Ann Coulter (for better or worse) nails CRT in her latest column
“Their current position is that they simply can’t discuss CRT with you because it’s too complex and can only be understood by high-level graduate students after years of study.”
now doesnt that sound familiar
The laws banning CT in public schools are good laws.
Based on exactly?
The law.
Seriously, do you know what ALL mans Laws are built upon?
Serious question.
I see your walking around in a desert of sorts, fully parched: I’ve offered water.
Maybe it is I that is actually thirsty, can you help me, as I would you?
A desire for order and safety? To protect those without power from those who have more power than them?
Interpreting laws so as to encourage disorder, such as interpreting freedom if speech as a license to impose CRT on children, would undermine the very law being used to justify that, children not having the power to express their disagreement with the theory.
Man’s laws are built upon Natural Law - “Grotius”, “Hobbes”.
The, “Not So Great One”, is a Hobbe’s guy, surely he can elaborate.
Hobbe’s resembles best your position.
Both similiar, and contemporary, but Grotius is the more secular of the two.
In short Laws emerge from the Natural State.
Hobbe’s followed Grotius’s thoughts on this subject thus arriving at his own, seemingly simply by introducing God into the Natural State.
Genius for Legislation is rare in the world.
That’s not what I said. You should argue your own position. Please, don’t presume to determine mine and argie it as well.
I posed a question if anyone knew what our Laws stand upon.
A question is not a position.
In case you didn’t or don’t know, it is accepted they are built upon Natural Law.
You scratched the surface, touche’.
On the right track.
Again on the right track.
Trust me though I have no desire to climb inside your mind.
You told me,
I believe it is closest for simplicity sake yes, as you introduced some moral need into your denouement thereto.
If you are a devout athiest then I will simply direct you to “Spinoza” for the needed secular clarification, and road map back to “Hobbes”, but then “Grotius” will work directly as well.
Again if you are a devout athiest.
I made the assumption that your answer was based on some moral, religious, foundation.
If it was not then I was wrong to have assumed that, but again see “Spinoza”, on that very head, if it was.
If not, as stated “Grotius”, might be a btter fit.
Self-protection is a moral need? I thought the urge to survive was considered genetic and evolutionary.
Soooooo.
Does this “MORAL” need arise, via experience with a creator being, or by the experience of Nature alone?
Hobbes, believes, God,
Grotius, believes Nature.
Spinoza believes God is Nature.
I see they are all right.
I gave you no false path, they all led to the first form of Natural Law.
I did, and do agree with your answer.
It goes a bit deeper is all, but you are certainly there.
You asked,
I answered your question.
The need to survive in this world does not come from an experience with the Creator, but from experience without the Creator. The need comes from our acquired physical mortality. It is alleviated by confidence in a physical resurrection, or a physically disembodied bliss after death.
Claptrap…
Christian Dogma, guised as some well though out position.
My assumption was correct.
Honestly, I don’t think you can answer my question, and that’s ok.
Keep your version of God of my intellectual property.
“Disembodied Bliss”?
Ok…
What’s rationally wrong with my answer. Calling someone’s view claptrap without giving reasons is no more rational than calling it racist without giving reasons.
Where do you think all our Laws come from?
The Phillipines was a colony. We established a govt there once we acquired them after the Spanish American war. William Howard Taft was the first Governor General.
I have United States postage stamps from the phillipines during the colonial period of 1898-1934
Allan
The US called their colonies “overseas possessions”.
Some people might want to look up the definition of “colony”.
