Ramshutu

We can’t tell your personal change in risk - only the change in broader comparable controlled populations who are like you.

That's false. CDC has identified high risk groups. You can tell if you are old or obese, it's not hidden.

This is what you said I had no proof of.

Just throwing out a set of facts, with no context; no argument, and no encompassing justification and pretending that it indicates malfeasance- is the took of to the idiot conspiracy theorist who is unable to think critically about their position.

Why is that all that matters? Do you know what mRNA hijacking your body's cells can result in in the long run? Not just myocarditis.

Until March, they haven't adapted the mRNA to omicron, so what's your point?

I just want to understand because I have never before seen a vaccine for a disease where your dosage is not only twice in the same year but approaching 3 per year if the pace is maintained.

I am also curious what precisely is this mRNA strand?

You are injecting into people's bodies something what will hijack my cells? Sound sketchy..

Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.

As for the science, I have wanted to understand something specific. What exactly tricks the body's cell into thinking it is infected with a virus

and why is this in any way better than genuine vaccination against a harmless non-replicating version of Covid?

The way it appears to work is it tricks your body's cells to take it in, to begin with,

then the cell thinks your whole body is under attack, however... How is the body producing the correct antibody if the thing injected isn't actually properly based on Covid Sars like AZ or J&J are?

There is something seriously missing in the methodology, like a secret step or something else. The only way this is different to AZ and J&J is you're not actually being injected with a completely non-replication 'version of' the disease that isn't the disease causer itself but a very close replica. Instead, what is the mRNA that lands on the cell?

As in, how can it be an antigen if it also isn't based on the original disease and then your body is making the correct antibodies that even can defeat future variants?

They never explain this part. Instead, it's as if what's being injected is an ongoing thing that will alter the white blood cells bit by bit, which is why boosters are needed to refine it over time as it loses 'memory' and 'shape' quite rapidly.

How many endless boosters will be needed? I just want to understand because I have never before seen a vaccine for a disease where your dosage is not only twice in the same year but approaching 3 per year if the pace is maintained.

I don't know ramshutu enough to vouch for him

The question is not the why, but the how. How are we going to get more people to engage? How will we try to achieve the top of said bar to set

The locking of the thread below is primarily what is wrong with this site and why there is no activity, it's also why airmax should be elected. When 2 people are engaging in a back and forth and participating in it, let it go on. 

RM likes to be bullied. He is totally a masochist. If you step on him and say airmax, he will vociferously complain whilst hoping no one notices him touching his own nipples.

We should do a cost/benefit analysis of each particular situation before coming to a general conclusion that planting trees is a good or a bad thing thing. That's the explanation.

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

Boom okay. So - you’re telling me that not offering reasoned response to an analysis is somehow bad, right? Meaning that if you have done just that elsewhere - I can call you out on it: and you would agree that your argument is bad?

No. I said that not offering a reasoned response to an analysis is an assertion. That's it.

I’ve answered the question: you’ve asked a question about disparities that I answered multiple times, you kept asking, I continued to answer multiple times, you then dropped - then demand I answer again. Note: it was answered in post #29, #31 and a bunch of others that I summarized

You didn't answer it in the context of systemic racism, which is by definition permanent and perpetual. But since you didn't know that, you didn't meaningfully answer the question.

Because you're using a different definition of discrimination than me. And your definition is grounded upon, or at least consistent with, CRT and it's understanding of systemic (rather than individual) racism.

This is just plainly absurd. If you’re going to go round in circles and not address any of things I’ve said, at least have the common courtesy to stfu while you do it.

You engaged me on my thread, and you are free to leave any time you wish.

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

I have helpfully bolded the general conclusion you have made. This is the general conclusion you try and support using specific and limited exceptions… which I believe is called “proving too much”

No it's not. My statement was a rejection of your conclusion that trees (and planting trees) are good.

It seems you don’t understand what proving too much is. It’s when you use specific and limited exceptions (like you are) to prove a general conclusion (which you are); that if applies, leads to absurd conclusions (like policies that fund tree planting are bad).

I am not taking specific and limited exceptions, but general properties (trees in general reduce air pollution and reduce temperature), I am using it to show a general conclusion; which leads to reasonable conclusion. Trees are trees; they have limited downsides - it’s not like they’re going out mugging people or stealing cars and given that you’ve been stamping your feed for two pages and haven’t offered any general downside - it appears you agree with me.

Of course - don’t let reality get in the way of this pathological need to offer the first objection you can think of - regardless of how silly.

No. I already stated that I have specifically not made any general conclusions about whether trees (or policies that fund tree planting) are good or bad. That must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

You are saying that because trees provide shade and beneficial effects for the environment (while ignoring any negative effects trees can have), we can start with the presumption that all policies funding tree planting are good. I reject that general conclusion.

Yes: and you can reasonably call that statement many things - but a wild assertion is not one of them.

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

It is somewhat entertaining to watch you refuse to be wrong and pretending it is me dropping the argument.

What do you think systemic racism is in it's contemporary meaning if not permanent and perpetual?

I already told you that I would answer your question when you answered mine. Since you don't even understand that systemic racism is permanent and perpetual, then you haven't meaningfully addressed my actual point.

Insults in discourse usually have literally the opposite of their intended effect:

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

No. I am simply not assuming trees are good based on a limited list of effects - an excellent example of the "proving too much" fallacy.

You did not say that your conclusion was "many things." You said it was a fact.

I haven't dropped anything.

If you focus on the permanent and perpetual nature of systemic racism, you will understand why I reject that the example of individualized and intentional racism of the boss withholding money is a relevant analogy.

How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

You still haven't meaningfully addressed this point because you have only made a flawed analogy to respond.

So rather than drawing a conclusion about the goodness or badness of trees necessary to commit the proving too much fallacy, I am simply saying that we should do a cost/benefit analysis before reaching such a conclusion. You are the one using a limited list of effects to declare trees as good and a lack of trees as bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

So could you perhaps clarify what you meant now that you are aware of the actual term I used, and be specific about whether you mean minorities have disproportionately less trees throughout the US, or only in the 37 cities mentioned by the study.

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it didn't make a point. I really shouldn't have to explain this one.

A Veterans' Day deep thought by JoeBiden:

"You're not just the backbone of America; you're the spine."

Apparently, regular FOX News renders viewers incapable of formulating a cogent thesis.

This obviously and clearly means in general - not in absolutely all cases, unless you want to build obtuse strawman.

And I have disagreed and not just on the basis of a few specific and limited exceptions. I have already explained why.

Recall in my last post I demonstrated why this is clearly  why this is “proving too much” - 

And I have already explained why it's not "proving too much."

No you didn’t: you simply argued that you weren’t making that argument in one particular context - you’re clearly arguing it - I showed the premise of your argument is identical to the text book case you argued.

Of course, you chopped that out of your reply for some reason

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

vs the premise of your reply

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

This is clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

I see that you have completely ignored them - again.

Regardless - my original questions - and the follow up (which you ignored), clearly and obviously mean “in most cases”, and given that your objections are based on the premise that there are limited exceptions - that clarification basically undermines the last 4 posts you’ve made arguing for them.

You can now go back and address the original point in the way it was clearly meant.

I have already addressed it and I am tired of trying to explain it to you.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

If we can agree that trees are (generally) good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is -(generally) good; and communities not having trees is (generally) bad.

You’re claiming that the results of peer reviewed study that leads to a specific conclusion is “wild assertion” that’s clearly and definitively nonsense. This is my point. As your argument was clearly about burden shifting, the fact that something you claimed was an assertion is not; is all that is necessary.

You have completely lost track of my argument. Do you even know which statement I called a wild assertion?

You’re really the only one talking about striving for equity of outcomes. The issue is equal access to to opportunity; and to give the same opportunities when one has been denied in the past, or opportunities are unequal in the present - not to enforce the outcomes to be the same.

This was your statement:

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

To each according to their need...

No you raised a series of assumptions that show you are the one guilty of the proving too much fallacy as I explained.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

vs the premise of your reply 

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

This is clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

I have already explained why this is not true.

Wild assertion - sorry: either way it’s clearly not.

The difference in definitions of "speculation" and "assertion" are significant. You have only addressed the strawman "speculation" argument without addressing my actual argument.

For complaining about chopping out responses, I find it strange that you did not even address this part of my response:

But the very concept of systemic racism assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

The latter is just a huge straw man. The first is just putting money where it is needed and can be practically used, the second implies using excess money to enforce parity in the face of practicality.

For example: would I support tens of billions of dollars with the express goal of making every black community have an equal number of trees to white communities regardless of any practical considerations - no.

Chopping out a part of my post that tells you exactly why the remainder of your point is irrelevant; only to reply with the same point - does not exactly encourage me that you’re trying to argue in good faith.

I don't agree to your statements either way, so your point here is moot.

That is not what I did. This link explains a proving too much fallacy to be "an argument that reaches a conclusions which contradicts things that are known to be true, or contradicts the premises in that argument."  https://www.logicalfallacies.org/proving-too-much.html

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

My claim is that the evidence provided by the Nature article renders the premise credible and far exceeds “wild speculation” - as you called it.

Is that what I called it?

Yes I do: but the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism  - not to inherently enforce equality of outcomes. There’s a key difference there.

But the very concept of systemic racism assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

The latter is just a huge straw man. The first is just putting money where it is needed and can be practically used, the second implies using excess money to enforce parity in the face of practicality.

For example: would I support tens of billions of dollars with the express goal of making every black community have an equal number of trees to white communities regardless of any practical considerations - no.

And you are doing so based on a definition of racism that is consistent with CRT to justify present discrimination. That is the difference between social justice and actual justice. And that is why you fit Ibram X. Kendi's quote so well:

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

Antiracism is discrimination.

That would move it from being racist - where one side is being purposefully disadvantaged because of the colour of their skin, to giving equivalent financial access that was previously being denied to someone due to the colour of their skin.

if your black coworkers don’t get a bonus one year because your boss was racist; if the next boss gives those same coworkers a bigger bonus the next year to make up for missing out; you’d shout at him for being racist?

If an employer gives black employees an extra $50 because last year a racist boss with held $50 bonuses from minority employees last year - that doesn’t seem unreasonable. The real world has far more complexity than the analogy; but it does broadly illustrate the nature of the issue.

Only in liberal clown world can defying a court order be considered "the right thing to do"

CHAZ is calling, they want their village idiot back.

I am entrenched in right wing propoganda to the point I feel that suggesting to businesses that they adopt vaccine mandates anyway - without invocation of osha directives, and absolutely no implication or attempt to actually enforce any of the osha requirements (which  is what would violate the court order) - and appear to be simply requesting that companies follow the vaccine mandates voluntarily because it’s the right thing to do - is somehow violating a court ruling ; which it clearly and blatantly is not. However, I clearly cannot concede this point and must continue to pretend that the suggestion of a spokesperson that businesses follow de-fanged stayed guidelines constitutes the illegal enforcement of osha Directives that haven’t even come into force yet - contrary to a court order.

You got me! Damn you; I’m going to imply you are an idiot because I can’t argue the point.

googles state pravda...even radical left wing propaganda news says it is happening...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/08/biden-vaccine-mandate-white-house-tells-business-to-go-ahead-despite-court-pause.html

looks like Canadians are not as smart as they thought.

makes sense now...

It's not the first time Biden has ignored the law.

Even FDR didn't have the balls to defy the Judicial branch. Those 37 percenters be fierce indeed.

If you properly read my comments, I do not claim that anthropogenic causes of climate change are the only causes, but both GND and the Biden admin only address anthropogenic causes, as if they are the only causes of climate change. Look to them, not5 me. I acknowledge there are natural causes, too, and should be addressed as best we can. It's called, as I mentioned, having dominion of the Earth, which we have. Can't that, bat least, be agreed?

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect.

It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal

Really? Then why was solar power tech only developed for wide-spread use in the 20th century, and only late in that century? Coal tech has been around for multiple centuries because... it's easier? Because... it's not much more technical than the knowledge that it burns?

is not saying or implying  that there is a singular ideal climate.

Well, we don't say climates change, do we? And who says that an increase of 1.5 to 2 degrees C is catastrophic for all climates, or that a decrease of that range is as well. GND doesn't happen to specify, does it? No one bothers to say so. Are we supposed to assume they don't mean. that? This is supposed to be science, which is supposed to address all variables, isn't it? Is it only because I'm the only one thinking these issues through? I don't think so,  but I've never heard a Prog admit it.

I agree, earth doesn’t care - the deadlines are for us; or specifically to limit the range of warming.

But your thinking, and the GND thinking, completely ignores the adaptability factor that was so prevalent in Darwin. Have we defrocked St. Darwin in our rush to catastrophe that does not appear to be eminent according to global warming predictions?

Because it’s easier to make cars have a better gas mileage than stopping volcanoes from errupting.

Sure, but isn't it also easier to con0struct aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to limit flooding further downstream, and offer more water to the southwest, than mere react with reconstruction after flooding. Cheaper, too. But we don't do it. Why not? Isn't it also easier to desalinate seawater for drinking that fret about lack of fresh water? But we don't do it very much, do we? Why not? It's easier to claim that natural and cultivated wetlands emit more methane into the atmosphere than cows, and push rice use while claiming the beef industry is a danger to our environment.  I smell an agenda.

There are 1.5tn proven reserves,

That says nothing for why development of more and better green energy solutions is so slow in implementation to actually prove there are better, safer, and more efficient energy resources than fossil fuels. Until that lack ids justifie4d and ameliortated, green energy claims of efficient fall on deaf ears.

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

I agree;

…given that the money is for community projects rather than forcing all communities, regardless of want or need, to plant trees - it appears this objection is largely moot.

The “wild assertion”, was actually covered by the Nature study linked in the original story you posted.

Is your claim that the Nature study from the article factually proved that minorities have disproportionately less trees than white people throughout the entire US? And not just as an extrapolation, but as a statistical reality?

Please walk me through the logic of how you got from me believing to “minority communities have fewer trees” to “You believe the government should enforce equality of outcomes.” It’s quite the obnoxious leap there.

You said that an unequal distribution of resources (in this case, trees) among racial groups was a problem.

Then, you said there is a motivation to work toward eliminating the unequal distribution of resources. Equity between racial groups is good and should be sought after.

The solution is to distribute more of a resource to one group if they have less of that thing than another group. This creates a more equitable outcome.

You support government intervention for the purpose of creating a more equitable outcome in terms of the distribution of trees among racial groups.

Now before you respond that this is only a single example of such a policy promoting equity, can you answer whether or not you believe that systemic racism is a real problem that needs a solution in the US? Systemic racism being, in general terms, not based on individual thoughts and actions but a permanent feature woven into a society's institutions, policies, and practices. And this question is relevant to the point.

You didn't actually answer the question. You just posed a hypothetical scenario and commented on that. I was looking for a clear yes or no on whether the actual Biden policy cited was racist or not.

Biden vowed to defy a court order staying his OSHA mandates on various Constitutional grounds. 

Should he be impeached for violating the separation of powers?

A Biden spokesperson suggested that businesses should continue to move forward with implementing vaccine mandates regardless of the OSHA ruling - appearing to request voluntary cooperation, and making absolutely no suggestion that osha would not comply with the stay by enforcing the stayed osha rules - which aren’t even in force.

Should Biden be impeached for his spokesperson suggesting that business should still adopt vaccine mandates without suggestion of enforcement, without arguing that osha regulatory basis for the mandate is still enforceable or will be enforced despite the stay, and without giving the impression that it was anything more than an unenforceable request for companies do the right thing

since the climate does not change exclusively die to anthropogenic effect, where are there no non-anthropogenic effects calculated into the the GND, or /the Biden admin plan?

As we have been given dominion over the Earth, and we have according to Genesis, we have the means, by observation and learning, to put into effect things we learn. to improve natural causes of GHGs and other climate issues. That these plans do not is clear indication of an agenda, and not a true effort to improve0 our planet. It's just another blame-game to demonstration our victimization; a primary progressive tenet.

You claim the GND is not abut a singular, ideal climate. In temperature range, alone, it sure does. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/   The following several points you make do support a singular, ideal climate just doe to the alarm over temperature.

The GND is completely structured around an established deadline beyond that is, itself, anthropogenic, but is no natural deadline: 2030 as a milestone; 2050 as a secondary milestone.  https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

The arrogance of establishing carbon credits is thinking that economic sacrifice, a purely anthropogenic exercise, will do anything to rid the clouds [euphemistic for the atmosphere] of GHGs, since natural contribution of GHGs occurs unabated, even by the efforts of the Biden admin policy, or the GND.

When did I ever say there are no anthropogenic causes to GHGs, or other environmental effects. Haven't I admitted by my sources that anthropogenic activity does contribute to climate change? But I've also demonstrateS that non-anthropogenic, natural effects cause climate change, and my point has always been that man can address some of these causes and reduce them, for both man and the Earth's benefit, but neither the Biden admin, or GND address these issues. Why not? An agenda, again? See, I do acknowledge there are things we could do to improve climate against natural causes,. so I am not "cherrypicking" as your accuse.

Your oil consumption/natural production [replenishment] exercise is all for naught, because no one knows:

1. The quantity of what is available still in the earth, certainly at least partially due to ignorance of the quantity we don't know about..

2. The actual rate/year, or whatever timeline you want to use, of natural production replenishment.

3. The pitiful increase of green energy sources to replace fossil fuel use, and why we cannot increase the rate of production of green energy sources sufficient to meet the 2030 and 2050 arbitrary deadlines. In simple words, AlGore, the climate change guru, still has not invented AlGore Gooey Juice to replace petroleum-based lubricants, let alone fuel. Why not?

You see, what you're ignoring is that I am actually in the camp that wants to increase our green energy production, but most of the contributors to that suggestion who can make a difference are not doing so, yet they continue to press the deadline. An agenda? Are they really after usable green energy, or is the mantra of the 60s, that we humans have overpopulated the Earth really after our extinction? An agenda. The question stands, and no one will render an honest opinion. I have, and others have to, but we're ignored. The home I occupy has a 39-solar panel array on its roof. Surprised? Yes, I do support green energy. Seems the extinction line is entirely forming over there on the left. Politically, alone, that is suicide. Be welcome in the line. meanwhile, I will live my life since it is a gift not to be wasted over stupid claims that I have limited time. It is limited, but by my mortality, only, and that is not even an end game, so, why wring my hands that we are doomed?

The Biden administration has identified 5 factors to control by addressing sources of GHG emission:

climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect

The above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.

The climate was changing long before the advent of man  on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

 that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

Repeat:  https://www.gp.org/gnd_full.   https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

climate changes, period, with or without man.

"Climate policy includes policies... so that the climate does not change as much or as quickly). https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

Note the singular reference to a climate.

one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

"The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030."   https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

There is no credible citation referring us to earthclimate.org saying it, so, clearly, the GND effort is saying it does, not the Earth, herself.

 the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

Because the above two sources, Biden policy, and the GND, are saying. carbon credits will clean the clouds of GHGs.

Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

"fossil fuel's only origin is living matter now dead. Just because the process does not complete and end at the flip of a switch does not mean that fossil fuels are not renewable, and continue to convert from living-to-dead matter, and convert from dead matter to fossil fuel. Yes, the process takes millions of years, but maybe less. We simply do not know, but that the process occurs is well documented.  https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect.

The climate was changing long before the advent of man  on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

Arrogant to suggest that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

Arrogant because climate changes, period, with or without man.

Arrogant because there does not exist one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

Arrogant because the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

Arrogant because Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels,  because they are constantly being replenished

and will continue to be replenished as long as life on Earth exists, or, "green energy," which does not include fossil fuels [let them make up their minds], amounts to roughly 22% of all energy resources used on Earth, whereas fossil fuels account for about 66% of all energy consumed on Earth. Further, although the percentage of green energy increases annually, it is in small singular digits, and we have, according to green new deal proponents, 7 years to get it right. The math, let alone the science, or the economics, just do not add.

I don't live in VA. I don't know what about the curriculum they opposed. I can guess, but that's all you're doing. So, have at it. I don't have the time.

Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers