https://www.cbsnews.com/news/floridas-new-education-standards-says-slavery-had-personal-benefits/
Florida's new Black history curriculum says "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit"
Florida's 2023 Social Studies curriculum will include lessons on how "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit," according to a copy of the state's academic standards reviewed by CBS News.
The line about "personal benefit" is included as a "benchmark clarification" to a lesson that asks students to "examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves," such as agricultural work, domestic service, blacksmithing and household tasks like tailoring and painting.
The curriculum was approved by Florida's board of education on Wednesday.
314d
@vivify saidWell it's good to see there's at least one jobs training program for minorities right wingers support.
[youtube]PxYDr0wFhEg[/youtube]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/floridas-new-education-standards-says-slavery-had-personal-benefits/
Florida's new Black history curriculum says "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit"
Florida's 2023 Social Studies curriculum will include lessons on how "slaves developed skills" that could be used ...[text shortened]... and painting.
The curriculum was approved by Florida's board of education on Wednesday.
Will Florida school kids also learn about the useful trades and skills the "guests" at Auschwitz learned?
@no1marauder saidThis is no more exaggerated than the 'US was built on the backs of slaves' fairy tales.
Well it's good to see there's at least one jobs training program for minorities right wingers support.
Will Florida school kids also learn about the useful trades and skills the "guests" at Auschwitz learned?
Dealing with men by force and threats of force is not the most productive way. Also there were levels of slavery one might say their salary was garnished (whether they liked it or not) to be be provided with services (whether they liked them or not) not entirely unlike modern taxation.
The similarities are their, the terms are defined the only thing to debate is how much of a slave to goobermint are you today.
314d
@wajoma saidComparing chattel slavery to the modest levels of taxation required to maintain a modern economic system is childish idiocy.
This is no more exaggerated than the 'US was built on the backs of slaves' fairy tales.
Dealing with men by force and threats of force is not the most productive way. Also there were levels of slavery one might say their salary was garnished (whether they liked it or not) to be be provided with services (whether they liked them or not) not entirely unlike modern taxation. ...[text shortened]... , the terms are defined the only thing to debate is how much of a slave to goobermint are you today.
314d
@wajoma saidHow do you expect the government to fund an army, police force and prisons without taxation?
This is no more exaggerated than the 'US was built on the backs of slaves' fairy tales.
Dealing with men by force and threats of force is not the most productive way. Also there were levels of slavery one might say their salary was garnished (whether they liked it or not) to be be provided with services (whether they liked them or not) not entirely unlike modern taxation. ...[text shortened]... , the terms are defined the only thing to debate is how much of a slave to goobermint are you today.
@no1marauder saidLike I said it's only the level that's up for debate, in NZ it's about half your working life, that is to say, no longer 'modest levels of taxation'.
Comparing chattel slavery to the modest levels of taxation required to maintain a modern economic system is childish idiocy.
Also to maintain slaves at a level popularised on movies and tv costume dramas (No1's source of history) was in itself very labour intensive, constantly driving, driving, all that whipping, reluctant workers, careless workers, workers with no incentive to do things right the minute your back is turned, add to that food, clothing and housing. All that effort there's not much difference between that and simply doing it yourself.
314d
@athousandyoung saidPirates.
How do you expect the government to fund an army, police force and prisons without taxation?
314d
@wajoma saidIt's always amusing to see you hide from the logical paradoxes in your professed ideology.
Pirates.
Wajoma principle 1) Taxation without every individual agreeing is theft.
Wajoma principle 2) Government legitimate powers and responsibilities include police and prisons.
Logical consequence: Theft is part of government legitimate powers and responsibilities.
314d
Of course Wajoma is simply parotting what he reads. This lack of logical consistency is very common.
https://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-justice/
Libertarians believe that the label of “crime” should be limited to actions of force or fraud against another individual or group. We believe that such crimes should be prosecuted and punished by our justice system
https://www.lp.org/issues/taxes/
When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so?
If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed?
The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force to coerce people into doing anything. We think it is inherently wrong and should have no role in a civilized society.
And how do they expect the justice system to be funded?
Crickets…
@athousandyoung saidI already made the mistake of trying to discuss a topic seriously with you, when I jumped over to your side and try to see your POV, hello, you got me, trolling.
It's always amusing to see you hide from the logical paradoxes in your professed ideology.
Wajoma principle 1) Taxation without every individual agreeing is theft.
Wajoma principle 2) Government legitimate powers and responsibilities include police and prisons.
Logical consequence: Theft is part of government legitimate powers and responsibilities.
You think there's some gotcha here, you think after decades of Libertarianism this subject has never come up? I've long since come to the realisation talking to state worshippers is like talking to the god botherers, i.e. just wasting time between moves.
The discussion on taxation, how to get from A to B, what B even looks like can be an interesting and rewarding discussion amongst people genuinely looking at solutions.
With you? Fuggedaboutit
314d
@athousandyoung saidwadda about muh roads??
Of course Wajoma is simply parotting what he reads. This lack of logical consistency is very common.
https://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-justice/
Libertarians believe that the label of “crime” should be limited to actions of force or fraud against another individual or group. We believe that such crimes should be prosecuted and punished by our justice sy ...[text shortened]... a civilized society.
And how do they expect the justice system to be funded?
Crickets…
Since Wajoma likes quoting Atlas Shrugged characters, let's throw this quote into the mix:
I mean, we're only human beings – and what's a human being? A weak, ugly, sinful creature, born that way, rotten to the bones...
It's your sin if I suffer! It's your moral failure! I'm your brother, therefore I'm your responsibility, but you've failed to supply my wants, therefore you're guilty!
Why would Ayn Rand write such things?!
314d
@athousandyoung saidDoes ATY really want to seriously discuss the quote, the character that made the statement and why. I doubt it.
Since Wajoma likes quoting Atlas Shrugged characters, let's throw this quote into the mix:
I mean, we're only human beings – and what's a human being? A weak, ugly, sinful creature, born that way, rotten to the bones...
It's your sin if I suffer! It's your moral failure! I'm your brother, therefore I'm your responsibility, but you've failed to supply my wants, therefore you're guilty!
Why would Ayn Rand write such things?!
What's happened here is he's dug deep and found Rand was a communist.
@wajoma saidI believe Rand wanted us to critically examine such comments in her books, carefully considering WHO is the speaker in the novel and whether or not we should respect what the speaker has to say based on his actions as described in the novel.
Does ATY really want to seriously discuss the quote, the character that made the statement and why. I doubt it.
What's happened here is he's dug deep and found Rand was a communist.
That is just as true for Francisco D'Anconia as it is for James Taggart.
I mean, she could have just written Francisco's speech without creating a whole novel with fictional characters, but she chose the latter. She must have had a reason...
I dug deep and found Rand was a novelist who wrote fictional characters and had them say things she didn't necessarily believe.