Author Topic: Texas declares historical textbooks to be "biased to the left" (Read 12585 times)

Mr. Wiggles · « **on:** March 13, 2010, 08:52:04 PM »

So they took the liberty of changing it

A few little gems from this article:

Quote

There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

Quote

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Quote

They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

Quote

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.

In conclusion, lol.

nensondubois · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2010, 08:53:32 PM »

This is just another way for the government to make us dumb so they have more power. That's their real plan.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2010, 08:56:18 PM »

I'm going to just go ahead and play into the role everyone expects me to take in this thread and say:

What is so "lol"-worthy about making schoolbooks less biased?

Weegee · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2010, 10:15:16 PM »

Those are some pretty ridiculous amendments, but at least they're taking a stand against today's left-sweeping tides of social change.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2010, 11:00:12 PM »

WHAT THE **** TEXAS?! SERIOUSLY?

I hate this state.

Toad · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2010, 11:40:30 PM »

Don't mess with Texas.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2010, 06:05:32 AM »

Wait, are we "lol"ing that the textbooks have been declared biased or at the changes made? Because if it's the latter, I'd say they're pretty bad too, from what I know.

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2010, 07:51:23 AM »

The latter I believe. I mean, only an idiot would say textbooks are totally unbiased. Everything is biased to the everything in one way or another.

nensondubois · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2010, 11:51:29 AM »

What makes this ironic is that Texas has the best budget out of all of the states.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2010, 01:39:58 PM »

Most textbooks are biased to the left. Reality has a liberal bias. So sooner or later the extremely conservative Texas Board of Education is going to rewrite our science books too:

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2010, 04:33:24 PM »

Only pagans ever believed the earth was flat.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2010, 05:15:15 PM »

o rly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Johnson

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2010, 05:26:46 PM »

As with all generalizations, there are, of course, exceptions; however:

1. The Bible doesn't teach that the earth is flat, so that guy was off his rocker.
2. You can't associate Intelligent Design with believing the earth is flat. Again, that guy was off his rocker.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2010, 05:47:31 PM »

We can associate ID with conceptions of a flat Earth because no amount of scientific, empirical research can verify either.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2010, 05:50:14 PM »

You already know I'm going to say this, but scientific research can't verify the theory of evolution, either.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2010, 06:23:11 PM »

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution. All current unbiased empirical evidence verifies it.

EDIT: I don't understand why creationists accept the theories of gravity and relativity as facts but can't accept the theory of evolution.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2010, 06:55:23 PM »

You can easily prove that objects fall to the ground. You can't prove that one species can turn into another over time due to random mutations. Or that life can come from nowhere.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #17 on:** March 14, 2010, 06:57:36 PM »

Amino acids and proteins binding?

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #18 on:** March 14, 2010, 07:01:22 PM »

Quote from: Turtlekid1 on March 14, 2010, 06:55:23 PM

You can't prove that one species can turn into another over time due to random mutations. Or that life can come from nowhere.

Educate yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2010, 07:45:09 PM »

YouTube has decided it doesn't like to work on my computer recently. Is there a text alternative with the same argument?

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2010, 08:05:05 PM »

Absolutely:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

This entire website is devoted to educating the public about macroevolution or, as you put it, "species turning into other species through random mutations." Be sure to watch the video too.

Mr. Wiggles · « **Reply #21 on:** March 14, 2010, 08:57:30 PM »

I like how this thread proves Turtlekid simply recycles the same defenses/arguments in every single thread on this sub-board.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2010, 09:01:26 PM »

You can only go so far with creationism.

Glorb · « **Reply #23 on:** March 15, 2010, 01:36:27 PM »

I just read through the section on slavery in the Texas books. It's just a big two-page spread of Yosemite Sam shooting his guns into the air.

Trainman · « **Reply #24 on:** March 15, 2010, 04:35:32 PM »

Good thing I graduated from school already, I guess. I don't see the big deal here.

I'm actually stunned that this turned into a Fungi Forum Clique v. Turtlekid type evolution & creationism [dukar]storm instead of a "lol i iz not frum texus but i can tel u that texaas is all a bunchc of rednex LoL!" type ordeal.

Weegee · « **Reply #25 on:** March 15, 2010, 05:17:58 PM »

Textbooks being revised is a comon occurence, but rarely are they altered in favour of a conservative viewpoint. Some of those changes ("capitalism" to "free-enterprise system") create more bias than they resolve, but others (educating students about "the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s) are quite valid.

Quote from: PaperLuigi on March 14, 2010, 05:47:31 PM

We can associate ID with conceptions of a flat Earth because no amount of scientific, empirical research can verify either.

One can be disproven, the other cannot. Those who put their trust merely in science fail to acknowledge that everything we claim to "know" will someday be proven wrong, much as it has since the dawn of human existence. Explaining the world through worldly means is, to present it as an entirely conceptual analogy, like pouring water into a glass made of water.

Mr. Wiggles · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2010, 09:09:54 PM »

Quote from: Trainman on March 15, 2010, 04:35:32 PM

instead of a "lol i iz not frum texus but i can tel u that texaas is all a bunchc of rednex LoL!" type ordeal.

Hard to do that when Texas' conservative ideals have left them with the biggest surplus of all the states IIRC.

That and PaperLuigi seems to be distancing himself from his ol' Texan roots.

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #27 on:** March 16, 2010, 01:36:18 AM »

Quote from: Weegee on March 15, 2010, 05:17:58 PM

One can be disproven, the other cannot. Those who put their trust merely in science fail to acknowledge that everything we claim to "know" will someday be proven wrong, much as it has since the dawn of human existence. Explaining the world through worldly means is, to present it as an entirely conceptual analogy, like pouring water into a glass made of water.

If you "put your trust" in something besides science you are, by definition, just making stuff up, with no observation of, ya know, the actual world, and then proclaiming that it can't be disproven, which may be true, but shows that you don't know how arguments or theories work. If you make something up, you have the burden of proof, you have to show it's true—not just yell, "la la la it can't be disproven, suckers!"

nensondubois · « **Reply #28 on:** March 16, 2010, 08:57:34 AM »

Textbooks should never be biased for any reason, ever. I've also noticed that the earth isn't explained as constantly expanding while it is as slowly of a rate as it is, it is still expanding just like the universe.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #29 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:04:41 AM »

It's impossible for something to not be biased. Concepts like connotation make sure of that.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #30 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:24:33 AM »

Can anyone shed light on nenson's post? I'm confused.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #31 on:** March 16, 2010, 11:27:51 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Wiggles on March 15, 2010, 09:09:54 PM

That and PaperLuigi seems to be distancing himself from his ol' Texan roots.

Any state which decides to replace mention of Thomas Jefferson as one of the most influential Founding Fathers with mention of John Calvin (a horrible ******* who had no part in founding the United States) is my enemy.

nensondubois · « **Reply #32 on:** March 16, 2010, 12:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on March 16, 2010, 10:24:33 AM

Can anyone shed light on nenson's post? I'm confused.

Sorry. I forgot to also add that text books should be factual and not omit important details.

superstarMASIAH · « **Reply #33 on:** March 22, 2010, 03:08:25 PM »

What I have perceived about this dilema is that it is not so much about being bias, but trying to cut out content that people would not normally know unless they read the text book. But my argument would be that even if the person or event aren't well known, they are still worth having in the book if they were important enough to receive a mention in the first place.