I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘acces

I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘accessibility’ are any more important than the hard work of truth.

I mean, we teach expensive literacy, mathematics, sciences, economics, and history. And we in the past taught expensive vocabulary, grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Why is it that we cannot also teach expensive testimonialism: natural law and the logic of cooperation?

Why can’t we teach history as a series of biographical narratives of the people who made the great insights and transformations in each of those fields?

Even if you want to preserve the Buddha and Jesus why cannot they be stated in historical terms and studied for their innovations, rather than continuing their justification by abrahamic deception?

You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and teaching lying