Don't Say Gay BillFollow

Well, this will really fuck up the Jeffrey Dahmer portion of the curriculum.

No. One is about not mentioning the subject at all, while the other mandates positive mentions only and bans any negative ones. You're injecting your assumption about the motivations of each into the effects which will result. While I do believe that both are bad ideas, I think that a rule saying "This is a controversial subject, so we simply wont broach it until 9th grade" is far more reasonable than "This is a controversial subject, so we'll force all students to learn our view of that subject".

Don't you agree?

Having just now looked at that dude's picture, he is ***** like a tea room.

Also, he has a girl's name. Hehe... "Stacey".

That's a nice spin on it, but we both know it's fear mongering. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 8:06pm by Ailitardif

Your whole position is based upon your religion!

Well good, common ground at last.

What post?

How are you a "science person"? I'm a Physicist, I know my science and Intelligent Design isn't it. What big question mark are you talking about? Evolution is the most secure theory in science. There is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity for fuck sake!

Also, from this I can clearly see that you have no idea what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

So you'd like your non-theory to be able to have as much weight as the most proven theory in Science? You want the so called "Intelligent Design theory" to hold as much weight as the basis of all modern genetic experiments? The reason many drugs exist today? Do you know what "Drosophila" are? Do you know how researchers use Evolutionary theory to conduct experiments using Drosophila? Do you know how these experiments affect modern medicine? Of course you don't because you're not a fucking "science person", you're an ignorant piece of crap who wants to push non-science on to young people and mislead them into thinking it's an either/or proposition when it's not. You, and people like you who think this way make me sick.

The only people who have problems with homosexuals are 1) religious people and 2) ignorant fucktards. Note that these are not always mutually exclusive.

We're all in agreement that they're both stupid, right? I'm honestly not sure what the problem is.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 8:46pm by lolgaxe

Yeah, ya missed the point. I was saying that you were stretching reality to try and draw a comparison. And, having read the legislation in question since then I'm even more convinced that you're just wrong.


Again, missing the point. I thought it was a given that we were discussing teachers here but I guess you needed that spelled out.

The CA law does not prohibit teachers from talking about a bad guy who also happened to be gay. It doesn't even prohibit them from mentioning that he was gay. It does prohibit them from saying he was bad because he was gay. I've quoted the portion of the law in question.

The TN law explicitly prohibits the teacher from mentioning homosexuality, period, full stop.


They don't compare. Even as a lame equivalency argument so you can stroke your ideological **** and say "They're both dumb but the GOP one is ONLY because the Democrats were dumb first!!" they don't compare.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 9:53pm by Jophiel

I figured that that's why he thinks it's a choice.

Varus,



Yes, we decide who we're going to have sex with, but we don't decide who we're attracted to. The two are completely different things.

For example, I'm attracted to men, I can't change this. I'm also attracted to women, can't change that either. The choice being that, I have chosen in the past to act on my attraction and mess around with guys, but currently, I've chosen to date a woman, and she's one hell of a woman. Does that mean I'm not attracted to men? No. I'm just not acting on it.

You're basically saying that attraction is irrelevant, to which I have to wonder about you. If you're choosing to have sex with women, does that mean that you're ignoring your attraction to men and choosing not to sleep with men? Or are you just that homophobic?

Also, and I know I'm taking the ************ up" side on this, but,



Polygamy should be legal pending that it's not forced(like the FLDS forces it upon women), and while I'm not interested in any such thing myself, I really don't see the problem with two consenting family members over the age of consent ******* each other.

In biology class, ID/creationism was definitely mentioned alongside evolution... but since there aren't any factual texts to reference from, it's not exactly a scientific topic. I don't know about you, but citing the Bible as a source wouldn't have worked in ANY of my classes, except of course Religion which I was taught at a Catholic school.

Not to mention, how boring is it to teach about how life came to be as it is today, and say "Well, God made it. In 7 days. Oh, and trust me, each day he did what is really important." Bo-ring. I mean, really, when I was a kid, mixing religion with school just made 2 separate things exponentially more unbearable.

Actually I didn't because that's a stupid, obvious and irrelevant statement. I can equally say that your position on Evolution is due to your belief in Evolution. Really? The point I was making was that I was not favoring any religion over another.



Hmmm. given the fact that Comp Sci is a hard science, along with math, I would answer "yes".



True, but you're overlooking the fact that certain religions in ID support that a higher being created animals and not that they Evolved from a singularity. So it still has relevance in Biology when teaching Evolution.



Mentioning a topic vs teaching a subject is not "equal weight".



I forgot you weren't U.S. Your spelling of "realize" tells me that.. >.> If you're anywhere from Europe, I'm willing to bet that includes your country as well.

The nation's opinion is relevant in that the school is teaching science because it's science and not what they necessarily believe in. You're making a complaint because something that you don't believe is being mentioned next to your belief. If the U.S. behaved the same way, then evolution wouldn't even be taught.

I think those scientist dismiss ID, because they don't believe in ID, the same reason believers dismiss Evolution. What's your point? I know you want to believe that every scientist dismisses religion, but that isn't true.



Nope. Not at all, nor does it change anything. Animals can be blind as well. Does that change your opinion on blindness?



Ironically, you're the one acting like an ignorant f**ktard as I never said anything negative towards homosexuality. Just because I don't support it, doesn't justify anyone to scrutinize me. You just have your own personal bias and simply attacking others that don't agree with you. Do you have the same emotion towards "I don't support whores or ***** mongering?" Do you go off calling people f**ktards because they don't support people being ho's and whores?

Also, what bias? If you saw a man crawling on his knees as opposed to walking on his legs, what would you think? What if you saw a woman eating with her feet instead of her hands, what would you think? What if a man told you he urinates sitting down, what would you think? What if a man says he sleeps with his eyes open standing up? Be honest, don't give me any PC BS.