Only when you show them the door.

So the question is, what should be taught in high school? What should be eliminated to make time for what is not currently being taught?>

Lets not pretend these folks are interested in education.

School today is about liberalism and indoctrination.

Testing is bad, standards are bad, history is bad. Expecting results is racist.

It's really about the Teacher's Union,
teacher's pay/benefits, and how can they do as little as possible.

Pass/Fail based on opinion/merit, so they can shove the slugs through the system, and pat themselves on the back for being "great" teachers.

I have a cousin who is married to a NYC teacher. We call her "the babysitter."

Education
DACA
The Wall
Tax Cuts
Immigration
Race relations
Free speech

The monstrosity known as "Government"
and a liar media, have made these things almost impossible to discuss honestly. Folks discuss things in a vacuum, without reference to the lies, agendas, involved.

All "discussions" of "solutions" should
probably start with something like:

Hey, lets pretend:

1. The Media is honest
2. Politicians care about the people
3. Politicians know they work for us
4. Politicians care about America
5. Politicians care about low-cost solutions that work.

6. Politicians have no interest in their own wealth, power.

Until one gets past the lies and gobbledegook of liberalism, everything else is yap, yap, yap.

<so they can shove the slugs through the system>

<You are factually wrong here. To posit the proposition, "God does not exist" is to make a positive claim to knowledge.>

The positive claim would be to say

1. God exists

Before this claim has been proven, the default presumption would be that God does not exist.

There are people who worship the old Norse gods and claim that they exist and control the universe. Are you saying they are as correct in this claim as any Christian? Or can you prove that they are wrong?

<Or> can we say that until the existence of this pantheon has been proven, we do not consider it?

1. God exists>

That is a positive claim, because it is a claim to knowledge.

That fallacy is known as the presumption of atheism.

Anyone who makes a positive claim to knowledge carries a burden of proof.

What makes this a positive claim to knowledge is *not* positing existence versus non existence. The positive claim is that one claims to know some truth about the universe. That is a positive claim.

So if you make a positive claim about a negative, like, "there are no elephants in my refrigerator", then you carry a burden of proof for that claim.

<It is impossible to go anywhere with logic, if always the negative statement would have to be proven, as there are thousands of beliefs that we cannot really prove or disprove.>

That's a fallacy.

Negative statement: In American, there is no such state as the <big pawn> state.

2. No planets exist between Earth and Venus.

3. No married bachelors exist.

So when one makes a positive claim to knowledge, whether one posits the existence or non existence of something, one carries the burden of proof, and, don't fall for the layman's fallacy that a negative can't be demonstrated.

https://www.amren.com/features/2017...

< We’ve entered a precedented era of censorship.

“[We wish to] . . . set out a principled and politically correct statute . . . explaining the essence and justification of terror, its necessity and scope.”

Vladimir Lenin to Dmitrii Kurskii, People’s Commissar of Justice, May 17, 1922

“If you took everyone in the BNP [ British National Party] and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all . . .”

Jeremy Hardy, Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation, BBC Radio 4, September 9, 2004

In 1992, I wrote my first article about the phenomenon of political correctness that was then emerging in Britain, identifying and explaining the Soviet legacy. I was later told that PC was just the latest American fad and that I was dramatically overstating the dangers. A quarter of a century later, there can be no doubt that the emergence of PC—this then strange-sounding term that started to hit the headlines in the late 1980s—and the movements associated with it, such as feminism, anti-racism and multiculturalism, has inflicted untold damage on Western societies. The final aim is clear enough:...>

< We’ve entered a precedented era of censorship.>>

Excellent article! Thanks for the find.

Here is another part that resonates:

<...the core methods deployed by advocates of multiculturalism to silence and censor dissenters are overwhelmingly derived from Lenin. The key elements are censorship (of literature, film, science and politics); film and entertainment as propaganda (role models, blacks as geniuses, women as warriors, white men as evil);...>

When I first noticed that TV and movies were vilifying white men almost exclusively, and glorifying women and minorities (especially Blacks), I thought it was a PC fad. Over 20 years later, I am sure that it is not.

Another thing I noticed - the "critics" praise this. A good example of this is the TV show ER. They killed off the white male star, who was the original lead character of the series, and elevated a black man and immigrant to be the heroic male main characters. The only white male regular character remaining was portrayed as a sniveling, subservient screw up.

“If you took everyone in the BNP [ British National Party] and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all . . .”>>

I do not think racism exists now or ever has existed.>

Sounds like, "Self-Esteem."

I agree and when I catch up reading the rest of the posts I might add my own opinion. I lived through the Jim Crow era so I have personal experience that I can use.>

I think BP got a suzzy for being homophobic towards Luke so he's creating more sick puppies. I could be wrong although it'd be the first time;)