And if I can, then it can be taught that way. Thank you.
and success!
YOUR description of morality is from the receiver. I can provide information, but how you take it is on YOU
provision of information comes along with presumption of presentation.
for example, if i were to give you two competing scientific theories in a book, without telling you which one was or was not correct, you would merely assume that they were competing theories - that difference scientists back each and that the debate was ongoing. you would perceive
equivalency as a judgement between them because that is how i have presented the material to you - in a
equivalent fashion. they could be as mis-matched as heliocentrism and flat-earthism, but if what you are given is the material presented without difference between the two or conclusion, you will perceive equivalency. you may not
accept or
agree with it, but that is what is being
presented.
If I say, there are several types of sexual orientations, and you think, "hey, he's saying that all are morally equivielnt", that is YOUR perception, and has nothing to do with what I am saying.
actually it does - specifically it has to do with how you are saying it.
for example, if i say "here are the major forms of human sexuality: homosexuality, bi sexuality, heterosexuality". that's an equivalency presentation. the student writes all three down on the list and there they all sit, coequal and each taking up it's own line on the page.
however, i go to the next class and i say "the major form of sexuality used by humans is hetero sexuality. now, 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 within human sexuality" then that is a format that presents a moral call. Certainly I didn't say this is right or this is wrong, but I separate hetero sexuality alone, first, and above all - and then make a point to list homosexuality in the same format as bestiality; which I imply is inferior due to it's numbers. I could throw pedohophelia in there too. The presentation implies that these things all belong together - there is a fundamental equivalency between them. They all "belong" on the same list, and Heterosexuality does not belong on that list. Which is why homosexuals come down so hard on attempts to put homosexuality in the same list as pedophilia - because they
know that the
presentation presumes a moral judgement even if one is not
highlighted.
I can provide plenty of information. I am not responsible for how you judge or perceive it.
anybody aware of the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote ought to know that's bullhockey.
No, we are not arguing over whether it should be taught because of the moral implications. YOU are arguing that. I am telling you that is not the issue, that morality is separate from education. Some folk, erroneously, want to make it a moral issue.
and some folk, erroneously, think that you can pretend it isn't.
hooray for a priori arguments!
I pay teachers to teach information that is useful. Sexuality is useful information. YOUR job is to teach the values of the information that is taught in school.
gosh, if only there were some way for us to pick and choose how to send our children to the schools that reflected our differences here....
Ah... reverting to the 'ole "reading, writing, and arithmatic first" argument, now. I disagree. Firstly, there is value in learning about sexuality, and culture and the arts, amongst other things.
these kids are kindgergardeners through 8th grade. we're not event talking about high school here - much less college. you have to be able to read above a third-grade-level before you can read, analyze, and appreciate shakespeare.
Secondly our educational problems are not solely the fault of the educational system. They are the fault of a combination of factors: the educational system, lack of parental involvement, and student apathy, for starters.
that is certainly true.