Page 26 of 47 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 470

Thread: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

  1. #251
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    HAH.



    Satire is fun - but she does have a point. elementary school isn't the place to be teaching sexuality.



    i mean, for crying out loud - it can lead to Gender War.
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-22-11 at 02:21 PM.

  2. #252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    HAH.



    Satire is fun - but she does have a point. elementary school isn't the place to be teaching sexuality.

    How about tolerance? Is it okay to teach tolerance in elementary school?

  3. #253
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Nope. ME.
    if you continue in your blatant falsehoods and demagogic smears, I'm afraid I will have to report you. Obviously we are discussing how you agree with me.

    You CONTINUE to help me prove my point. So, if it is presented entirely in an informational way, what values the receiver perceives is on him or her.
    you continue to fail to understand what i am saying. you cannot provide information in any usable matter free of context, and it is next to impossible to provide information in a non-useable matter free of context. you are imparting the values that the recipient will perceive - you seem to be hung up on the fact that the listener is not forced to accept those values; but that is true of anything. we could just as easily justify racist rantings by teachers against the menace of hispanic immigrants polluting american bloodlines by claiming that the value system imparted need not be accepted by the listener. Don't worry if the student internalizes negative attitudes towards people of another race - they didn't get that from the teacher, the teacher was simply imparting information. The student merely perceived a moral value.

    you cannot separate information from format. for crying out loud, there is a multi-billion dollar political campaign industry built around this very basic fact.

    Nope. One presents information, how the listener evaluates that information is on the listener. This is why it is important to impart the information clearly.

    No, that's not precisely what I said. There is no weight presented. Only information. What the student does with that is completely on HIM/HER.

    And if that context is to provide information, the value judgments perceived are on the listener.
    we seem to be getting repetitious here, so if it's alright with you I'm going to roll these together, and repeat again that format and context carry weight in communication, and pretending that it doesn't will not get us optimal results.

    No, that is not equivelency. It is a list. YOU are assigning morality, NOT the presenter.
    presenting items in list format - all other factors being equal - implies equivalency. it is saying "here is a list of things - these things are all 'like', else they would not be on this list together. each of these things shares a fundamental underlying nature that gives each of them a place on this list"

    and even then the list format would be the intro into any sexual education curriculum - without description lists are generally useless. So the teacher would have to go in and describe each of the individual sexual expressions, which increases the format and thus increases the error range off of "objectivity". The more discussion there is, the greater the role of value judgements.

    that may not be the teachers fault - the teacher could truly be trying their best to remain impartial. but it's just how human language works

    Context and judgment are not the same concepts.
    judgement flows from information and context.

    The implication comes from their own morality and values, not those of the presentation of a list. You are demonstrating this point by how you are posting. You are presenting your own morality from the list that has been presented.
    no, my belief system on this matter is different from the presumptions found in both lists i provided.

    No, you didn't and you are being dishonest by posting that you did. Your second example was filled with value judgments. Here is your comment and I will, place in bold all of the value judgments:

    These are value judgments. Stating "major form" indicates preference. Saying "some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups" presents that this view is carried by a minority, and by using the word "claim" you impress that it is an unsubstantiated minority. Further, your comment is biased because it is fundamentally INACCURATE. By all accounts, your example was a complete failure.
    dude, all those 'value judgments' were comparative numerical weights. in the search for "objectivity", mathematics is about as "objective" as you get. and the "some claim" is the standard for presenting a debatable opinion without value reference - which is why you see it on the news all the time, as reporters and anchors attempt to retain their image of objectivity. It's the closest we have in linguistic format that flows to saying "this is a claim, it exists, it is out there, i do not necessarily agree or disagree with it".

    but you are right. the value implications in that presentation are what you described

    you are just now picking up on them because they are not value implications that you agree with. you are now the fish out of water, and so you instantly pick up on the information being presented that is discordant with your perceptions.

    Your presentation was by no means equivalent, and certainly biased, and by no means dry.
    you are correct - both presentations included value judgements but you only picked up on the one that you disagreed with - now why is that?

    Of course you can.
    no, you can't. information has to be put in a format in order to be communicated.

    No, it isn't.
    it certainly is because in order to say anything you have to not say everything. to begin to impart information begins with the step of creating a filtering process to decide which information to impart, and which not to - a value judgement.

    this basic fact is responsible for much of our debate over whether and how much and in which direction the media is "biased". supporters of a particular candidate, cause, etc, always feel that the news is leaving out pertinent information; they are picking up on the fact that the filtering mechanism of the news-giver differs from that of themselves. Republicans complain because it seems like Republican Candidate gaffes are picked up on and trumpeted while Democrat gaffes are ignored - that is because republicans are seeing a value judgement in the filtering process that differs from their own and responding to the cognitive dissonance that this produces. Democrats tend not to "see" it because the filtering system of such a format blends more easily with their own, and produces no mental kick of "hey, wait a minute, they aren't giving equivalency to like things".

    Giving information is providing THAT information. Now, it is possible to do what you are claiming, but not necessary.
    it is, in fact, human to human, impossible not to do what I am describing.

    Certainly. Context. Not judgment.
    context in presentation is the result of judgement - it is the provision of a set of values that are judged to be relevant by the filtering process of the format decision maker.

    See? Your presentation was flawed. If your presentation had been clear, no interpretation on my part would have been necessary
    as you are a human being, interpretation on your part is inevitable.

    Here, your presentation is clear. Perhaps I would have been offended. Why? Perhaps I haven't liked some of your positions, so I have built in animosity towards you
    I perceive your animosity is merely you acting out your jealousy of my awesomeness.

    I don't). See? The presentation is not the issue in this case. You were clear, contextual, and without judgment. The problem was with the listener.
    no, my words did indeed provide judgement - the context that I provided made several assumptions about you the listener in both cases.

    You are STILL illustrating my point. If your presentation is clear and informational, the judgments that I perceive are on me.
    you still do not seem to grasp that receiving something does not make you the creator of it.

    So, you agree that it is not, always, but could be, correct?
    no. you cannot separate information from format. well, unless of course you are omniscient - but given our national test scores i don't see that being much of a worry with our current crop of k-8 students.

    I vacillate with the school choice issue. Personally, I'd rather see an more effective and efficient use of funds in our public schools, but I could see school choice as a viable option.
    I dont' see how a bureaucracy captured by the public unions it is supposed to be negotiating with is ever going to give us a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources than the market-based system that utilizes competition to brutally weed out the ineffective allocations of resources in favor of the effective ones. the reduction in social strife as each parent is able to ensure that their child is raised in the kind of social environment they prefer is merely a hefty side-bonus.

  4. #254
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    How about tolerance? Is it okay to teach tolerance in elementary school?
    no school should promote enable or allow bullying; and group cohesion is indeed something that will and should be picked up as a result of group projects, team sports, and the like.

  5. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Point is moot. Kindergartners through 8th grade shouldn't be taught sex. I'm in favor of the bill, and I think all non-academic matter should stay out of school.

  6. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    We do not need tax-payer funded indoctrination. Would you want academic public schools teaching against homosexuality?

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no school should promote enable or allow bullying; and group cohesion is indeed something that will and should be picked up as a result of group projects, team sports, and the like.
    That didn't answer the question.

    Want to try again.

    Is it okay to teach Tolerance in Schools?

    If so, how do you teach tolerance towards Homosexuals without using the word Gay?

  8. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Point is moot. Kindergartners through 8th grade shouldn't be taught sex.
    How about tolerance? Can we teach that in schools?

    BTW - most girls have had their period by eighth grade and most boys have masturbated. Not teaching sex-ed is promoting ignorance and asking for trouble.

  9. #259
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    That didn't answer the question.

    Want to try again.

    Is it okay to teach Tolerance in Schools?

    If so, how do you teach tolerance towards Homosexuals without using the word Gay?
    it did answer the question because i responded to whether or not we should teach tolerance in schools.

    what you apparently meant to ask was "is it okay to tell students specifically that they should be tolerant of homosexuals specifically"

    to which I would respond - students must be taught to be tolerant of other students, the why is immaterial.

    if you want to take that a step further and say "should students be taught to be tolerant of homosexuality" then my answer is the same as it has been the entire thread - sexuality is not a proper discussion in the k-8 classroom.

  10. #260
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Some people danced around it early on, but check out post #70 and read forward from there...



    Both and all. Actions, words... You have to read between the lines and look at a poster's history in these types of threads.

    Homophobia can be anyone supporting this Tenn law. It's a fear that causes people to act in a certain way.

    Some Libertarians will try to support this law or support anti-gay marriage laws based on 'Logic', but if it's thin logic, I'd say look deeper... where are these thoughts and feelings coming from?

    Homophobia, like any bigotry, doesn't have to be overt, in your face gay bashing.
    I see alot of heterophobia and anti straightness in here, I sense hateful heterophobia and a tyrannical attempt to intimidate people into a lifestyle they dont agree with and the indoctrination of it to underage schoolchildren who should be learning the 4 rs instead

Page 26 of 47 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •