Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say Gay BillFollow

#102 Apr 25 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,208 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I could run or swim circles around you.
Keep telling yourself your once a week ten mile compares to my five days a week four mile and twice weekends 10 miles, sweety. And that's just running.
varusword75 wrote:
Remind me again what being in shape has to do with your property?
Well, anyone with an IQ and rational thought processes would have seen the phrase "in better shape in every possible way" to include financial shape as well, but I do realize that you, being from the south, require people to spell things out for you. I understand that. I have a lot of soldiers in my command that are from the south, and I have to use small, short sentences for them to understand, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Apr 25 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.


Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
Do you understand business? You don't stop when you max out in 1 market segment, you expand into others.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#104 Apr 25 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.


I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice, homosexuality isn't.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#105 Apr 25 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.


Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
Do you understand business? You don't stop when you max out in 1 market segment, you expand into others.


I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#106varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 3:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#107 Apr 25 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

Quote:
I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice


And you and your liberal buddies hate, and persecute, anything or anyone that contradicts your ideology.



Quote:
homosexuality isn't.


We decide who we're going to have sex with. I get that you've been brainwashed into believing they're "born that way" but it's a lie.


So heterosexuality is a choice as well? It's fun to say things.

Edit: Also, I'm way too busy goose-stepping to have time for persecuting.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:14pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#108 Apr 25 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,747 posts
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#109 Apr 25 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
Children have never been the target demographic. They just used kids to get the parents in the door. Now they market directly to those parents as they're all from the generations of them marketing them as kids. The point still remains that families eat at McDonald's with a saddening frequency and are choosing a harmful lifestyle for their children, in complete contrast to what varus stated.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#110 Apr 25 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
FFS, read your own @#%^ing signature Douchebag. Stop talking to him and maybe the imbecile will leave.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#111 Apr 25 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
At the risk of even attempting to read this thread, I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to equally over-reaching laws in the other direction, like the one that passed the California State Senate last Friday. That law mandates that schools teach positive examples of contributions by homosexuals and bans any negative references to them. They're both crappy laws. I'm just pointing out that this is going on in both directions on this issue. So if the anti-gay ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 3:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Aethia,
#113 Apr 25 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
gbaji wrote:
then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
Goose stepping liberals? Pinko commies? Radical liberals?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#114 Apr 25 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.

If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Apr 25 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
Can't score points doing that though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#116 Apr 25 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,446 posts
Quote:
Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?

hey V hows it going! So, quick question. do you believe that the gov is always right?
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#117 Apr 25 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Aethia,

Quote:
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.


Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.




Atard,

Quote:
So heterosexuality is a choice as well?


Did you think this up all by your lonesome? Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?


Damn, your arguments are really starting to open my eyes...goose-stepping is really tiring.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#118 Apr 25 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I gave you a very simple answer and you chose not to accept it. That's your fault. I am strongly against anything going up anyone's anus for any sexual pleasure. I look how a male body is, how a female body is, how they correlate during sex and child reproduction. I look how none of that occurs with two people of the same sex. In my mind, the square block goes inside the square hole. That has nothing to do with religion, God or anything. If I were to lose my faith today in God, my opinion on homosexuality would not change. I don't care if a hidden verse reveals that it's ok to be gay.


You're saying, "People are uncomfortable with it," but you're not telling me why. Why does it make you uncomfortable to think of something going up someone else's anus, when that person is a willing recipient? Who taught you that sex was only for reproduction? Why does it make you uncomfortable? I get that it makes you uncomfortable, but why?

Almalieque wrote:
People like you just throw around religion as opposition because you know it holds no grounds in arguments. You're no better than the people who use religion as an excuse for their actions.


No, really. I can't see a reason why someone would be upset about this except that there has been religious ideology that has taught people from a very, very early age that homosexuals are yukky. I'm willing to keep an open mind here, but you're not really giving me any examples.

Almalieque wrote:
No, social science as comforting students that the changes that they maybe experience through puberty as taught in the class is normal. There is absolutely no reason for sexual orientation to have to come up. Doing so is your own personal agenda.


Sexual attraction is a part of puberty, genius.

Almalieque wrote:
I used 8th grade as an example. Ok, so let's say 6th grade. What good does it do if your kids are having sex in the 5th grade?


Most kids are going through puberty around the sixth grade. That's why that seems appropriate to me.

Almalieque wrote:
I imply that you were against parent involvement.


Then you're wrong.

Almalieque wrote:
You are simply arguing that teachers should have more authority than they should and parents have too much power. I'm arguing the opposite.


Wait. This makes no sense whatsoever. I have never said that parents have "too much power," that's idiotic. And how much authority "should" teachers have? Isn't that rather subjective? And who said anything about authority?? You're acting like I'm suggesting that a teacher should have to tell kids that they have to engage in homosexual behavior to get a good grade.

Shit like this is why people get frustrated with you. You make some crap up in your head then try to argue it when none of that is what we're talking about.

Almalieque wrote:
No one is terrified of sex. People are terrified of the outcomes of sex and the responsibility that comes along with it.


And heaven forbid that we have a sex-ed class that teaches them how to be responsible. Especially since a lot of these kids aren't getting this information at home, even when they should be. You want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that every parent everywhere is talking to their kid about sex and that simply isn't happening.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:42pm by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#119 Apr 25 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
So if the anti-gay ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
I'll agree to an extent. There aren't too many negative contributions of many peoples (sans whites) taught in any schooling that I can think of, though. Besides, we have Women's History Month, Black History Month, and Spanish History Month and so on and so forth, so I don't really see a problem with Gay History Month being taught either. I don't agree with a section of days being selected at random to bolster good feelings towards a certain group of people, but there have been examples of it. Seems a bit meh. I think they should all be studied in sequence of when they happened, not "Oh, its February, let's study MLK now!"

The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing. I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Apr 25 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All things being equal, I see devoting a portion of a class to exploring positive contributions from a group to be less detrimental than declaring a subject to be strictly verboten.

I may not agree that the former is necessary but it concerns me less than the latter.

That aside, even if we agree for the sake of argument that "Studies in Liberace" is a terrible, terrible thing, it doesn't make legislation forbidding the discussion of homosexuality any less asinine. One doesn't "counter" the other, it just compounds the stupidity and if the second guy is doing stupid directly because the first guy did stupid, that just makes the second guy twice as retarded for both efforts and motive.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Apr 25 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.


And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-gay than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a gay rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-gay PR campaign.

Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.


They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-gay ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Apr 25 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best.

Good thing you had to make sure to throw it in there though, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Apr 25 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.


And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-gay than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a gay rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-gay PR campaign.

Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.


They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-gay ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.


They may both be stupid, but one of them is about spreading fear of a sexual preference and the other is about acceptance of a sexual preference.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#124Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, that's your ignorance and denial. I keep telling you, there's a time and a place. If a teacher wants to talk about sex to my 16 year old son in high school, fine. I don't want the same teacher talking about sex to my 11 year old son in school.
#125 Apr 25 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing.


The negative parts of both bills are though. You skipped over the part where I said it barred negative reflection of homosexuals (or homosexuality in general). There's some speculation about how the wording can or should be interpreted, but as worded, it would restrict teachers from mentioning anything a homosexual ever did in a negative way. So any mention of say Jeffrey Dahmer would be prohibited because since he chopped up the young men he lured to his home, that would make gay people look bad. Basically, no negative act can be presented to students if the person involved is gay. Which would put them into a special protected category which no other group of people enjoy. It's pretty darn absurd.

Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued. It could theoretically mean that it would be illegal to mention any criticism of political decisions made by gay politicians (historical or current), since that would reflect badly on a gay person. It's badly written, and very broad, yet this is a clear example of the "other side" behaving just as irrationally.


Quote:
I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.


I think some would counter that public schools are not the best place for this either though. And the inevitable question of where the boundary line between eliminating condemnation and creating advocacy is IMO a legitimate one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Apr 25 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
square block goes inside the square hole.


I think something might be wrong with it :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#127 Apr 25 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best.

Good thing you had to make sure to throw it in there though, huh?


Sure. Why not? I'm not allowed to make two related, but unconnected points in a single post? So if someone posts about problems in professional baseball, I'm not allowed to make points both about the effect of salary caps on the game and about steroid use by players? Or, if I do, you can disagree with one point and assume this also covers the other? That seems kinda... odd.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Apr 25 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued.

Well, this will really fuck up the Jeffrey Dahmer portion of the curriculum.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Apr 25 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Why not?

Hehe... at least you're predictable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Apr 25 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
They may both be stupid, but one of them is about spreading fear of a sexual preference and the other is about acceptance of a sexual preference.


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?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Apr 25 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued.

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


Just an obvious example. The point there was that if for some reason, the class was doing a section on serial killers, the teacher would be barred from mentioning Dahmer because he was gay.

Less "out there" examples would be a current events section could not ever discuss the actions of gay actors or performers in a negative way. Presumably also, any discussion of diseases in health class would not be allowed to mention increased rates of certain sexually transmitted diseases among the gay community because that would reflect badly on them, right? So this is how we educate people? Provide them a rose tinted version of something? I'm sorry, I think that's a bit (more than a bit) ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Apr 25 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
You and your homo fantasies.

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

Also, he has a girl's name. Hehe... "Stacey".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Apr 25 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
the teacher would be barred from mentioning Dahmer because he was gay.

No, according to your stretched definition, which you even admitted was stretched, the teacher would be barred.

The TN legislation, on the other hand, is very deliberate in banning any discussion of homosexuality, period. You don't need to make up imaginary scenarios where a teacher is afraid of stretching the rules too far before you can apply it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Apr 25 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
They may both be stupid, but one of them is about spreading fear of a sexual preference and the other is about acceptance of a sexual preference.


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?


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
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#135 Apr 25 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reading the CA legislation, all it does is add homosexuals to the (rather lengthy) list of groups that get a special mention and includes them in the same group that...
Quote:
The state board or any governing board shall not adopt any textbook or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220

The only difference there is the inclusion of "sexual orientation". Were teachers not previously allowed to say bad things about Stalin because he had a nationality? No, but I'm guessing they couldn't say "Because Stalin was Russian, he was a total asshole like every other Russian." Likewise, saying that Dahmer was fucked up because he was gay would be wrong. Mentioning that he was gay is no more forbidden than mentioning that he was male (sex), white (race), American (nationality), etc.

Amusingly, they also slipped "Pacific Islander" into the list along with the gays. Radical Pacific Islander agenda!

Edit: Oops... they just changed the wording on Pacific Islander from "Pacific Island people". I'm still calling radical agenda though.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 7:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Apr 25 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So you deny that proponents of Intelligent Design are largely Christian fundementalists?


I was in reference to myself. You were stating that I have a problem with teaching religion based on a Christian agenda and there wasn't.
Your whole position is based upon your religion!

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The UK manages it just fine. I'm not sure why any US legislature would be against a Religious Studies class. So long as it doesn't promote one religion over another.


I don't disagree.
Well good, common ground at last.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
However, presenting Intelligent Design which, lets face it, is Creationism repackaged is promoting a specifically Christian mythology over all others. It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?


See my post above.
What post?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying that Evolution is some kind of Pseudo-Science? Do you even know what it is you're arguing against? Or do you buy into what people like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind think evolution is?


As a science person, I view science as being based on facts. When there is this big question mark looming around an explanation and you say "Oh, well we don't know yet, but I'm sure I'm right", it's no longer substantiated by facts, but assumptions, theories, etc. So, while some definitions may still support that as being science, other definitions can be used to counter the lack of solidarity of facts. This is definitely more evident when you have people that support various alterations of the same topic.
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.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?


Of course I do, because now you're being biased. The whole purpose of having them there in the first place is to create an "equal" sense of an environment where the school is not promoting one thing over the other. It's really not that hard to grasp.
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.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Was my sarcasm not an accurate summation of the Christian belief on homosexuals?


No, it wasn't even close. You're making the assumption that the people don't have any problems internally with homosexuality, but only because Jesus Christ says so, then all of the sudden "it's bad". Christians (just as with any religion) do what they want. Many sin just as much as "sinners" do, so what makes you think they are incapable of supporting homosexuality if they support everything else deemed "un-Godly" by the Church? People just use religion as an argument because that way they don't have to explain their feelings. They can just say, "God says it wrong". In reality, they have their own problems with it.

The only people who have problems with homosexuals are 1) religious people and 2) ignorant fucktards. Note that these are not always mutually exclusive.
____________________________
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
#137 Apr 25 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the teacher would be barred from mentioning Dahmer because he was gay.

No, according to your stretched definition, which you even admitted was stretched, the teacher would be barred.


Um... Which is exactly what I said. Huh?

Quote:
The TN legislation, on the other hand, is very deliberate in banning any discussion of homosexuality, period.


In the classroom. Presumably with a teacher involved, right? You don't actually think that law bans two students having a private conversation, right? It somewhat assumes we're talking about classroom discussions, so it's just as broad as the CA law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Apr 25 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
******
43,208 posts
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
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#139 Apr 25 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,380 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
We're all in agreement that they're both stupid, right? I'm honestly not sure what the problem is.


Not a problem so much as a question: If the fault for the stupid on one side is ignorant bigoted christian fundamentalists, then where is the fault for the stupid on the other side? I just found it odd that there was a leap to cause/source for the TN law and was curious what/where the same people place the blame for the CA law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 7:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What a coincidence. The only people who don't have problems with homosexuals are 1) homosexuals and 2) ignorant F***tards. Note that these are not always mutually exclusive.
#141 Apr 25 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
We're all in agreement that they're both stupid, right? I'm honestly not sure what the problem is.


Not a problem so much as a question: If the fault for the stupid on one side is ignorant bigoted christian fundamentalists, then where is the fault for the stupid on the other side? I just found it odd that there was a leap to cause/source for the TN law and was curious what/where the same people place the blame for the CA law.


I guess it would be the opposite, so it's the fault of intelligent tolerant secular non-fundamentalist (fundamentalist doesn't really have an antonym)
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#142 Apr 25 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the teacher would be barred from mentioning Dahmer because he was gay.
No, according to your stretched definition, which you even admitted was stretched, the teacher would be barred.
Um... Which is exactly what I said. Huh?

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.

Quote:
Quote:
The TN legislation, on the other hand, is very deliberate in banning any discussion of homosexuality, period.
In the classroom. Presumably with a teacher involved, right? You don't actually think that law bans two students having a private conversation, right?

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.
The TN law in question wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.


They don't compare. Even as a lame equivalency argument so you can stroke your ideological cock 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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Apr 25 2011 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Aethia,

Quote:
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.


Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.

.
How would you know? You seem pretty incapable of it in the first place
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#144 Apr 26 2011 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,747 posts
Sweetums wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Aethia,

Quote:
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.


Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.

.
How would you know? You seem pretty incapable of it in the first place
I figured that that's why he thinks it's a choice.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#145 Apr 26 2011 at 4:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
For varus, falling in love only happens when he has enough extra cash on him.
#146 Apr 26 2011 at 5:15 AM Rating: Good
****
9,258 posts
Varus,

Quote:
We decide who we're going to have sex with. I get that you've been brainwashed into believing they're "born that way" but it's a lie.


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 "@#%^ed up" side on this, but,

Quote:
Did you think this up all by your lonesome? Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?


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 @#%^ing each other.


____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#147 Apr 26 2011 at 6:36 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatia wrote:
Your whole position is based upon your religion!

???

You're in denial. I stated that I'm against mentioning any religion, so how is that based on MY religion? That doesn't even make any sense.
I was referring to your position on ID, and you know I was. Don't act dumb.


Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
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 @#%^ sake!

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


I consider myself a "science person" because I study science. Unlike what many undergraduates or people with bachelors do, I'm not going to call myself a Computer Scientist or a Mathematician, just because I studied those areas. A bachelor's degree doesn't make you anything, it gives you the foundation to be something.

The question mark of how everything came into existence. The only response I've received is "We don't know yet, but that doesn't justify placing a higher being in that unknown". That my friend, is a huge question mark. If it isn't complete, then I'm not going to take it in fully as a scientific explanation.
So you have a bachelor's degree in Computer science, and this means you have knowledge in hard science how? How everything came into existence has nothing to do with biology. If you want to include some kind of Deist perspective in Cosmology, you might be able to make a case. It wouldn't be a very strong case, but it would be stronger than your case for it in Biology, I suppose.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
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 @#%^ing "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.


I literally laughed out loud. I'm just as much a science person as you are. I'm just not allowing my personal opinions to cloud my judgement. I actually laughed out loud my second time reading it. You're funny.

I don't care what your opinion in life is, but school is a place for education. If the mere mentioning what Creationism and ID are in comparison to an entire chapter of Evolution offends you, that is personal problem. I hate to break it to you, but most of the country disagrees with you and your theory. That doesn't mean you or anyone else is right or wrong, but the point is to create an unbiased environment. If that ruffles your feathers, then I don't know what to say. Do you prefer our school systems to teach what the majority of the country believe in instead?
Thank you for your non-answer. Actually, you are. You're insisting that ID be given equal weight to Evolution in the science curriculum. That's what you said in your last post. I stand by what I said, and you still haven't given me an answer.

Also, which country are you talking about? I'm not American, and even if I were, what would public opinion have to do with this discussion? You do know the world is made up of a lot more than America, right? You do realise that the majority of Scientists think ID is exactly what it is, creationism hiding behind a very thin veil. When you get to places like the Royal Society or the American Academy of Scientists, you'll be hard pressed to find even one proponent of "Intelligent design". Why do you think that is, Alma? Top scientists all dismiss ID, why do you think this is? I mean, really what do you personally think? Is it some kind of conspiracy against your beliefs? Or do you think, perhaps, that all the evidence supports Evolution and none of it supports ID?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The only people who have problems with homosexuals are 1) religious people and 2) ignorant @#%^tards. Note that these are not always mutually exclusive.


What a coincidence. The only people who don't have problems with homosexuals are 1) homosexuals and 2) ignorant F***tards. Note that these are not always mutually exclusive.

Seriously though, this "If you don't agree with me, I'll call you a name" isn't going to work on me. You made an accusation, I proved you wrong and just like the people you insult, you're just throwing around religion in ignorance.

I'm always glad that these topics come up, because I get embarrassed when religious people act out on ignorance saying "God this and God that" without actually knowing anything. Coming to these threads, I see that the nonbelievers are just as idiotic, ignorant and just plain stupid on similar issues.

Just because you can't grasp the concept of the penis going in the vagina, that doesn't mean everyone else is as oblivious as you are.
You seem to have this notion that Humans are the only animals which display homosexuality. Or are the only animals who exhibit sexual intercourse for reasons other than breeding.

As far as calling you an ignorant fucktard goes, that's what you're acting like. You have no grounds for you opposition to homosexuality apart from your personal bias. I mean, really, if two guys want to sick their dicks up each other's arses, what does it have to do with you?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 8:48am by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#148 Apr 26 2011 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
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.
#149varusword75, Posted: Apr 26 2011 at 8:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nads,
#150 Apr 26 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I was referring to your position on ID, and you know I was. Don't act dumb.


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.

Nilatai wrote:
So you have a bachelor's degree in Computer science, and this means you have knowledge in hard science how?


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

Nilatai wrote:
How everything came into existence has nothing to do with biology. If you want to include some kind of Deist perspective in Cosmology, you might be able to make a case. It wouldn't be a very strong case, but it would be stronger than your case for it in Biology, I suppose.


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.

Nilatai wrote:
Thank you for your non-answer. Actually, you are. You're insisting that ID be given equal weight to Evolution in the science curriculum. That's what you said in your last post. I stand by what I said, and you still haven't given me an answer.


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

Nilatai wrote:
Also, which country are you talking about? I'm not American, and even if I were, what would public opinion have to do with this discussion? You do know the world is made up of a lot more than America, right? You do realise that the majority of Scientists think ID is exactly what it is, creationism hiding behind a very thin veil. When you get to places like the Royal Society or the American Academy of Scientists, you'll be hard pressed to find even one proponent of "Intelligent design". Why do you think that is, Alma? Top scientists all dismiss ID, why do you think this is? I mean, really what do you personally think? Is it some kind of conspiracy against your beliefs? Or do you think, perhaps, that all the evidence supports Evolution and none of it supports ID?


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.

Nilatai wrote:
You seem to have this notion that Humans are the only animals which display homosexuality. Or are the only animals who exhibit sexual intercourse for reasons other than breeding.


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

Nilatai wrote:
As far as calling you an ignorant @#%^tard goes, that's what you're acting like. You have no grounds for you opposition to homosexuality apart from your personal bias. I mean, really, if two guys want to sick their dicks up each other's arses, what does it have to do with you?


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 whore 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#151 Apr 26 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nads,

Quote:
For varus, falling in love only happens when he has enough extra cash on him.


Are you propositioning? I know times are tough for you right now but i'm sure things will get better.

Change you can believe in.

That doesn't sound like a no!
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (48)