was one of many books adopted (i.e. approved for use). I was just trying to figure out how this came about, but apparently following up and asking is a sin of some sort. I'm not defending the wording, so take your outrage somewhere else.
On October 06 2015 13:51 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. I am not sure if this is true but it has been explained to me that for logistical reasons it is impractical for textbook companies to print variations to suite different standards. As a result, a hyper conservative group of officials have taken over the committee that determines standards in Texas and leveraged the value of their market to get the books used by the whole country to reflect their values. Whether or not this has been changed over the years I don't know but it has made Texas the go-to example of backward education policy.
Not really relevant to my question.
But I was just curious, and now I'm being attacked so whatever.
|
On October 06 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. You realize this was in Texas right? Then you said you are familiar with how textbooks work in Texas and you still need clarification? Not to mention I already told you they tried to replace the word slave in "slave trade" (so it's a phrase they pay attention to, and it's context, when referenced). There's no question what Texas is trying to do in general. My assertion that it's typical Texas isn't really dependent on it being explicitly mandated. Trying to suggest it's simply the result of some "idiot author" is really hard to take seriously. Though it fits right in with the thinking that would lead to the last article you posted. So you assume it to be true. All I needed to know. I mean, the company is apologizing, and this was one of many books adopted (i.e. approved for use). I was just trying to figure out how this came about, but apparently following up and asking is a sin of some sort. I'm not defending the wording, so take your outrage somewhere else. Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 13:51 Velocirapture wrote:On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. I am not sure if this is true but it has been explained to me that for logistical reasons it is impractical for textbook companies to print variations to suite different standards. As a result, a hyper conservative group of officials have taken over the committee that determines standards in Texas and leveraged the value of their market to get the books used by the whole country to reflect their values. Whether or not this has been changed over the years I don't know but it has made Texas the go-to example of backward education policy. Not really relevant to my question. But I was just curious, and now I'm being attacked so whatever.
I guess I thought the Texas Advisory Board being credited in the front of the book would have given you a clue.
|
On October 06 2015 14:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. You realize this was in Texas right? Then you said you are familiar with how textbooks work in Texas and you still need clarification? Not to mention I already told you they tried to replace the word slave in "slave trade" (so it's a phrase they pay attention to, and it's context, when referenced). There's no question what Texas is trying to do in general. My assertion that it's typical Texas isn't really dependent on it being explicitly mandated. Trying to suggest it's simply the result of some "idiot author" is really hard to take seriously. Though it fits right in with the thinking that would lead to the last article you posted. So you assume it to be true. All I needed to know. I mean, the company is apologizing, and this was one of many books adopted (i.e. approved for use). I was just trying to figure out how this came about, but apparently following up and asking is a sin of some sort. I'm not defending the wording, so take your outrage somewhere else. On October 06 2015 13:51 Velocirapture wrote:On October 06 2015 13:31 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 12:25 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2015 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2015 11:55 Introvert wrote:
Is that a book for Texas, following Texas education standards? MH is a not a small player in the textbook business. I don't think. Are you unfamiliar with the role Texas plays in influencing textbooks? I suppose most people don't realize the board already tried to take the word "slave" out of "slave trade". So this isn't really surprising at all. I can't take someone serious if they are still pretending this isn't an intentional effort. I'm familiar with their role, but I think my question is still valid. I'm sorry I don't take random assertions as fact. The question is what are you really asking, and what does it matter? The question was quite clear: what does Texas have to do with it? As to your second question... well it's rather dumb. You claimed this was not surprising for Texas, and I was curious what that had to do with it. I guess I just want to know? People (espeically liberals) love to whine about Texas standards, so I wanted to know if this was actually something mandated by the state or this was an idiot author. I've read more than enough "inaccurately worded" textbook sections myself and wonder who approved what. I am not sure if this is true but it has been explained to me that for logistical reasons it is impractical for textbook companies to print variations to suite different standards. As a result, a hyper conservative group of officials have taken over the committee that determines standards in Texas and leveraged the value of their market to get the books used by the whole country to reflect their values. Whether or not this has been changed over the years I don't know but it has made Texas the go-to example of backward education policy. Not really relevant to my question. But I was just curious, and now I'm being attacked so whatever. I guess I thought the Texas Advisory Board being credited in the front of the book would have given you a clue.
What, that it was approved? Obviously it was or it wouldn't be used.
|
Joe Biden has been making his 2016 deliberations all about his late son since August.
Aug. 1, to be exact — the day renowned Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd published a column that marked a turning point in the presidential speculation.
According to multiple sources, it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a dying son, Beau’s face partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because "the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.”
It was no coincidence that the preliminary pieces around a prospective campaign started moving right after that column. People read Dowd and started reaching out, those around the vice president would say by way of defensive explanation. He was just answering the phone and listening.
But in truth, Biden had effectively placed an ad in The New York Times, asking them to call.[...]
At the end of August, while friends were still worrying aloud that he was in the worst mental state possible to be making this decision, he invited Elizabeth Warren for an unannounced Saturday lunch at the Naval Observatory. According to sources connected with Warren, he raised Clinton’s scheduled appearance at the House Benghazi Committee hearing at the end of October, even hinting that there might be a running-mate opening for the Massachusetts senator. Politico
|
On October 06 2015 07:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever. I think it's a little convenient to pick out the religious opposition again, while at the same time disability groups regularly oppose such legislation. After all these are the people these laws affect the most. The routinely seem to have very little to say in these discussions.
Sorry, but what exactly are you talking about?
Which kind of disability groups oppose such legalisation concernig terminally ill patients?
And no, disabled people are not affected by such laws the most. Terminally ill people are.
|
On October 07 2015 01:27 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 07:06 Nyxisto wrote:On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever. I think it's a little convenient to pick out the religious opposition again, while at the same time disability groups regularly oppose such legislation. After all these are the people these laws affect the most. The routinely seem to have very little to say in these discussions. Sorry, but what exactly are you talking about? Which kind of disability groups oppose such legalisation concernig terminally ill patients? And no, disabled people are not affected by such laws the most. Terminally ill people are.
There are quite a lot of disability right advocates around that oppose this kind of legislation
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
