White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[RandomWords]

I think you quote the wrong person, I did not say what you quoted.

I do not know why that happens with the "quote selected text" button... that's twice... I'll change it, sorry.

 

[realibrad]

Fine, we'll try it the fast way again.

Protesters claim white person can't teach minority studies because they do not have enough experience being a minority.

Mostly correct. Protestors believe that the teacher does not have direct experience of the subject matter, and that they believe inherently makes the teacher unqualified to teach the subject.

Spungo wants to extend the logic to show it is false so he needs a comparable example of something he thinks black people do not have enough experience with.

Correct

The example Spungo comes up with is black people do not have enough experience with European History.

Mostly Correct. Black people do not have direct experience with being from the race that makes up the vast majority of Europe. As explained before, the protesters believe a teacher needs direct experience.

Spungo thinks the two statements "white people do not have enough experience being a minority" and "black people do not have enough experience with European history" are equal.

Here is where it really starts to break down. American history is a history made up of many different events, and the people who went through those events. The people who went through the events were also shaped by their culture. A major part of American history has to do with how the US dealt with racial relations. So, the issue then becomes, how can any teacher have broad enough firsthand experience to be qualified to teach all facets of “American History”? So, the idea by Spungo is that a black teacher would have very little firsthand experience with European issues and history, and thus would be unable to effectively teach.

Spungo thinks that the lack of experience in both examples does not disqualify either group from teaching either subject.

Correct

Waggy agrees with Spungo.

Correct

Waggy wants to extend the logic even further, so he needs a comparable example of something he thinks black people do not have enough experience with.

Correct

The example Waggy comes up with is all black people do not have enough experience with any history other than Minority studies.

NO. Again, the protestor’s logic is that you can only teach a historical subject you have firsthand experience in. As teaching any nations or regions history is far too complex for a single person black or otherwise, you can draw a conclusion from the protestor’s logic that nobody would be qualified to teach a broad subject like European or American history. Waggy did not state that he believes that whites can teach American history, and blacks can’t. That is an inference you made, and it does not follow logically. If first had experience is necessary, then neither blacks or whites or anyone would be qualified. Nothing that Waggy has stated can lead you to know what he believes. But the protestor’s necessity for firsthand experience would preclude anyone from teaching American History effectively.

Here is an example. Blacks are not qualified to teach anything outside of minority studies. Whites are not qualified to teach anything outside of majority studies.

Both would be inline and would still preclude both from teaching American History.

American history is not a subset of Minority studies, therefore the statement "fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies)" includes firing every black American History teacher.

American History is not a subset, but minority relations is a subset of American History.
So if A+B=C, and you need to have firsthand experience to teach C, you would also need to have firsthand experience in A and B. Blacks would not, and neither would Whites.

Waggy and Spungo both believe that white people do not have enough experience as a minority.

Mostly correct. They believe whites do not meet the requirement of enough firsthand experience as set by the protestors.

Waggy and Spungo both believe that does not disqualify white people from teaching Minority studies.

Correct

Waggy and Spungo both believe black people do not have enough experience with European History.

Correct, insofar that A+B+C=European History, and no one person can ever have enough first hand experience to teach it.

Waggy and Spungo both believe that does not disqualify black people from teaching European History.

Correct

Waggy believes black people do not have enough experience with all history except for Minority studies.

Incorrect. Waggy believes that a black person could not have enough firsthand experience to teach a broad subject such as a nations or regions history.

Waggy believes black people do not have enough experience with American History.

Partly correct. Waggy does not believe anyone has enough firsthand experience to teach American History, black or white.

Waggy believes that does not disqualify black people from teaching American History.

Correct. Waggy does not believe that black people should be disqualified.

I believe they both made a mistake comparing history with minority studies because they are not comparable.

Holy crap, you just summed up your whole point in one sentence. How did that feel? That’s pretty amazing that you were finally able to do it.

Minority studies is mostly made up of minority history. There is far more that has gone on in the past, than is going on in the present.

 

[dank69]

Progress! At least you are not asking me why I think what I've already told you I do not think!

Mostly correct. Protestors believe that the teacher does not have direct experience of the subject matter, and that they believe inherently makes the teacher unqualified to teach the subject.

Mostly correct? I reiterated what they were saying specifically and you inferred what they meant generally. My representation is more accurate than yours is. It does not matter at all for the purposes of this discussion anyway.

Correct



Mostly Correct. Black people do not have direct experience with being from the race that makes up the vast majority of Europe. As explained before, the protesters believe a teacher needs direct experience.

Adding the word "direct" doesn't change anything. I think it is relatively clear from my post that when I said experience I was talking about direct experience.

Here is where it really starts to break down. American history is a history made up of many different events, and the people who went through those events. The people who went through the events were also shaped by their culture. A major part of American history has to do with how the US dealt with racial relations. So, the issue then becomes, how can any teacher have broad enough firsthand experience to be qualified to teach all facets of “American History”? So, the idea by Spungo is that a black teacher would have very little firsthand experience with European issues and history, and thus would be unable to effectively teach.

No, you are flailing wildly for any other explanation you can possibly think of. Yes American History has many different facets to it, as does any history, but there is no indication in Spungo's or Waggy's posts that they think the protesters' logic, if extended, means nobody can teach history anymore. They said black people wouldn't be able to teach European History and black people would only be able teach Minority studies. If they meant no single person would be able to teach European History, that's what they would have said.

Correct



Correct



Correct



NO. Again, the protestor’s logic is that you can only teach a historical subject you have firsthand experience in. As teaching any nations or regions history is far too complex for a single person black or otherwise, you can draw a conclusion from the protestor’s logic that nobody would be qualified to teach a broad subject like European or American history. Waggy did not state that he believes that whites can teach American history, and blacks can’t. That is an inference you made, and it does not follow logically. If first had experience is necessary, then neither blacks or whites or anyone would be qualified. Nothing that Waggy has stated can lead you to know what he believes. But the protestor’s necessity for firsthand experience would preclude anyone from teaching American History effectively.

Here is an example. Blacks are not qualified to teach anything outside of minority studies. Whites are not qualified to teach anything outside of majority studies.

Both would be inline and would still preclude both from teaching American History.




American History is not a subset, but minority relations is a subset of American History.
So if A+B=C, and you need to have firsthand experience to teach C, you would also need to have firsthand experience in A and B. Blacks would not, and neither would Whites.

Again, reaching. I understand what you are saying, but you are reaching and nothing in either of their posts indicates that this is where they were going.

Mostly correct. They believe whites do not meet the requirement of enough firsthand experience as set by the protestors.

Again, a distinction without a difference.

Correct



Correct, insofar that A+B+C=European History, and no one person can ever have enough first hand experience to teach it.



Correct



Incorrect. Waggy believes that a black person could not have enough firsthand experience to teach a broad subject such as a nations or regions history.

Again, your conclusion drawn from your own logic not supported by anything in their posts.

Partly correct. Waggy does not believe anyone has enough firsthand experience to teach American History, black or white.

Again, a distinction without a difference.

Correct. Waggy does not believe that black people should be disqualified.




Holy crap, you just summed up your whole point in one sentence. How did that feel? That’s pretty amazing that you were finally able to do it.

Minority studies is mostly made up of minority history. There is far more that has gone on in the past, than is going on in the present.

This isn't my whole point. It has nothing to do with my original point. It is a complete tangent to my point. I just tacked it on the end because, why not discuss it as well?

 

[justoh]

What are you trying to say, dank? Spit it out. Or are you a coward?

 

[dank69]

What are you trying to say, dank? Spit it out. Or are you a coward?

Is this the part where you pretend to be a troll rather than admit you made some mistakes?

 

[justoh]

Is this the part where you pretend to be a troll rather than admit you made some mistakes?

Good instinct, but no; at least _that's_ plausible (well, if i was actually wrong). You can find many instances of me admitting to error on AT. Ain't no thang.

The only person who thinks you're right referred to it as "your interpretation," which doesn't really make sense if it's about what waggy _must_ think. But since you're so much better than everyone here it probably doesn't bother you that only you get it.

 

[dank69]

Good instinct, but no; at least _that's_ plausible (well, if i was actually wrong). You can find many instances of me admitting to error on AT. Ain't no thang.

The only person who thinks you're right referred to it as "your interpretation," which doesn't really make sense if it's about what waggy _must_ think. But since you're so much better than everyone here it probably doesn't bother you that only you get it.

I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to build a strawman (me being better than everyone here) in order to attack it. It isn't my fault you are having a problem with the concept of people having to believe one thing in order to say another thing, especially when it comes to logic.

 

[justoh]

I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to build a strawman (me being better than everyone here) in order to attack it. It isn't my fault you are having a problem with the concept of people having to believe one thing in order to say another thing, especially when it comes to logic.

You're doing it again. Why do you think that I feel it's necessary? Must I feel it's necessary to do something in order to do it? Not that I'm doing it. You constantly sing your own praises, and you do think you're better than most people on AT, which I guess is the reason why it doesn't bother you that nobody else understands what you're going on about, while others might see it as a prompt to reconsider. It's what you would expect. This isn't a strawman. Or must it be a strawman? (yes/no).

 

[dank69]

You're doing it again. Why do you think that I feel it's necessary? Must I feel it's necessary to do something in order to do it? Not that I'm doing it. You constantly sing your own praises, and you do think you're better than most people on AT, which I guess is the reason why it doesn't bother you that nobody else understands what you're going on about, while others might see it as a prompt to reconsider. It's what you would expect. This isn't a strawman. Or must it be a strawman? (yes/no).

Asking you if you think it is necessary is simply a polite way of asking you why you are doing something. Constantly? Show me constantly. I remember replying "I am awesome" exactly once, in jest. I find it hilarious that you think it is wrong for me to say someone must believe A in order to type B while also posting that you know what I must think about myself.

 

[justoh]

Asking you if you think it is necessary is simply a polite way of asking you why you are doing something. Constantly? Show me constantly. I remember replying "I am awesome" exactly once, in jest. I find it hilarious that you think it is wrong for me to say someone must believe A in order to type B while also posting that you know what I must think about myself.

Where did I say that you must think anything about yourself? I know you must think you're better than most people? How do you know that? Must I have said it? Why? Mistake after mistake. Let me ask you then, don't you think you're better than most people on AT? You probably do (which isn't the same as what you must think). Clear now? I think I solved this.

 

[dank69]

Where did I say that you must think anything about yourself? ...

:hmm:

... You constantly sing your own praises, and you do think you're better than most people on AT, which I guess is the reason why it doesn't bother you that nobody else understands what you're going on about, while others might see it as a prompt to reconsider. ...

 

[justoh]

:hmm:

pay attention, dude. Must... Is this the same care you took with waggy's statements?

 

[dank69]

pay attention, dude. Must... Is this the same care you took with waggy's statements?

That's an awfully weak hook to hang your hat on.

 

[justoh]

That's an awfully weak hook to hang your hat on.

Is this the part where you fail to acknowledge your original error while repeating the same error? As I said in the beginning, while supporting you, you were right about everything except when you tried to argue that he must think or believe something just because it follows from what he said that he could. Now you act like I'm being pedantic or silly about the word must when the must part of it was the only issue.

 

[dank69]

Is this the part where you fail to acknowledge your original error while repeating the same error? As I said in the beginning, while supporting you, you were right about everything except when you tried to argue that he must think or believe something just because it follows from what he said that he could. Now you act like I'm being pedantic or silly about the word must when the must part of it was the only issue.

So you think there is any difference between the two following statements?

You do think you're better than most people on AT.
You must think you're better than most people on AT.

Both are absolutes. Like I said. Weak.

 

[justoh]

So you think there is any difference between the two following statements?

You do think you're better than most people on AT.
You must think you're better than most people on AT.

Bolded the difference for you. You might also want to look up the definition of must. Could have spared us like 16 pages of nonsense.

 

[dank69]

Bolded the difference for you. You might also want to look up the definition of must. Could have spared us like 16 pages of nonsense.

And you could look up the definition of absolute. The two statements leave the same amount of wiggle room. Namely none.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
This inequality is much smaller than you portray though and doesn't have to do so much with society anymore as it has to do with the family unit. A lot of it does have to do with motivation and what comes from their parents. The information is there - they have access to the books and to college and to anything they want to achieve today. What they lack is motivation - and with everyone telling them the world they live in doesn't allow "their kind" to succeed - when in fact it does - or that "the white man is holding them down" without giving them accountability for their actions - it just promotes them staying where they are at... that and gangs - which if people united in those neighborhoods - could completely get rid of. I see a community of people that worry more about what "whitey" is doing to their people and looking at ways to get money from lawsuits out of "whitey" that that is where all their focus is put... wasted on changing what other people think over anything productive... because the laws don't prohibit them from succeeding - if a business fails to hire them because there is a racist bastard there - there are 20 more businesses that will - but instead of going to get hired at one of them - they would rather spend their next couple of years pointing out how that business is racist to the news media and staying unemployed so they can go "poor poor pitiful me" until the lawsuit goes through and they make a couple 100K... everyone has the opportunity to succeed if they apply themselves - some have to try harder than others.

You like to say inequality but all I think is all the stories where a poor refugee from another country came to America and worked HARD - harder than most blacks are willing to today - and built his family a life and each generation built upon that life - sacrificing pretty much ALL fun so their kids could have it better. I do not see that in the black community - I see parents who don't want to give everything and sacrifice everything for their kids to have it better, parents teaching their kids it is a disgrace to be associated with white people or being taught by them (because that is what they are doing in this case), parents who would rather beat their kids than to take the time to sit down and teach them/read to them, parents who are telling their kids they can't achieve this same thing (which they can), I see kids being taught things should come easy and that the world owes them success without any work, I see kids thinking it is cool to be in gangs and not work hard to get ahead - but instead take from other people; they see themselves as victims and let that define who they are as a people... It is that mentality that needs to be changed. There are many black people that raised themselves from nothing into very successful people... and yet - they seem to be hated by some black communities as much as whites.

As a society though (including all races), newer generations seem to becoming lazier on average and this contributes to the mindset to fail.

It is also possible that they will further gain the attitude that white people held them down and none of them are trying to help and that they won't listen to a thing a white person said because they are all evil - that's about how you sound with this. Or it might teach them to still have self-esteem if people didn't brainwash them into thinking that white people teaching them is a disgrace and an insult.

THIS is a very great point as well as many of them made in this forum on how teachers teach from books, they are trained to teach the subject - the color and knowledge of being black has nothing to do with him being able to teach these kids.

I don't really disagree with any of that and I'm not really sold on the protesters' point of view, I'm just saying that I can see a valid concern rather than just only bigotry against the teacher because he's white.

 

[justoh]

And you could look up the definition of absolute. The two statements leave the same amount of wiggle room. Namely none.

deal. i'm just glad it's all over.

 

[dank69]

deal. i'm just glad it's all over.

What is your first language?

 

[justoh]

What is your first language?

first-order logic. yours?

 

[realibrad]

My whole point, was that you were filling in a lot of gaps, when you said "look, another person who does not believe blacks were apart of American History". Your whole argument was about the logical implications of their statements. The problem with your assertion is that its not fully supported by what went on. You could be right, but you could be wrong. I have laid out the logic as to why you cannot yet infer your ideas.

You also seem to believe that because others don't understand your logic, that then means they made a mistake. It could very well be that you are terrible at explaining your points.

 

[dank69]

My whole point, was that you were filling in a lot of gaps, when you said "look, another person who does not believe blacks were apart of American History". Your whole argument was about the logical implications of their statements. The problem with your assertion is that its not fully supported by what went on. You could be right, but you could be wrong. I have laid out the logic as to why you cannot yet infer your ideas.

You also seem to believe that because others don't understand your logic, that then means they made a mistake. It could very well be that you are terrible at explaining your points.

I explained exactly how I filled in the gaps. The only two issues you had with my logic were that I used experience instead of direct experience and your attempt to portray their posts as saying nobody can teach European or American History instead of just black people.

The first issue changes nothing about my argument because my use of the word experience was intended to mean direct experience. If you add the word direct to my arguments, nothing changes. Even way back in post 154 I used the phrase "first hand experience."

The second issue, blacks only being able to teach the parts of American History that black people have direct experience with, is absurd and completely unsupported by anything in Spungo's or Waggy's posts.

It may very well be that I am terrible at explaining my points. To me, these points are not difficult to follow and boil down to a very simple thing that I posted way, way back. Waggy needed a second example of something that black people do not have direct experience with so he could laugh about how they would all need to be fired if we follow the protesters' logic. So who did Waggy think would need to be fired if we adhere to the protesters' logic? All black history teachers except for minority studies. That includes American History teachers.

 

[justoh]

My whole point, was that you were filling in a lot of gaps, when you said "look, another person who does not believe blacks were apart of American History". Your whole argument was about the logical implications of their statements. The problem with your assertion is that its not fully supported by what went on. You could be right, but you could be wrong. I have laid out the logic as to why you cannot yet infer your ideas.

You also seem to believe that because others don't understand your logic, that then means they made a mistake. It could very well be that you are terrible at explaining your points.

Can't be explained because it just isn't true. This should be obvious. I think he knows this, but I can't be sure. My best guess is that he's trolling.

It's also not the case that he could be wrong or right, since he specifically stated that it must be what waggy believes/thinks. He could be wrong about it being what waggy believes/thinks, but he's necessarily wrong that it must be.

 

[dank69]

Can't be explained because it just isn't true. This should be obvious. I think he knows this, but I can't be sure. My best guess is that he's trolling.

It's also not the case that he could be wrong or right, since he specifically stated that it must be what waggy believes/thinks. He could be wrong about it being what waggy believes/thinks, but he's necessarily wrong that it must be.

Yet you can't think of a single plausible alternative. So instead of trying to understand the logic you are going to try to argue fail badly at arguing semantics. How many dimensions need to exist for us to find one where Waggy does not believe that?