Page 30 of 47 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 470

Thread: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

  1. #291
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,079

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    It is an untrue statement. It ignores the fact that traditionally Christians have led anti-semitic campaigns. They hate Judaism, not the Jews. They believe Jews are simply wrong. No exceptions. That is all.

    Are you truly Christian? If not, could you at least not unfairly associate hate for a religion with hate for an individual? That is all it is. Traditionally Christians have been against Judaism and semitic peoples. Are they racists? If not, why then?
    Read your statement now and see whether or not you would think that a person saying the above is playing semantics.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #292
    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
    It is an untrue statement. It ignores the fact that traditional Christians view homosexuality as a sin.
    Says who?

    That's total crap.

    Evangelicals (Christian wanna-be's) maybe, but that's because they're incapable of thinking for themselves and allow some homophobic leader to think for them...







    They hate the sin, not the sinner. They believe all have sinned. No exceptions. That is all.
    Sound like an Evangelical excuse for bigotry and hatred. They should not call themselves Christian.

    A watered down version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

  3. #293
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    in third grade?
    In the appropriate context, sex ed can be taught at fairly early ages.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #294
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Watch out, be careful not to call anti-gay folks homophobic, because then you're hyperbolic and acting like a Hitler Nazi... or some such nonsense.

    The anti-gay people, overt or otherwise, hate that word "homophobia"...
    Sorry for using such big words on you hazlnut. I didn’t realize you were so hypersensitive err…I mean touchy feely.

    I thought your skin was a bit thicker than it is considering you are a one man slander machine with no regard for truth or facts.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  5. #295
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    In the appropriate context, sex ed can be taught at fairly early ages.
    Yes, sex ed can, and probably should, be taught at the elementary school level if it is approached from a purely scientific perspective.

    Homosexuality is a social issue however and even the adults in our society today have trouble treating this issue with maturity. As a society, we just aren’t mature enough yet to have issues like this taught in public schools.

    EDIT: Let me clarify by saying high school and college courses are not considered in the aforementioned statements. I’m only talking about K-8.
    Last edited by GPS_Flex; 05-23-11 at 03:37 AM. Reason: clarification

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  6. #296
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Yes, sex ed can, and probably should, be taught at the elementary school level if it is approached from a purely scientific perspective.
    I would change scientific to informational, but other than that, I agree.

    Homosexuality is a social issue however and even the adults in our society today have trouble treating this issue with maturity. As a society, we just aren’t mature enough yet to have issues like this taught in public schools.
    Disagree. Homosexuality is only a social issue if it is placed in that context. It can be discussed informationally, similar to heterosexuality.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #297
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I would change scientific to informational, but other than that, I agree.



    Disagree. Homosexuality is only a social issue if it is placed in that context. It can be discussed informationally, similar to heterosexuality.
    I understand what you are saying but the immature adults I was referring to will make it into a social issue no matter how you teach it.

    On the flip side, not all teachers will approach it from an informational position.

    That said, in the best case scenario information is being conveyed to the student for what purpose? In the end, it is for social purposes so it is a social issue no matter how you teach it. If there is another reason for the time spent on such curriculum, I’m all ears.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  8. #298
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    These are not demogogic smears. They are omnipotent truisms. Disputing them is in poor taste.

    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.
    No, I completely understand what you are saying. I am disputing it. It is entirely possible to impart information without imparting bias. Context and judgment/values are not equivelent. What you are not recognizing is how in these situations, the internal perceptions of the listener creates the values, not the presenter.

    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.
    Of course you can, but that multi-billion dollar political campaign industry has little to do with actually imparting information. When was the last time you viewed a political ad that presented both candidates, at the same time, in a purely informational way? Probably never, because that is not the purpose of politics.

    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.
    Sure.

    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
    And again, I disagree. It presents no moral equivelency... it presents no morality at all, since there is no implication of good/bad. The list is the list, and if each item is described further, if it is described in an informational way, again, there is no moral equivelency. One can do that with just about any list, if it is communicated informationally.

    judgement flows from information and context.
    Sometimes... and if something is communicated informationally, only, the judgment comes from the listener.

    no, my belief system on this matter is different from the presumptions found in both lists i provided.
    Irrelevant. You presented a moral position in the example you gave. Whether it is actually your position does not matter.

    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
    Ummm... you just contradicted yourself.

    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.
    Not at all. I picked up on them because they existed. Wouldn't matter whether I agreed with them or not.


    you are correct - both presentations included value judgements but you only picked up on the one that you disagreed with - now why is that?
    Please stop making claims that I said something I did not say. I NEVER said that both presentations included value judgments, and I have been completely clear about that. The former did not. The latter did. The issue is that you believe that there are value judgments in the former where there are not. Why do you think you have erroneously seen that?

    no, you can't. information has to be put in a format in order to be communicated.
    Of course you can. Context and judgment are not the same.

    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.
    Depends on the filtering. One can impart information without presenting a dissertation, and do so without values.You are looking at this completely black or white, and it is not. It is possible to impart information without moral judgments, and it is possible to impart that information WITH judgments. HOW one communicates affects this presentation. If the former is done, the listener can STILL add in their own judgments and alter the message.

    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".
    Politics is a really bad example. By it's very nature, the purpose of political speech is to persuade and to present judgments.

    it is, in fact, human to human, impossible not to do what I am describing.
    No, it isn't.

    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.
    No, context provides background information that allows the listener to better understand the information. It is like defining a word. It can easily be done without judgment.

    as you are a human being, interpretation on your part is inevitable.
    Not necessarily interpretation in a judgmental way. One "translates" information into their own personal "language" so they understand what is being stated better.

    I perceive your animosity is merely you acting out your jealousy of my awesomeness.
    Which is YOUR perception and not accurate, since the only awesomeness that I am jealous of is my own.

    no, my words did indeed provide judgement - the context that I provided made several assumptions about you the listener in both cases.
    Nope. In the second case, you presented your perceptions, informationally. In the first, you presented them as an attack. These are different types of communications. If I take each as an attack, the former is MY issue, the latter is not entirely. See the difference?

    you still do not seem to grasp that receiving something does not make you the creator of it.
    Once you reinterpret something with your values, it certainly does. This is one reason we see such a discrepency in the behavior of people from the same religion.

    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.
    And that may be a result of the receiver, not the presenter.

    I doubt we are going to agree on this issue.

    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.
    There is no question that many of the policies of the unions need to be curtailed or eliminated... and this from someone who's mother was a teacher for 40+ years. However, if this were done, and if funds were allocated intelligently and efficiently, I see little reason why public education could not thrive. I like the idea of school choice, perhaps with different schools having different values systems, but I much prefer a more ecclectic approach. It produces more well-rounded individuals, able to deal with others who may have differences from they.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #299
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you may want to take that up with Captain Courtesy.

    Why? He and I agree more than we disagree. However, this is not you answering me.

    that is a non-sequiter. Simply because people choose to interact in a certain way is not in and of itself justification for inclusion of a discussion about it in a K-8 curriculum.
    Well, it's more than that. if you put the two sentences together you would see that. As it exists and is real in the leives of those who go to school, and possibiliy an area of conflict in school school, that makes it a reasonable area of disucssion.


    no, it is the lack of education. the opposite of education would require the destruction of knowledge. and I'm fine with that - there are lots things that the schools shouldn't be teaching, and certainly at the more impressionable k-8 level. religion, sexuality, politics, these are all examples of items that permeate our world that should be absent from an elementary school classroom.
    Your definition is too limiting. And they are not absent. You may talk religion, for example, in proper context, in the proper class. Politics as well. Hell, I was in grade school when I learned about politics and was part of a team for George Wallace, not that I fully understood at the time. But that education was fundamental and important.

    indeed. that's why we need to have NAMBLA day in school. where young children can discuss and explore the goods and the bads that can come from having a "special friend".

    and the only possible reason parents would have a problem with this is if they are close-minded and hateful; and therefore their opinions don't count in this "representative society".
    And here we journery into CP stupid world. No one has suggested anythign of the kind.


    there doesn't need to be the first half of that. it comes down to "should we abuse jane for any reason" answer: no, and if you are caught doing so, you are disciplined.
    To some degree, you're right. But context and real examples often hel and are reasonable areas of discourse.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #300
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Gays shouldn't care about this, I agree.
    wait, you're GAY? omg.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Page 30 of 47 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •