Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#177 Apr 26 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
I can see there are a few of us who are aware of our nasty addiction to smacking our heads against walls. I think we need to support each other in order to overcome this pathetic addiction. That being said, I'm here for you, bsphil.


Remember your sig!
____________________________
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

#178 Apr 26 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Why is it so hard to stop? ;-;
____________________________
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
#179 Apr 26 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
We're all ******** who insist on correcting those who are wrong.
____________________________
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

#180 Apr 26 2011 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Oooh. Yeah that sounds right.
____________________________
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
#181 Apr 26 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
You can do it, think happy things! Smiley: lol
____________________________
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.
#182 Apr 26 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You can do it, think happy things! Smiley: lol


I'm seeing it now, thanks for the reminder.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#183 Apr 26 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Hi, my name is Eske. I've been clean of responding to Alma for 2 weeks now.

One step at a time, y'know. Some days are tougher than others. The other day I had the urge to correct a gaping hole in his logic, but instead I took a walk, and made a still-life of some fruit. It felt good, man...it felt good.
#184 Apr 26 2011 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Hi, my name is Eske. I've been clean of responding to Alma for 2 weeks now.

One step at a time, y'know. Some days are tougher than others. The other day I had the urge to correct a gaping hole in his logic, but instead I took a walk, and made a still-life of some fruit. It felt good, man...it felt good.


Can you post the still life so I have something to look at next time I get the shakes?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#185 Apr 26 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
snieh wrote:
...okay. Foot fetish aside, I really don't approve of this bill. There is nothing neutral about removing discussion about one side of an issue.


I don't think it's a good bill either, but it's not really correct to say that it's "removing discussion of one side of an issue". If we assume the issue is "pro-***" versus "anti-***", it's more correct to say that the issue is simply not discussed at all. Now if they only allowed one of either negative or positive portrayals of *** people, and banned the other, that would be removing one side of the issue.

Quote:
Quote:
We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality


Quote:
a bill that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.


These are two conflicting statements.


No. They actually aren't. Not unless you have a really strange definition of "conflicting".


Quote:
I swear it's almost like they really do believe being homosexual is some kind of choice. If the kids don't hear about it, they wont decide to try it out. *sigh* In the thousands of years humans have existed, both heterosexual and homosexuals have existed. One could almost say...that it's NORMAL for a small percentage of the population to be born that way.


Sure. There are lots of behaviors which a percentage of the population engage in. We don't necessarily include them in instruction to kids 8th grade and lower. Even within the category of human sexuality, there are lots of aspects which we can argue are normal (fetishes, oral and **** ***, toys, etc). But should we include them in curriculum for k-8th graders? Or should we perhaps wait until they're a bit more mature and can accept the information more easily? Remember that the primary reason for including *** education in school is to teach kids the biology of procreation. To that we have added contraceptive and STD avoidance instruction for older students who may be or become sexually active. The social aspects of sexual behavior has kinda ridden in on those coat tails.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to leave discussions of homosexuality to later grade levels. While the law as written is somewhat ham fisted and clearly represents the result of a larger political agenda, it's also fair to say that there is an opposing political agenda which seems ****-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible. I just think there ought to be some reasonable middle ground here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Apr 26 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
there is an opposing political agenda which seems ****-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible

The HORRORS!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Apr 26 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
there is an opposing political agenda which seems ****-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible

The HORRORS!!


I'd have the same reaction to an agenda to teach k-8th grade kids about foot fetishes too Joph. That's something that doesn't have to be taught at that grade level, so perhaps we should wait? Why is that unreasonable? Like it or not, many parents don't want their kids exposed to the more social aspects of sexuality at that age. Don't their opinions count?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Apr 26 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's something that doesn't have to be taught at that grade level

Which isn't to say that there's any harm in it. Or value in making sure to avoid it should, say, a *** married couple perhaps do something historical or noteworthy.
Quote:
Don't their opinions count?

Sure, I never said we needed to occupy Tennessee with peacekeepers or anything, did I? They have their opinion and I have my opinion of their homophobic, bigoted laws and the GOP hacks who can't defend them fast enough.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 3:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Apr 26 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#190 Apr 26 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.
____________________________
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
#191 Apr 26 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Apr 26 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.


No. But the urges involved in fetishes are just as strong and can be just as confusing to teenagers as attraction to someone of the same ***. If we're including discussion of homosexuality on the grounds that exclusion will be interpreted by *** students as a condemnation of their own feelings, why not include fetishes? Why leave them out?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 26 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.


No. But the urges involved in fetishes are just as strong and can be just as confusing to teenagers as attraction to someone of the same ***. If we're including discussion of homosexuality on the grounds that exclusion will be interpreted by *** students as a condemnation of their own feelings, why not include fetishes? Why leave them out?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:04pm by gbaji
Because people who make education legislation are prudes?

Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality. I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same ***.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:08pm 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
#194 Apr 26 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#195 Apr 26 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality.


Then why aren't we teaching about fetishes in k-8th grade *** ed classes right now? If the assumption that exclusion from discussion equals discrimination against said thing, then why are we discriminating against something that's so harmless? Surely, there's no reason to include homosexuality without including fetish discussion, right?

How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole?


Quote:
I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same ***.


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Apr 26 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Nilatai above wrote:
Because people who make education legislation are prudes?
____________________________
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
#197 Apr 26 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?


Oh good, you see how poor your argument is :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#198 Apr 26 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Ailitardif wrote:


So you're saying you aren't making these comparisons? What, you just felt liike adding a whole paragraph of nonsense to your otherwise flawless argument?


I wasn't at all. The problem in this forum is that people are accustomed to hearing the most ridiculous arguments and when they hear something that might be the same, they automatically assume so without any other thought.

My comparison wasn't on the actual scenarios, but the thought process done in the scenarios. A person walking on their hands is not the same thing as a person eating with their feet, a homosexual, a person who urinates sitting down, etc. I'm focusing on the thinking process that you used to ask yourself "Why are you doing that?". I'm sure that or a similar question arises when you confronted with those situations.

The focus is on why do you ask yourself that? On what grounds do you think that is "weird" or "abnormal"?
#199 Apr 26 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality.


Then why aren't we teaching about fetishes in k-8th grade *** ed classes right now? If the assumption that exclusion from discussion equals discrimination against said thing, then why are we discriminating against something that's so harmless? Surely, there's no reason to include homosexuality without including fetish discussion, right?

How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole?


Quote:
I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same ***.


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?


I don't see how fetishes can be equated to homosexuality. One is a sexual act. The other not need involve it, and can simply be related to attraction. And if you're talking about attraction fetishes, well then ****, why not. I don't see any harm in that.

Not that I see any harm in any of it, really, but meh.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:25pm by Eske
#200 Apr 26 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity.

No, they're banning all reference to sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality. So saying that someone is *** is forbidden even in reference to his/her spouse, personal trials or tribulations, portions of their history were being homosexual may have been relevant, discussion of homosexuals in regards to equal rights or discrimination, etc. There is no ban on discussing heterosexual relationships in any of those cases (a man's wife, the fact that he was married to a woman, a woman being beaten by her husband, Prince Charles' wedding, etc)

Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law 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.

This isn't just about ***-ed class.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 4:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Apr 26 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Your words are nice, but let me remind you:
Quote:
The legislation, dubbed the "don't say ***" bill, states teachers cannot "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

See? It says that teachers can only provide instruction or material that is heterosexual.


The quote is unattributed in the article though. They also put quotes around the nickname "don't say ***", which I'm sure doesn't appear in the actual proposed law, so unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions either way. If that is the case, then it's a poorly worded law. Of course, according to the article, it's also unnecessary since apparently TN law currently already forbids such discussions anyway.

Quote:
Then, they claim it is "neutral". Again, neutral would ban all discussions of sexual orientation at those grade levels. This specifically targets homosexuality. They are sending a clear message here.


And yet, the quote from the writer of the bill itself says that: "We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade,". So it's it about discussing "sexuality" or "homosexuality"? Do you see how someone might interpret a ban on discussion of the social aspects of sexuality (which would include discussion about homosexuality) as a ban on discussion of homosexuality? After all, only when discussing those social aspects would the subject of homosexuality ever come up, right?


I'll point out that the flip side of this issue is relevant and valid: Can't we also say that *** rights groups demanding discussion about social aspects of sexuality (including homosexuality) essentially insisting that discussion of their group be added to curriculum? And doesn't that get us back into the problem of "any group can do this for any aspect of sexuality, not just *** people"? I think it does and I think that the correct response is to not discuss said aspects at all at that grade level.


Realize as well, that I'm fully not discounting the possibility that said law is just a stupid poorly written knee-jerk reaction and contains exactly the sort of targeted language which would make it discriminatory. I'm not defending this law, but pointing out that there are more aspects to this issue than just "everyone must discuss homosexuality in health class or we're discriminating against gays".


Quote:
I take your point here, I meant sexual orientation, not sexual identity. My apologies.


My point isn't about the label used though. My point is that a kid with a strong foot fetish would feel just as left out of a discussion about various social aspects of sexuality if they only included heterosexual and homosexual interactions as a homosexual might feel if said discussion only included heterosexual interactions. I'm asking you where the end point of this logic is. Because if there isn't one, then a slippery slope response is non-fallacious and should be considered. And I could take that slippery slope pretty darn far in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (67)