Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#1 Apr 24 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2 Apr 24 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaze wrote:
"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"


Really?
#3 Apr 24 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaze wrote:
"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"


Really?


Yes, really.

My state is so going to ****....
#4Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How is TN YOUR state? o.O?
#5 Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaze wrote:
"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"


Really?


Yes.

Quote:
... a bill that would bar teachers from discussing...


Edited, Apr 24th 2011 2:48pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#6 Apr 24 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is NOT talking about homosexuality in school a) preventing anything educational


It didn't mention educational. I'd like to see the full bill, because many teachers provide social help to students during the school hours. Not to the full classroom, but as guidance. I had many teachers who were more than willing to help students outside of their subjects of teaching. My Chemistry teacher was a wonderful woman who would help you with any issues you came to her with. Would this bill block educators from providing advice and talking with their students about this subject in a one on one basis?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#7Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Fair enough.
#8 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is TN YOUR state? o.O?


Because I live here...

Almalieque wrote:
How is NOT talking about homosexuality in school a) preventing anything educational and b) grounds for GOING to ****?


Someone already helped you with the "they didn't say educational" part of your question. As far as "going to ****," we obviously don't believe the same stuff, do we? IMO, if there is a god, he/she would've created everyone, even the NixNot's. To treat homosexuality like a disease and homosexuals like deviants would be against what god would want.
#9 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
If it was actually neutral it would have banned all sexuality talk.

Pretending that you aren't against homosexuality when you are just makes it seem like you know you are wrong.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#10 Apr 24 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Edit: The source says specifically before the 8th grade. I'm sure your Chem instructor was at high school, am I right?


She taught classes from 7th to 12th grade. As did many of the teachers in the complex. The middle school and high school buildings were physically connected. She was just the most outstanding of the teachers I remember, there were many similar to her. Caring about the well being of the students beyond your subject of teaching is what makes a good, and memorable, teacher.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#11The One and Only SgtFrog, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) meh..so what?
#12Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a pretty good environment. I can say I didn't have that pleasure going to school. Then again, I never had a "problem" to discuss with any teacher.
#13 Apr 24 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That was my argument for not mentioning religious references in schools, but actually TEACHING the Big Bang Theory, when not all scientists even agree on that theory.
Then teach that only 99.5% of scientists agree on the nature of the big bang. Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#14Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And you wonder why I don't jump on stats..... When people like you just make up numbers to support their claim, it takes away any credibility.
#15 Apr 24 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Oh, those wacky neocons. Doing their part to further erode freedom.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Apr 24 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Stories like this just make me happy to live in Maine.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#17 Apr 24 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
49,744 posts
bsphil wrote:
Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.
I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Apr 24 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.
I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.
There's a time and a place for teaching religion. Science class is not one of them. For what it's worth, I'm fine with learning about religions of the world in history and English classes. They certainly have had a tremendous impact on the history of the world and absolutely deserve a place in a lesson plan in that sense.

But not science class. Religion is not science.

They should make buildings where people can learn about a certain religion, probably during the weekends so that it doesn't interfere with the traditional work/school schedule.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#19Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. In my biology class, it didn't TEACH religion, but it did state the difference between terms such as creationism, ID, etc and that's the PERFECT time to do it.
#20 Apr 24 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.
I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.


This..

Quote:
There's a time and a place for teaching religion. Science class is not one of them. For what it's worth, I'm fine with learning about religions of the world in history and English classes. They certainly have had a tremendous impact on the history of the world and absolutely deserve a place in a lesson plan in that sense.

But not science class. Religion is not science.


Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. In my biology class, it didn't TEACH religion, but it did state the difference between terms such as creationism, ID, etc and that's the PERFECT time to do it.

Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools. The only religious references in a lit class should be strictly over the holy texts as literature.
Religion is not science, that pretty much necessitates it be mutually exclusive from a science class. Find me the evidence that religion is a science. You can't, though, because it isn't one.

That's ok, by the by. I'm completely fine with it not being a science, I understand that and am fine with that. Just don't pretend that it is.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#21 Apr 24 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I agree with phil here. In the UK at least we have "Religious Studies/Education" class. We learn about all religion. We learn about their creation myths and we assess their beliefs. You can even go on to study it at Advanced (the level before University) if you want to. Then it expands into real Philosophy. I used to enjoy that class actually. It was interesting learning what other religions thought.

I'm all for teaching religion in school. However, I'm definitely against teaching mythology in the Science class room though. Like 'phil said, religion is not science. They should be mutually exclusive as far as teaching them in particular classes is concerned.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#22 Apr 24 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
No trolling here. Serious question.
Almalieque wrote:
Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

How so? Religion's had a huge impact on history.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#23 Apr 24 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

Nonsense. Religion plays an integral role in history and culture. Many aspects of history that defined the world are impossible to understand without an understanding of the religious beliefs at the time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Apr 24 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
This is a *** thread, people! Good job, Alma. /banghead
#25 Apr 24 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Someone already helped you with the "they didn't say educational" part of your question. As far as "going to ****," we obviously don't believe the same stuff, do we? IMO, if there is a god, he/she would've created everyone, even the NixNot's. To treat homosexuality like a disease and homosexuals like deviants would be against what god would want.


Are you implying that it is OK to treat people with diseases a different way?


/rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:
That would be a difference in opinion as many (not all) people are against of homosexuality because of religious preferences.


I'd be curious to hear what rationalization they use.

Almalieque wrote:
Also, how is not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th grade be considered "deviant"? I would argue that many people don't want any type of sexuality references in those grades. Do you consider that as "deviance" also?


I'm not sure this makes sense. I didn't say "not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th is considered deviant."

But to attempt to make sense of your post, because I think the gist is to ask why I think this bill is bad since it only limits a teacher up until the 8th grade, I would have to point out that we had a *** ed class in 6th or 7th grade. I had my first crush in the fourth grade, and my first boyfriend in the sixth grade. I think it would be perfectly natural for a kid who is comfortable with a teacher to ask him/her if having feelings for someone of the same *** is normal. That teacher should have the right to try to comfort the kid, or to tell the kid they don't feel comfortable talking about it, and they should talk to their parents.

Edit: quote phail.

[sm]Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:23pm by Belkira
#26 Apr 24 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

Nonsense. Religion plays an integral role in history and culture. Many aspects of history that defined the world are impossible to understand without an understanding of the religious beliefs at the time.


I took a handful of history/culture courses throughout high school and a couple required in college. All of them touched on the religious influences during the rise of western civilization. None of them were "borderline teaching religion as fact".

I think Alma is taking it to the extreme and defining "teaching religion" as church services during history class. Rather than merely acknowledging their existence, their culture, and the effects the multiple different religions had on the people and how beliefs were adapted and merged as new cultures moved in. That religion exists and influences people is a fact, and can be taught without any issues. Regardless of whether or not you believe the particular religion's teachings are 100% fact.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (80)