So right now im doing a paper on antigay rhetoric. So i got into schools and the teaching on homosexuality.
I saw quite a few arguments about banning both the mention of homosexuality and the banning of gay teachers from schools(this article was quite old)
So i have a question, Should the teaching of homosexuality as valid alternative sexual lifestyle be parts of schools?
It would be difficult, at this time and juncture to talk about it in an objective fashion. The "born gay" vs. "adopted lifestyle" argument would definitely come into play.
Palindrome wrote:Is hetrosexuality taught in schools? If so yes but if not no.
You could argue it isn't actively taught but at the same time it is passively learned...
Education is one of the key tools for spreading an ideology...
An interesting one. Since children are increasingly likely to become aware of homosexuality through news, conversation etc then it perhaps it becomes more prudent for them to understand the concept of a same-sex relationship. As for the sexual intercourse side of things that's probably best left until sex education and learning about practicing safe sex.
Of course. It's already being done up here in Quebec (except its done by invited counselors instead of regular teachers). And it's not so much a course about the homosexual lifestyle, more a small course in sexual politeness. God knows most male kids needs it...
hotsauceman1 wrote:So right now im doing a paper on antigay rhetoric. So i got into schools and the teaching on homosexuality. I saw quite a few arguments about banning both the mention of homosexuality and the banning of gay teachers from schools(this article was quite old) So i have a question, Should the teaching of homosexuality as valid alternative sexual lifestyle be parts of schools?
If by teaching about it you mean telling people that there is nothing wrong with it, that it is natural and does not make you any less of a human being than a heterosexual person, then yes.
The arguments about banning mentioning it are absurd. People are gay, not talking about it doesn't make that go away. All that silence achieves is isolating the gay children who need support to get through what can be a very difficult period of their lives.
The arguments about banning gay teachers are even more ridiculous. If a teacher is good at what they do and doesn't pose a risk to the students in their care then why should they not be allowed to teach? I don't think many teachers actively advertise their private lives to their students and as long as said private life does not affect their teaching then there is no legal cause for dismissal.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I mean, Should they say "Its Ok to be Gay, Nothing is wrong with you"
If its brought up, Im with this one. But I know the schools in my area anyways, never taught about either one. The closest we got was sex education, and that was only "This is a penis, this is a vagina, this is how babies are born. Heres some condoms"
I agree with teaching it . It should not be compulsary to learn about it, if your belief system is being comprimised by it, you should not be forced to learn about it. I don't care about homosexual teachers as long as it isn't mentioned too much in the classroom. I think Transexualism and Asexualism should also have a good place in the Classroom. Transexualism, even more. It is evenly more mocked than homsexualism and even some of the LGB community hate the Trans.
As far as teachers go, I don't think it matters if a teacher is homosexual unless it somehow impacts their ability to teach. I can't really even see how that it would even happen unless they were some kind of over the top 'camp gay'. So it's really a non issue.
I don't think sexuality of any kind needs to be discussed prior to a certain age, but when it is discussed neither heterosexuality or homosexuality should be condoned or condemned. Both should be discussed neutrally and it should be made very clear that harassing anyone for their sexual orientation is unacceptable and punishable.
I think it should be taught as long as heterosexuality is being taught. There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's just someones sexual attraction. I don't see why teachers would lose their jobs over being gay. Either the school is very homophobic or the somehow think it is unsafe for the children. But that second accusation wouldn't make sense because if the school fears for it's male students, than it should also fear for it's female students and the heterosexual teachers. I think the whole problem with homosexuals in modern culture is ridiculous.
Great White wrote:I think it should be taught as long as heterosexuality is being taught. There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's just someones sexual attraction. I don't see why teachers would lose their jobs over being gay. Either the school is very homophobic or the somehow think it is unsafe for the children. But that second accusation wouldn't make sense because if the school fears for it's male students, than it should also fear for it's female students and the heterosexual teachers. I think the whole problem with homosexuals in modern culture is ridiculous.
Yes. I agree. Homosexualism is protrayed as being too flamboyant and too out there in comtempary culture. It needs to be changed.
Well sometimes its true. My cousin Tad is one of those gay men that can be a bit......colorful. And by a bit I mean his gay pours off him like steam But his partner on the other hand, its surprising when you finally meet him, that hes gay.
It doesn't need to be taught in school beyond "Sometimes people are attracted to members of the same sex. This is called homosexuality. As far as we know, it has happened for thousands of years. There are some arguments that it is genetic, and some that it is a learned behaviour. Many societies express prejudice against homosexuals for various reasons."
As to gay teachers, what exactly is the issue? Unless you're conflating paedophilia with homosexuality, in which case, argh.
Da Boss wrote:It doesn't need to be taught in school beyond "Sometimes people are attracted to members of the same sex. This is called homosexuality. As far as we know, it has happened for thousands of years. There are some arguments that it is genetic, and some that it is a learned behaviour. Many societies express prejudice against homosexuals for various reasons."
As to gay teachers, what exactly is the issue? Unless you're conflating paedophilia with homosexuality, in which case, argh.
It's not the OP's view. He's just saying that there are arguments out there where people do not want their child to be taught by a gay teacher. The argument basically says that having a child be taught by a teacher who happens to be gay will turn the child gay, or increase their likelihood of being gay. Absolute rubbish with no scientific evidence but these are often the same people who believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old, so scientific evidence doesn't factor into their world view.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Absolute rubbish with no scientific evidence but these are often the same people who believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old, so scientific evidence doesn't factor into their world view.
Well that has to do with religion. While I believe it is crazy, Christians view being gay as a sin. Religion has no place in public school. And while it may be a shock to religious groups and Rick Santorum, not everybody believes what you believe in.
The people arguing against homosexual faculty and staff are the same people who argued against female teachers, non Caucasian teachers, non Protestant teachers, and so forth.
Homosexuality (and other sexualities) should certainly be discussed during sexual education. It is a fact of life, and like so many things, understanding can bring a certain level of acceptance. The exposure of people of younger and younger ages certainly brings into question the appropriate age to discuss sexual education; personally I think it should be a factor in the biology (and perhaps RE or whatever equivalent lessons are these days) course from a reasonably early age, phased in as most subjects are (basically not starting out showing sex videos to 10 year olds, but discussing relationships etc, and moving onto the more sticky details as they get older).
Gay teachers is a non-issue, the same as christian teachers, or black teachers, or [insert other group here] teachers. So long as they abide by the teaching rules in whatever country they are in with regards to how they deal with students, other staff, etc, you can do or believe pretty much anything in your free time.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Absolute rubbish with no scientific evidence but these are often the same people who believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old, so scientific evidence doesn't factor into their world view.
Well that has to do with religion. While I believe it is crazy, Christians view being gay as a sin. Religion has no place in public school. And while it may be a shock to religious groups and Rick Santorum, not everybody believes what you believe in.
I wouldn't say that religion has no place in public school. It has no place in the running of a public school but there should be opportunities to learn about different religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc. Learning about religions is important, if only to reduce the ignorance of these religions which is perpetuated by the lies often spouted by members of an opposed religion or the actions of extreme elements of a religion which does not necessarily reflect the message of the religion or the views of those who follow the religion as a whole.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The argument basically says that having a child be taught by a teacher who happens to be gay will turn the child gay
Yeah, it's kinda kinda nonsensical like that. In the presence of no push, ideally, a child that is straight will grow up to be straight, a child that is gay will grow up to be gay, a child that is bi will grow up to be bi. The push to make all children straight does nothing but cause emotional pain and suffering (and frequently physical pain and suffering resulting from self-hate or bullying) to those who are not straight, it doesn't actually change them-- which is why you find adult men and women "discovering" they were gay all along ,because... they were! But they were being bullied by society to try to change who they were to fit the societal norms, and, as most everyone wants acceptance by society, they tried to play by society's skewed and thoughtless rules.
Telling children that It's Okay To Be Takei (err, gay) should be just like saying "It's okay to be non-white"; that is to say, whenever you say it, it should make people wonder in the room "wtf is wrong with society that it'd make people think otherwise?"
Amaya wrote:The people arguing against homosexual faculty and staff are the same people who argued against female teachers, non Caucasian teachers, non Protestant teachers, and so forth.
And the world still hasn't exploded so we know those people were full of ship...
Da Boss wrote:Well, those people can suck it up, quite frankly. I have no sympathy for that point of view whatsoever.
Indeed, as I've said before, I'm as gay friendly as you can be without letting someone put their balls in your mouth and humming the national anthem. The backwards bigoted feths in question shouldn't have a say considering most of those people don't send their kids to school anyway, they home school them in a barn, and write their sums on the side of a cow with a piece of charcoal.
I don't think id even care if Lamar from Mannequin was teaching at my kids school, and you don't get more gay than him!
All that matters about a teacher is their ability to teach, not what they like doing in their spare time. If he is a great teacher, and my kid is learning plenty, then "Sir" can snort cocaine off a bent coppers dick in his spare time for all I care.
mattyrm wrote: Indeed, as I've said before, I'm as gay friendly as you can be without letting someone put their balls in your mouth and humming the national anthem.
Bwahahah. We may disagree sometimes Mattyrm, but you are and will likely always remain awesome.
mattyrm wrote: Indeed, as I've said before, I'm as gay friendly as you can be without letting someone put their balls in your mouth and humming the national anthem.
Bwahahah. We may disagree sometimes Mattyrm, but you are and will likely always remain awesome.
Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
So, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation....all of these things can not "naturally" lead to reproduction and therefore should not come under the term sex.
Of course, like so many things, the word is in fact used as an umberella term and covers really anything one choses to do in private. (or not as the case may be).
Considering the state of homosexuality as natural, really depends upon which angle you approach it, I think. If you approach it from the sex angle (see above) then it is by no means natural....and this is where I think the problem in society occurs. If people could "get off" on hand-shaking and could derive an intimate connection from the act, would we consider this a natural sexual act?!?
In my mind homosexuality is about finding a deep connectivity with someone of the same gender, step 1. Step 2, is the expression of that connection....and I belive this is what we are discussing, whether this should be taught in the classroom.
Personally I don't think it should. My reasons for stating this are not based on puritan views, or homophobic tendancies....but on a practical level. Society always wishes to put everythiing into "boxes" so that they can be defined. Right now, and apologies for being blunt, we are really defining homosexuality as the act of (from a male perspective) having anal sex and oral sex......but don't you see, all we are doing is putting a label on homosexuality, and saying if you have strong feelings for someone of the same gender, this is how you should express it?!?!?
Should we also teach people HOW to express their feelings for every facet of life? And who is to say that one set of expressions fits for all?
Sex education is fine, its really mechanical....pop this in there, stir, and wham, you make another you. Thats's just science 101. You don't need to talk about the man loving the woman, seeing her as an equal, exploring her mindscape.....because these things defy schooling. So to does the important aspect of homosexuality.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Absolute rubbish with no scientific evidence but these are often the same people who believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old, so scientific evidence doesn't factor into their world view.
Well that has to do with religion. While I believe it is crazy, Christians view being gay as a sin. Religion has no place in public school. And while it may be a shock to religious groups and Rick Santorum, not everybody believes what you believe in.
I wouldn't say that religion has no place in public school. It has no place in the running of a public school but there should be opportunities to learn about different religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc. Learning about religions is important, if only to reduce the ignorance of these religions which is perpetuated by the lies often spouted by members of an opposed religion or the actions of extreme elements of a religion which does not necessarily reflect the message of the religion or the views of those who follow the religion as a whole.
Oh, no I believe children should learn about religion. It is an important part of life to know that religion exists and to respect what other people believe in, and to learn the rights things about another religion from the lies. When I say it has no place in public schools I am saying in the running of the schools. If the principle is christian, he shouldn't let his religion get in the way of not allowing gay people in the school. Religion has a place in schools to keep students informed about them, but not in dictating right from wrong.
Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
Yes it is. Sex itself is an intimate act between two people which often results in (or at least is intended to result in) sexual climax in one or more partners. Certainly that's how our bodies think of it! Claiming that two men or two woman literally cannot have sex is just nonsense.
You really have to understand, we don't belong to nature anymore.
Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
Nah thats wrong mate, think about it, nowadays with all the contraception we use, its hardly ever a route to reproduction anyway!
Its not like if your wife catches you banging a two dollar hooker up against a dumpster you can go "Its alright love, Im wearing a rubber so.. technically it isnt sex!.... Nip in and get me some tic tacs will you? I'm almost done!"
Delephont wrote:Don't we need to go back to considering sex as a basic concept. The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
Yes it is. Sex itself is an intimate act between two people which often results in (or at least is intended to result in) sexual climax in one or more partners. Certainly that's how our bodies think of it!
You really have to understand, we don't belong to nature anymore. Hell, even the act of impregnation doesn't need to involve penetrative intercourse involving a man and woman's genitals at all anymore.
There's also the fact that there is at least one other animal on the planet which regularly has sex for reasons other than reproducing, which is the dolphin. This might be why they're considered one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, randy buggers that they are
Hell, even the act of impregnation doesn't need to involve penetrative intercourse involving a man and woman's genitals at all anymore-- and for that matter, it doesn't even require both genders anymore.
These days, we can turn male genetic material in to an egg or female genetic material in to sperm, and thus create children that are born of two men or of two women, with none of the other gender involved.
Science! *dons goggles, raises fist in to the air*
A Town Called Malus wrote:There's also the fact that there is at least one other animal on the planet which regularly has sex for reasons other than reproducing, which is the dolphin. This might be why they're considered as one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, randy buggers that they are
Also the bonobo and some other simian relatives of ours.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah I was about to say monkeys do it for pleasure as well.. I know this because I once saw an organ grinders monkey humping a bottle of coke.
I'd say dogs probably get the best of both worlds; hump pretty much whatever they want and still get to sleep in the house. Though obviously this often comes at the price of a bag of veg... So swings and roundabouts really
Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.
Damn it, stop posting things I was going to post quicker than me
Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.
Possibly, but I think they do it to prove their dominance don't they? I mean, I saw one frantically humping another dogs skull oncl, and they cant be dumb enough to think that's where the ovaries are!
I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".
I'm going to assume your being serious with that statement. I'm currently writing a paper on environmental sustainability. Its funny, because its ideologies exactly like that, that have brought us this close to the brink. In the eyes of "nature" and when I say nature, I don't just mean the bush growing in your garden, I'm talking Universal, man is a spec of dust. Even though we have evolved to the point where we (believe) we can chose to follow natures laws or not, does not mean we are free from them.
But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist. Are they wrong? if so why? who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not? And that was my whole point. When you start to teach one, you should then teach them all.....is it fair that Tommy who's gay gets a break, but poor Timmey who gets off touching his dog doesn't?
Thats why I believe you need to have a cut off point. Keep sex in the realms of the mechanical, and it serves its purpose. Start adding other elements to the brew and you will have problems.
But there is a cut off point, and that point is where society en-masse decides it has become uncomfortable or causes uneccessary distress. Necrophilia is easy, because 99.95% of us would feel distressed if we found the undertaker plugging granny before he boxed her up.
Regards bestiality, the animal cant consent, and would probably be confused, so that counts as causing something sentient unnecessary distress as well surely?
I think your questions were trivially easy to answer. Society decides. Its a democracy after all.
If two sentient creatures consent to do things to each other, and said things cant possibly distress or harm others (for example, if they did it in public it could distress a child, ergo shagging each other in the street is illegal) then how can you make a good case for it being wrong?
Delephont wrote:@ Mellissia [sic; misspelled my name]
I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".
Your objection misses the point.
We chemically manufacture hormones to change our body's cycles to prevent impregnation. We physically manufacture barriers which prevent impregnation. This is something no creature in nature does. Our race, while still connected to nature as far as resources go, is very distinct from what is "natural".
Delephont wrote:But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist.
Yes, and?
Delephont wrote:Are they wrong? if so why?
Necrophilia and bestiality, along with the unspoken pedophilia, are wrong because they involve a partner who cannot legally consent. And I will be honest here: I believe, rather firmly, that people who compare homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and paedophilia are nothing more than worthless trolls to be ignored.
Delephont wrote:who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not?
Did I give any statement that intimacy was right or wrong there? No, I only said that it was a requirement for sex. But intimacy alone does not create sex, nor does intimacy indicate something is right or wrong. Stop making gak up.
Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?
Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?
Although, not likely to happen in the real world though is it?
Probably not, but then there have been people who have given consent for their remains to be eaten by other people. Though from what I recall the law still didn't look kindly on them
purplefood wrote:Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia or bestiality isn't cool...
Don't be that guy...
No one likes that guy...
Ahh...and here it is. In place of enlightened discussion we have the "WORD PLAYER"......ok, where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?
What I have done, is compare one type of social classification with another.
And may I add, you provide a wonderful spring board to my point. Why should we not compare homosexuality to necrophilia? or even hetrosexuality to bestiality? Are you suggesting those "sexual" acts are wrong? Why are they wrong? and who are you to judge?
So society has moved on, its nolonger "cool" to deride homosexuals, but its perfectly ok to marginalise other sexual acts? Where does it end?
My point is, either they're all "right" or they're all "wrong".......what you're doing is simply expanding the hoop of social acceptance. Fine as long as you don't fall outside that hoop don't you think?
Delephont wrote:Ahh...and here it is. In place of enlightened discussion we have the "WORD PLAYER"......ok, where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?
Right here,
Delephont wrote:But lets play the game. Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist. Are they wrong? if so why? who are we to judge what should provide intimacy or not? And that was my whole point. When you start to teach one, you should then teach them all.....
They (necrophiliac, pedophiles, etc...) are wrong because they encourage a whole sleuth of diseases both psychological and physical.
The Artifice vs. Nature argument is mostly one of shifting semantics. There are natural values, and artificial values. Even natural values don't put that much focus on reproduction, just perpetuation of the group. Naturally, it can be very profitable for a being, and for his group, not to reproduce. No such advantages can be found in anyway in the cases of pedophilia (excluding pederastry), beastiality and necrophilia.
Delephont wrote:where in my post have I compared Homosexuality to anything else?
I would say right about... here:
Delephont wrote:Everything you stated about sex in your post, can also be awared to acts such as necrophilia, beastiality, and a whole host of fetishes that exist.
Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?
Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?
I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.
It's freaky and I admit to being disturbed by it, but I wouldn't call it immoral. After all, they did consent.
Aye I wouldnt even be disturbed by that.. I mean, it serves a purpose. I like the idea of being turned into fertilizer or something, so i suppose I would be pretty cool with being eaten myself.
They could ship me to Africa and feed me to some starving kids.. I would have a warm fuzzy feeling as I was dying, knowing that a young boy would gain some strength from my dry roasted arse cheeks.
Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?
Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?
I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.
It's freaky and I admit to being disturbed by it, but I wouldn't call it immoral. After all, they did consent.
Aye I wouldnt even be disturbed by that.. I mean, it serves a purpose. I like the idea of being turned into fertilizer or something, so i suppose I would be pretty cool with being eaten myself.
They could ship me to Africa and feed me to some starving kids.. I would have a warm fuzzy feeling as I was dying, knowing that a young boy would gain some strength from my dry roasted arse cheeks.
Melissia wrote: Necrophilia and bestiality, along with the unspoken pedophilia, are wrong because they involve a partner who cannot legally consent. And I will be honest here: I believe, rather firmly, that people who compare homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and paedophilia are nothing more than worthless trolls to be ignored.
Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip. I never mentioned pedophilia or rape, or anything of the sort because they are acts of brutality and do not involve two consenting beings. So going by your last statement, why don't you stop making "gak" up!
Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance". I believe an animal will be quite eager to show a human that's its not happy, its called fight or flight, and they use it a lot better than us.
regarding Necrophilia, what if a married couple who were deeply in love, and one of them passes away, enter into the act? There are many situations where necophilia doesn't have to be, necessarily, the undertaker banging granny on here way to the grave.....
Delephont wrote:Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip.
Says the person who is trying to force everything to be in black and white.
If they're all right, or all wrong, why are you saying that rape and pedophilia are wrong? Shouldn't they be right? After all, it involves intercourse. Oftentimes, rape and pedophilia also result in impregnation, so mechanically speaking, based on your previous statements these are indeed sex whereas gay ass-buggery is not.
After just looking at some of the more disturbing mods for Skyrim and Oblivion (let's just put it this way, imagine the worst thing you've ever seen on the internet, exponentially increased to the point where it would make a normal, sensible person physically ill, added into the game) and I have once again come to the conclusion that even if homosexuality is in some way deviant (which I don't think it really even is) it is not even in the same universe as some the fethed up crap out there.
Delephont wrote:@ Mellissia [sic; misspelled my name]
I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".
Your objection misses the point.
We chemically manufacture hormones to change our body's cycles to prevent impregnation. We physically manufacture barriers which prevent impregnation. This is something no creature in nature does. Our race, while still connected to nature as far as resources go, is very distinct from what is "natural".
No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for this particular debate.
The one I was using was simpler, although still not flawless; though influenced by instinct, we are not bound by it.
Delephont wrote:Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance".
"Climax" =/= consent.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for debate.
It may not be the most useful definition for debate ever, but I don't think a definition that claims everything belongs to the natural world except humanity is that much better. Ignoring the fact that such a definition is also less accurate.
It's more accurate in this context to be sure. As creatures get more intelligent they become more and more able to make decisions on their own without resorting to pure instinct. We humans are the pinnacle of that, as far as evolution goes.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Delephont wrote:Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip.
Says the person who is trying to force everything to be in black and white.
If they're all right, or all wrong, why are you saying that rape and pedophilia are wrong? Shouldn't they be right? After all, it involves intercourse. Oftentimes, rape and pedophilia also result in impregnation, so mechanically speaking, based on your previous statements these are indeed sex whereas gay ass-buggery is not.
Well, let me put this another way.....why are people so eager to prevent homosexuality being seen as something negative? Is it just because we (society) are seeing that homosexuals represent a large group of people? or is it because we truely care that by making it into something negative we risk destroying peoples lives, no matter how large a section of the population they represent?
If its the second reason, then should we not extend that courtesy to anyone whose life may be ruined by mindless, cruel judgementalism? Of course, if its the first reason, the fact that homosexuals form a large part of our society, then the political correctness is worthless, and we as a society should be worried....because, just like back in the sixties when homosexuality was something to hang a man over, thats how we treat other (shall we say) less accepted sexual preferences....but what happens when they reach that magical acceptance number...what then, banners and placards and marches through the street to fight for new rights?
Unfortunately compassion is black and white, you either have compassion or you don't. Everything else is just noise.
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for this particular debate.
The one I was using was simpler, although still not flawless; though influenced by instinct, we are not bound by it.
That's a much better argument. I'm certainly willing to accept the idea that humans are influenced by instinct but not bound by it. I think that's a lot more specific and useful than a claim that humanity exists apart from the natural world though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Which are all abilities that have developed due to nature's affect on the development of humans. Just because we deal with problems in a different way than most other creatures, that does not make our methods unnatural.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Hordini wrote:a claim that humanity exists apart from the natural world though.
I never really made that claim though I can certainly see how one might read that in to what I said.
I took that from the "we don't really belong to nature anymore" bit. But if you're not really claiming that humanity exists as somehow apart or separated from the natural world, then fair enough.
Delephont wrote:Well, let me put this another way.....why are people so eager to prevent homosexuality being seen as something negative?
I have a better question.
Why are you so eager to see it as something negative? Why are you so concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults?
Isn't this whole thread about homosexuality being taught in schools? Surely everyone who's commented ont his thread is "concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults".....I'm nt sure what you're getting at with the second part of your question.
Regarding the first part, I don't see homosexuality as "negative".....I just don't think it should be defined in so simplistic terms. To me homosexuality is less about the physical act of expressing ones feelings but more about those feelings. This was my original point. Sex (however its used) is just a tool, a means to an end....hetrosexuality, homosexuality, etc is about connection (in my opinion) and this is not something that can be taught. Just like you can't teach love, because if you have 20 people in a room, there will guaranteed be 20 different understandings on what love is....how can you teach this in a classroom to a group of children?
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
And there lies the problem.
Not really, Bill Gates could at the press of a button launch a mars colony - he has the money and the brain power and other resources to do so. He could singlehandedly fund the replanting of Africa, and the reintroduction of some semblence of law, order and government.
With technology existing today, mankind could, if it wanted to, do pretty much anything.
Hordini wrote:Which are all abilities that have developed due to nature's affect on the development of humans. Just because we deal with problems in a different way that most other creatures, does not make our methods unnatural.
If nature had intended for us to fly (in so far as nature can intend anything), it would have given us wings, not high performance jet aircraft
I see where you are coming from, since nature "gave" us the brains it takes to design and construct high performance jet aircraft, however, I would argue that anything abstract sets something apart from nature. Humans are not alone in this, but take it by far further than any other species.
When one individual, or species, can assert concious control over nature, then that individual or species can be considered to be beyond nature - at least to a certain extent.
SilverMK2 wrote: Not really, Bill Gates could at the press of a button launch a mars colony - he has the money and the brain power and other resources to do so. He could singlehandedly fund the replanting of Africa, and the reintroduction of some semblence of law, order and government.
With technology existing today, mankind could, if it wanted to, do pretty much anything.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
Silver, 30 billion dollars or w/e Bill Gates is worth is not that much in the big picture. At most his personal wealth is a 1/4 of 1 percent of the US GDP.
Delephont wrote:Surely everyone who's commented ont his thread is "concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults"
I'm not the one that is trying to claim it is morally wrong.
I don't care if two guys go in to their bedroom with a strapon, five dildos, some lube, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
I do not want to know what they DO with all of that, either, it's not my business
Ok, I've given you and your comments enough serious consideration, now. This post really just shows how you cherry pick posts to extract anything that helps a misguided point. I think you understand clearly what I'm saying, I know this because you've responded to half my post, I wonder why you have ignored the other half.
What-ever your reasoning, I'm going to place you on ignore, because you have nothing to say which interests me, or engages me conversation. You can chose to respond to this so that you can make another cheap statement, but be aware that I shall be in blissful ignorance of your rantings.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
And there lies the problem.
Not really, Bill Gates could at the press of a button launch a mars colony - he has the money and the brain power and other resources to do so. He could singlehandedly fund the replanting of Africa, and the reintroduction of some semblence of law, order and government.
With technology existing today, mankind could, if it wanted to, do pretty much anything.
Hordini wrote:Which are all abilities that have developed due to nature's affect on the development of humans. Just because we deal with problems in a different way that most other creatures, does not make our methods unnatural.
If nature had intended for us to fly (in so far as nature can intend anything), it would have given us wings, not high performance jet aircraft
I see where you are coming from, since nature "gave" us the brains it takes to design and construct high performance jet aircraft, however, I would argue that anything abstract sets something apart from nature. Humans are not alone in this, but take it by far further than any other species.
When one individual, or species, can assert concious control over nature, then that individual or species can be considered to be beyond nature - at least to a certain extent.
I certainly would not argue that humans aren't the best at making complex tools and figuring things out. I'm just saying (as I think you realize) that that isn't an unnatural process. Also, for as awesome as we may think we are, all it would takes is around three days (or maybe less) without a meal and you'll start to see the average human's instincts begin to come back to the forefront. We can build a lot of cool things, yes, but all it takes is a natural disaster to wipe large parts of it out and reduce us to a much more primitive state.
Delephont wrote: I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
I would say nicely done, but, well... really not
If Bill Gates (or any other individual or group with that kind of money) wanted something, there is someone, somewhere, with the knowledge and technology to make it happen. Genetically engineered crops? Aircraft that can fly from one side of the world to the other in a couple of hours? A space station? A city on the bottom of a lake? All things that it would take far less than the (far in excess of) $200bn of Bill Gates with existing technology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I certainly would not argue that humans aren't the best at making complex tools and figuring things out. I'm just saying (as I think you realize) that that isn't an unnatural process. Also, for as awesome as we may think we are, all it would takes is around three days (or maybe less) without a meal and you'll start to see the average human's instincts begin to come back to the forefront. We can build a lot of cool things, yes, but all it takes is a natural disaster to wipe large parts of it out and reduce us to a much more primitive state.
I think we get what the other is saying, don't worry
Certainly, humanity as a whole is very much still a product of nature, but at the same time is beyond nature. The earth would have a hard time supporting 7bn hunter gatherers
SilverMK2 wrote: If Bill Gates (or any other individual or group with that kind of money) wanted something, there is someone, somewhere, with the knowledge and technology to make it happen. Genetically engineered crops? Aircraft that can fly from one side of the world to the other in a couple of hours? A space station? A city on the bottom of a lake? All things that it would take far less than the (far in excess of) $200bn of Bill Gates with existing technology.
Hmm, like finding a cure for Cancer...oh no, not that one....ok, well what about a cure for AIDS...doh, not that either.....oh, now I have it, they could find a cure for the common cold......nope.
Noone is denying that Humanity has created some wonderful toys (some good, some bad). However, there are very real limits to what we can do. And if there isn't, lets just say that your hypothesis on our abilities are correct, then we are doomed because of our clear moral degradation. To think we have the ability to end world poverty, but don't. Or to perhaps cure all known diseases but don't, or even to find a replacementfor fossil fuels but don't, would suggest that for all our "supposed" greatness we are childish, greedy, immature barbarians and worse than the animals we consider ourselves to be above.
Delephont wrote:Hmm, like finding a cure for Cancer...oh no, not that one....ok, well what about a cure for AIDS...doh, not that either.....oh, now I have it, they could find a cure for the common cold......nope.
Noone is denying that Humanity has created some wonderful toys (some good, some bad). However, there are very real limits to what we can do. And if there isn't, lets just say that your hypothesis on our abilities are correct, then we are doomed because of our clear moral degradation. To think we have the ability to end world poverty, but don't. Or to perhaps cure all known diseases but don't, or even to find a replacementfor fossil fuels but don't, would suggest that for all our "supposed" greatness we are childish, greedy, immature barbarians and worse than the animals we consider ourselves to be above.
Ha, yeah, if they really wanted to they certainly could do pretty much any of those things. There are numerous cures for different types of cancer going through clinical and pre-clinical trials (I'm even working on a project looking at the properties of nanomagnetic particles that could be used in hyperthermic treatment of cancer at the moment - I believe there is a clinical trial of this kind of technology currently taking place in Germany). AIDS retroviruses and other treatments are getting better all the time (not really too up on AIDS research so will not comment too much on that).
The problem comes, as you put it, in the "moral degradation", of humans as a species. Though I would certainly suggest that the picture is nowhere near as bleak as the "reality" you seem to paint.
However, I think this has gone OT for long enough... shall we return to the homosexuality from whence we came?
Delephont wrote:I think you understand clearly what I'm saying
I do, but I'm not really sure you understand what you're saying, and how it might contradict what you intend to be saying.
I'l explain this a bit more-- essentially, you've been saying one thing then contradicting yourself later on in your post occasionally in this thread. so which side of your posts am I supposed to pick? Certainly if you expect me to pick the side most favorable to you I didn't, but that wasn't the only thing you said
SilverMK2 wrote:though I would certainly suggest that the picture is nowhere near as bleak as the "reality" you seem to paint.
Quite, if you're a member of the elite 1% then yeah, the picture probably is quite rosey, however, for the mushrooms with boots on the ground, I don't think the picture I paint is bleak at all, hunger makes you hungry and disease makes you dead.....
But as you say, this point has slipped away from the topic...
SilverMK2 wrote: If Bill Gates (or any other individual or group with that kind of money) wanted something, there is someone, somewhere, with the knowledge and technology to make it happen. Genetically engineered crops? Aircraft that can fly from one side of the world to the other in a couple of hours? A space station? A city on the bottom of a lake? All things that it would take far less than the (far in excess of) $200bn of Bill Gates with existing technology.
Hmm, like finding a cure for Cancer...oh no, not that one....ok, well what about a cure for AIDS...doh, not that either.....oh, now I have it, they could find a cure for the common cold......nope.
Noone is denying that Humanity has created some wonderful toys (some good, some bad). However, there are very real limits to what we can do. And if there isn't, lets just say that your hypothesis on our abilities are correct, then we are doomed because of our clear moral degradation. To think we have the ability to end world poverty, but don't. Or to perhaps cure all known diseases but don't, or even to find a replacementfor fossil fuels but don't, would suggest that for all our "supposed" greatness we are childish, greedy, immature barbarians and worse than the animals we consider ourselves to be above.
We found the replacement for fossil fuels over 50 years ago, when the first Hydrogen bomb was detonated. We accomplished Nuclear Fusion, a 100% clean reaction which releases vast amounts of energy. Since that time scientists have been working to develop methods of containing the reaction, with some success. They have achieved contained fusion reactions but so far they haven't managed to create a controlled chain reaction which is required for a fusion reactor to be viable.
It is only a matter of time before we control the very power source of the stars. mwahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hotsauceman1 wrote:So right now im doing a paper on antigay rhetoric. So i got into schools and the teaching on homosexuality.
I saw quite a few arguments about banning both the mention of homosexuality and the banning of gay teachers from schools(this article was quite old)
So i have a question, Should the teaching of homosexuality as valid alternative sexual lifestyle be parts of schools?
no. teach math science, language, civics, and rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah I was about to say monkeys do it for pleasure as well.. I know this because I once saw an organ grinders monkey humping a bottle of coke.
I'd say dogs probably get the best of both worlds; hump pretty much whatever they want and still get to sleep in the house. Though obviously this often comes at the price of a bag of veg... So swings and roundabouts really
Great White wrote:Would you also consider dogs in this category too? They hump just about everything.
Damn it, stop posting things I was going to post quicker than me
Tbone won't hump you. He will demand that you throw his ball a few hundred times. If you are a grandmother type he will get in your lap and go to sleep.
sirlynchmob wrote:well if the teacher is gay, who cares. As long as he teaches well.
As for sex ed, all forms of sex should be taught, gay & straight. Kids should be educated on how to prevent STD's and avoid getting pregnant.
Tell them about dental damns, condoms, and those full body condoms.
This, absolutely this.
Sexual education in general needs to be comprehensive. Teaching about sexual safety and health is very important, and should be applied to all sexual orientations. And it needs to be comprehensive.
One of my college lecturers was gay. He was also the only one who had some semblance of control over the class.
I'm not sure about the merits of "teaching" homosexuality though. My parents just told me that some people were attracted to people of the same sex and that was that. But everyone these days expects the state to take the role of parents so meh.
Delephont wrote:The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
That's a new one. I've heard people refer to homosexual sex as deviant, unnatural, wrong, or all three, but never as "not sex". This is most likely because even people that believe reproduction is the only proper purpose of sex recognize that it isn't the only purpose of sex, which has a whole host of benefits to the consenting parties engaging in it. Indeed, you might even argue that reproduction is a secondary consequence of sex, with the pleasurable qualities of the act being the primary draw; though its more likely going to vary significantly from person to person.
Delephont wrote:
Considering the state of homosexuality as natural, really depends upon which angle you approach it, I think. If you approach it from the sex angle (see above) then it is by no means natural....and this is where I think the problem in society occurs. If people could "get off" on hand-shaking and could derive an intimate connection from the act, would we consider this a natural sexual act?!?
Of course, it happens, and therefore happens in nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delephont wrote:
Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance".
Delephont wrote:The whole premise of having sex, is to reproduce. Anything that doesn't ultimately provide a route to reproduction, technically isn't sex.
That's a new one. I've heard people refer to homosexual sex as deviant, unnatural, wrong, or all three, but never as "not sex". This is most likely because even people that believe reproduction is the only proper purpose of sex recognize that it isn't the only purpose of sex, which has a whole host of benefits to the consenting parties engaging in it. Indeed, you might even argue that reproduction is a secondary consequence of sex, with the pleasurable qualities of the act being the primary draw; though its more likely going to vary significantly from person to person.
Delephont wrote:
Considering the state of homosexuality as natural, really depends upon which angle you approach it, I think. If you approach it from the sex angle (see above) then it is by no means natural....and this is where I think the problem in society occurs. If people could "get off" on hand-shaking and could derive an intimate connection from the act, would we consider this a natural sexual act?!?
Of course, it happens, and therefore happens in nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delephont wrote:
Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance".
If a rape victim climaxes, were they not raped?
Trying to explain my point inside and out basically lead to the point being lost in translation. If I could go back and start again I would try the following tact:
Sex is a mechanical act, be it for reproduction or pleasure, and as such can be taught. Someone else has since stated that perhaps schools should teach the full sexual rainbow, why not, in fact just teach the Kama Sutra and be done with it. That's fine.
Anal sex and oral sex are not just the realm of homosexuals, hetreosexuals also engage in those acts, so clearly, those acts do not define a sexual orientation. So I do not believe you can teach homosexuality in schools, anymore than you can teach hetrosexuality, love, friendship, brotherhood belonging, etc....these are all tings that one develops for ones self over time through life experience (for better or worse).
That was essentially my whole point. The problem was certain individuals considered themselves "smart" by cheery picking my statements in order to promote the idea that I was somehow homophobic.....those "individuals" are pathetic and small minded, and in my eyes nothing but sheep who bleet with the crowd with no regard for what the bleeting means. They'd probably be the same people who'd follow fascism if it were suddenly in vogue. Suffice to say, my sanity has been spared by the wonder that is the "ignore" button.
Delephont wrote:
Anal sex and oral sex are not just the realm of homosexuals, hetreosexuals also engage in those acts, so clearly, those acts do not define a sexual orientation. So I do not believe you can teach homosexuality in schools, anymore than you can teach hetrosexuality, love, friendship, brotherhood belonging, etc....these are all tings that one develops for ones self over time through life experience (for better or worse).
I think that its fairly difficult to teach the nature of sex without also broaching the topic of its likely emotional effects, cultural significance, and biological consequences. In essence, any sex education program is probably going to emphasize that one shouldn't treat sex lightly, which inevitably begs the question "Why not?" to which an answer must be provided. That answer, if its worth anything, is inevitably going to involve avoiding sex with people you don't trust, don't have feelings for, etc.
Henners91 wrote:Delephont, you seem to be suggesting that the purpose of sexual education is to teach you all the amazing ways one can have sex?
I don't think that's what he's suggesting so much as accepting that a more detailed education in mechanics of sex would be acceptable.
Its a funny thing, though, because from what I recall of Junior High and High School the parents that were most strongly opposed to sex education were also the parents that were largely blind to what their children already knew about sex; both experiential and otherwise.
I think that its fairly difficult to teach the nature of sex without also broaching the topic of its likely emotional effects, cultural significance, and biological consequences. In essence, any sex education program is probably going to emphasize that one shouldn't treat sex lightly, which inevitably begs the question "Why not?" to which an answer must be provided. That answer, if its worth anything, is inevitably going to involve avoiding sex with people you don't trust, don't have feelings for, etc.
That's the problem though, everyone, without exception, views sex in relation to a different set of emotions, for some it's anger, for others it may be closeness. If we teach that it's "right" to associate sex with one emotion or another then we go beyond teaching and into the realms of indoctrination. I don't think the state should enter this avenue of peoples free will, isn't that where the problem has come from in the first place.....people telling others its wrong to have strong emotions for someone of the same gender?
@ Henners91
I fully appreciate what "sex education" seeks to achieve. Without going into minute detail, the point I'm making is that we can teach the mechanics of sex (and its resultants, pregnancy, disease, pleasure, etc) but we teach it as a tool, and we allow the individual to apply that tool to their sexual preference. I don't think theres any need to label orientation. Lets not forget, people can go through phases, and by going through those phases become confused with their own "sexual identity", why? because they try to fullfill a society "ideal" rather than just exploring their own inner being. This probably leads to so much self denial, and self loathing.
@ mattyrm
You don't agree with me. I know this point, you've made it several times in this thread. Why you keep feeling the need to repeat it, even though (you'll notice) I've not aimed a single comment your way, is beyond me. Is it that you want my attention, or do you simply enjoy typing essentially the same thing again and again?
If you want to engage me in conversation to discuss what exactly about my "point" you disagree with, then feel free to elaborate.
Delephont wrote:
That's the problem though, everyone, without exception, views sex in relation to emotion, for some it's anger, for others it may be closeness. If we teach that it's "right" to associate sex with one emotion or another then we go beyond teaching and into the realms of indoctrination. I don't think the state should enter this avenue of peoples free will, isn't that where the problem has come from in the first place.....people telling others its wrong to have strong emotions for someone of the same gender?
This is where it gets complicated for me because I'm not even convinced that free will exists, but to the extent that it might I believe that withholding information does nothing to enhance the conditions under which it can thrive. In essence, people making decisions from ignorance are no more or less indoctrinated than those making them at the behest of information provided by others, be it as regards emotions or biological processes. After all, people rarely know what they do not know.
Either way, one doesn't have to specify the nature of the relevant emotions in this case, so much as indicate that sex is almost always an intense experience for at least one of the parties involved and that, as such, it shouldn't be taken lightly. Throw in some lessons regarding how people may, or may not, judge you for your sexual actions and I think you're fairly set.
In general though, I think its a mistake to try and reduce sex to a mechanical action, because viewing it as such is generally regarded as unhealthy, and dangerously close to inducing behaviors that lead to victimization of one party or the other. This isn't to say that value judgments should be included in the curriculum (though they likely will be regardless of intention), but that students should be informed that the emotionally contentious nature of sex will lead most people to make value judgments regarding it.
I see what you're saying, and the only response I can give is that there is no easy way to approach this point. I think that no matter what the schools try to teach, students will inevitably leave that school under-prepared for the myriad of circumstances life will throw at them.
Perhaps the problem is actually the education system. Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system that clearly does not respect individuality, creativity, and free thought (no matter what the pundits say).
Perhaps the question should have been, what should constitute education in our society, rather then should homosexuality be taught in schools. Perhaps by providing a decent answer to the question of education as a whole, the issue of (correctness) surrounding homosexuality becomes a moot point.
Delephont wrote:
Perhaps the problem is actually the education system. Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system that clearly does not respect individuality, creativity, and free thought (no matter what the pundits say).
That's the biggest load of bs I've ever heard.
The entire time I was in education i was forced to "be creative" when what I actually wanted to do was learn. Why read a textbook when you can make a poster!
Seriously even at university our first lesson involved making a "mind map".
Kids don't need to express themselves at school, they need to be tought things that will help them getting a job.
Delephont wrote:Perhaps the question should have been, what should constitute education in our society, rather then should homosexuality be taught in schools. Perhaps by providing a decent answer to the question of education as a whole, the issue of (correctness) surrounding homosexuality becomes a moot point.
I think the question should be: "whose values do we teach in school?"
I suspect most here would object to strictly Christian or Orthodox Jewish values, but is there any reason to teach safe sex over fun sex?
Joey wrote:Seriously even at university our first lesson involved making a "mind map".
What the heck is a "mind map"?
One of my first lessons at "University" (to use the British term) was figuring out steel crystal structure at various temperatures and carbon concentrations.
A mind map is when you write random stuff in bubbles that you connect to other bubbles. In another module the first thing we learned was how to multiply numbers. I'm not even kidding.
This is what happens when schools focus on letting children express themselves. Not only is it far cheaper and easier than teaching them things, it leads to a generation of people whose only knowledge has been imparted on them by their parents, hence why the class system is a lot more rigid than it was.
Joey wrote:A mind map is when you write random stuff in bubbles that you connect to other bubbles. In another module the first thing we learned was how to multiply numbers. I'm not even kidding.
As an undergrad, I tutored a lot of people in 'remedial' math. How anyone gets accepted into college/university without knowing basic algebra is beyond me.
Joey wrote:This is what happens when schools focus on letting children express themselves. Not only is it far cheaper and easier than teaching them things, it leads to a generation of people whose only knowledge has been imparted on them by their parents, hence why the class system is a lot more rigid than it was.
I suppose it depends on your school. Mine didn't have any of that crap.
Well, we did in Art Class. But I (in)famously almost failed that class in High School.
biccat wrote:
I suspect most here would object to strictly Christian or Orthodox Jewish values, but is there any reason to teach safe sex over fun sex?
Social cost, though then you run into the wall that is the present debate between prophylactics and abstinence, which is equal parts "How safe is safe enough?" and "Is sex moral?"
I was very nearly a Math major. Until I realized the curriculum didn't require a whole lot of mathematics courses. So I decided to be an engineer and just did Calculus for 4 years.
biccat wrote:
I suspect most here would object to strictly Christian or Orthodox Jewish values, but is there any reason to teach safe sex over fun sex?
Social cost, though then you run into the wall that is the present debate between prophylactics and abstinence, which is equal parts "How safe is safe enough?" and "Is sex moral?"
Safe sex is useful for any type of sex.
Fun sex can really get into some fun conversations. Think of all the fetishes out there, should they really be covered in sex ed?
I was very nearly a Math major. Until I realized the curriculum didn't require a whole lot of mathematics courses. So I decided to be an engineer and just did Calculus for 4 years.
I am disappointed that you refuse to be baited again by the s.
Delephont wrote:
Perhaps the problem is actually the education system. Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system that clearly does not respect individuality, creativity, and free thought (no matter what the pundits say)
The pundits are right.
That's total nonsense by the way, are you the wrong side of fifty years of age or something?
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
As far as Im concerned schools spend far too much time respecting individuality and creativity and feth all time demanding the basics.
mattyrm, believe me when I say it is far more frustrating to be a teacher in this situation than it is to be a pupil. There is often too much of a drive towards getting kids to "be creative" rather than learn.
However, the real answer is that you need an appropriate combination of teaching the kids stuff, and helping them figure out how to teach themselves. There is something called Bloom's Taxonomy which basically goes recollection-understanding-application-synthesis-evaluation. A good teacher can offer opportunities for all of these things in a sequence of lessons, but modern Ofsted inspections tend to forget about the importance of the "lower" end of that spectrum as the foundation of working successfully at the higher end.
mattyrm wrote:[
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
Fun sex can really get into some fun conversations. Think of all the fetishes out there, should they really be covered in sex ed?
Since a fetish is something of a deviance, since it's an undue attachment to an external device to sexuality, it should be presented as it is already : something that can range from a mid-fixation to a complete dependence.
The important thing isn't to force a positive outlook on all sexualities. It's to reinforce the fact that sexuality is a personal right which can be as attacked by derision and mockery, which can be very reprehensible.
mattyrm wrote:[
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
You must have gone to a 'special' school
No as I posted above that crap is endemic.
Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
Joey wrote:A mind map is when you write random stuff in bubbles that you connect to other bubbles. In another module the first thing we learned was how to multiply numbers. I'm not even kidding.
As an undergrad, I tutored a lot of people in 'remedial' math. How anyone gets accepted into college/university without knowing basic algebra is beyond me.
Joey wrote:This is what happens when schools focus on letting children express themselves. Not only is it far cheaper and easier than teaching them things, it leads to a generation of people whose only knowledge has been imparted on them by their parents, hence why the class system is a lot more rigid than it was.
I suppose it depends on your school. Mine didn't have any of that crap.
Well, we did in Art Class. But I (in)famously almost failed that class in High School.
Me, Im still in basic HS algebra, I have been behind in math my entire life. SOme people need help.
Palindrome wrote:
You must have gone to a 'special' school
Did I feth! Mine was one of the better ones, and I got good grades, including one A* (English Literature! I liked all the killing in Romeo and Juliet)
Our head teacher got knighted in 2003 for services to education, I think that's what they give you if you manage to get the heavily tattooed thugs from Middlesbrough through their GCSEs?
No as I posted above that crap is endemic. Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
As someone who went to private school most of his life, and hung out pretty much just with public schoolers, I can tell you that at least in Canada, and I'd be ready to bet North America, too, that this is false. There is no difference between the curriculum of private and public schools beyond those of religious denomination. While, in retrospect, I entirely recommend private schooling, it isn't in any way related to the quality of the teachings. I'd agree that their are certainly less crappy teachers in private school, but on average I haven't seen anything to indicate that the teachers are any better then on the public circuit, and still had some bat-gak crazy teachers.
What is much better is the quality of the environment and the quality of the student body (lower numbers, not many meth heads, I guess I didn't notice the cocaine-kids). Oh and the fact that it's an awesome way to build up social links with the middle-upper class.
And that again only applies to middle and highschool. I quit a private college to go to a public one, since private colleges are basically the lowest tiers possible of Cegep schooling here. No funds, no students, so they lower the standards and accept everyone. Public college was better on every single account.
mattyrm wrote:Schools done away with learning by rote
Rote learning won't help you at all if you're trying to get a higher degree than a HS diploma.
You need problem solving skills and a small amount of creativity for that.
Problem solving skills can't be taught by rote, they have to be taught through things like word problems, puzzles, etc.
Weirdly enough, many video games teach them these days...
Aye I'm not a teacher or anything, I wasn't suggesting its the best way to learn, I'm just saying you know.. they should do more "proper" teaching, and less time teaching you how to fething.. discuss your emotions with a beardy bloke who wears a funny jumper and teaches you how to breathe properly.
they should do more "proper" teaching, and less time teaching you how to fething..
Honestly, no. The best thing to be done toward improving Humanity, is to equally teach everyone how to properly feth. That I am sure. Your GF agrees, BTW.
Joey wrote:
Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
At least in the US it depends on how good (read: wealthy) your public school district. The public school I went to between ages 10 and 18 was really good, not the wealthiest of districts due to size, but damn good because the majority of children in the district had parents who either were white collar, or wanted their kids to be white collar. As such, we had minimal trades education (shop, basically) and focused on college prep.
Compare this to the public school district I went to prior to age 10, where math education terminated at algebra/trig; anything higher requiring you to be bused out to another district.
mattyrm wrote:
Aye I'm not a teacher or anything, I wasn't suggesting its the best way to learn, I'm just saying you know.. they should do more "proper" teaching, and less time teaching you how to fething.. discuss your emotions with a beardy bloke who wears a funny jumper and teaches you how to breathe properly.
Its sort of a mixed bag. Obviously factual instruction is important, but there also needs to be methodological instruction; basically teaching kids how to think. Its funny, really, because primary education is one of the only instances in which material will be repeatedly introduced as kids age, rather than covering material cumulatively in the manner of moving from Calc 1 to Calc 2 in college.
Amaya wrote:I think this is the understatement of the year. The fact colleges require them is even more asinine.
No. Smart & fat isn't a proper lifestyle choice.
You think any PE class actually teaches proper nutrition? Find me one that does and I can guarantee at least half of the class will gain nothing from it.
PE at the private Catholic high school I went to didn't even discuss nutrition or exercise. Since it was coed it was nothing but a period for male jocks to dominate everyone else in whatever silly sport we played.
Physical education isn't going to make someone that wants to be smart, and ok with being fat, any less ok with being fat. Its fine that colleges offer these courses, as its usually not a huge drain on funding given that most higher educational institutions have pretty solid fitness facilities, but requiring them makes little sense.
If the social stigma against being fat hasn't made someone pursue fitness, then now amount of education is going to get through to them.
If the social stigma against being fat hasn't made someone pursue fitness, then now amount of education is going to get through to them.
Acquiring habits by habituation is a pretty common educational tool. Maintaining the habits learned from pre-school up to highschool, and beyond, makes very much sense, especially when statistically the 1st major increase of weight happens at around the same time (we have a name for that here, study-fat) as university enrollment.
You assume someone will have to make a free-willed choice to decide to be in better shape ; our governments doesn't want to wait for that, we're going to shape your pretty little minds into thinking it, by constantly exposing you to images that make you question your self image.
Palindrome wrote:
You must have gone to a 'special' school
Did I feth! Mine was one of the better ones, and I got good grades, including one A* (English Literature! I liked all the killing in Romeo and Juliet)
Our head teacher got knighted in 2003 for services to education, I think that's what they give you if you manage to get the heavily tattooed thugs from Middlesbrough through their GCSEs?
So the 'hippy crap' must have done something then.
Palindrome wrote:
You must have gone to a 'special' school
Did I feth! Mine was one of the better ones, and I got good grades, including one A* (English Literature! I liked all the killing in Romeo and Juliet)
Our head teacher got knighted in 2003 for services to education, I think that's what they give you if you manage to get the heavily tattooed thugs from Middlesbrough through their GCSEs?
So the 'hippy crap' must have done something then.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Acquiring habits by habituation is a pretty common educational tool. Maintaining the habits learned from pre-school up to highschool, and beyond, makes very much sense, especially when statistically the 1st major increase of weight happens at around the same time (we have a name for that here, study-fat) as university enrollment.
We call it the freshman fifteen and the general source of it is two-fold:
1) The upswing in late-night eating.
2) The introduction of alcohol to the diet.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
You assume someone will have to make a free-willed choice to decide to be in better shape ; our governments doesn't want to wait for that, we're going to shape your pretty little minds into thinking it, by constantly exposing you to images that make you question your self image.
That's really my point, though. In society we are constantly bombarded by images of fit, attractive people. This generates social pressure which is further reified by the tendency of fit, attractive people to find mates with greater frequency. Having a required PE course isn't going to significantly alter that reality.
And, ultimately, at the end of the day it is about as close to a "free" choice as one can get. You can do all you can to compel a behavior, but if the individual isn't interested then the individual won't behave in consistence with instruction.
I would have liked a required physical education module at university (though I'm not sure where they would have put it in my first and second years since I had lectures and labs pretty much back to back every day of the week). Or at least have been required to spend a certain amount of time in physical activities in the week.
University certainly has enough people and should have enough facillities to offer a wide range of team and individual physical activities at a wide range of different intensities and skill levels that everyone should be able to find a physical activity to take part in.
Is it crap because it is government mandated, or because it is crap? Because, honestly, the greatest thing for good education is a government mandated curriculum. And this is coming from someone working in an area of education that has been constantly hacked apart by his provincial government. It's still better than what it was 40-50 years ago.
God I shudder when I remember some of the old guard.
1st day in Aristotelian Logic
Old Guard Prof - Here's an ethical question ; you are a German safeguarding a Jew in his attics during WWII. A Stormpooper knocks at the door and asks if you are safeguarding any Jews. Do you lie?
Me (fighting the urge to make a Castle Wolfenstein analogy) - Of course. It's a human life, if I safeguarded her in the first place, it's because I didn't make a utilitarian-value based choice...
Prof - NOOOOOO YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE SO WRONG, GOD MADE SPEECH SO THAT FACTS COULD BE STATED
Me - ... *leaves class, leaves program, leaves university and goes on a 4 year tour of the West before coming back*
Kovnik Obama wrote:The important thing isn't to force a positive outlook on all sexualities. It's to reinforce the fact that sexuality is a personal right which can be as attacked by derision and mockery, which can be very reprehensible.
And yet you refer to fetishes as a "deviance." Do you consider that opinion reprehensible?
Kovnik Obama wrote:the greatest thing for good education is a government mandated curriculum
Even if the nutrition and exercise information wasn't put out by the government it would still be bad, but I think some of it is done with a political agenda.
Amaya wrote:Even if the nutrition and exercise information wasn't put out by the government it would still be bad, but I think some of it is done with a political agenda.
Does there being politics behind something mean that it is automatically a bad thing? (granted, I would tend to agree with that in many instances, but I personally believe that people should be given as much information on eating and being healthy as possible).
Kovnik Obama wrote:the greatest thing for good education is a government mandated curriculum
Truly, biccat has graced us with a paragon of argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Is it crap because it is government mandated, or because it is crap?
The problem is that nutrition is, in and of itself, a fairly complicated topic that isn't going to very well covered in a single course (hence the existence of nutritionists). Proper nutrition will vary a great deal according to the objectives of the individual, as well as their own physical qualities.
Amaya wrote:Even if the nutrition and exercise information wasn't put out by the government it would still be bad, but I think some of it is done with a political agenda.
Does there being politics behind something mean that it is automatically a bad thing? (granted, I would tend to agree with that in many instances, but I personally believe that people should be given as much information on eating and being healthy as possible).
Well the supposedly nutritional food pyramid put out by the government exists solely to help the grain industry.
Hmm. I could argue that not only Western history, but genetic epistemology both disagrees with you, Biccat, but anyway, I figure it's almost impossible to fight the Stater's bias against government mandated programs.
And yet you refer to fetishes as a "deviance." Do you consider that opinion reprehensible?
Marking something as a deviance isn't much in the way of derision or mockery. A deviance is a contradiction or an exacerbation of an object of being's end (or ends). Bread is a deviance of wheat. Bread isn't a problem for wheat until bread makes impossible wheat, in which case in contradicts it's own end as well as another object's end.
The actual Aristotelian-thomist ontology, which people use to mark homosexuality has something evil, clearly states that it isn't evil. It doesn't contradicts any of the identifiable ends of sexuality, it just exacerbates them. But then, religious people are often known to pick and choose when they dig in philosophy to back their beliefs.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hmm. I could argue that not only Western history, but genetic epistemology both disagrees with you, Biccat, but anyway, I figure it's almost impossible to fight the Stater's bias against government mandated programs.
Especially when government mandated programs is biased.
However, I prefer the term "classical liberal."
Kovnik Obama wrote:Marking something as a deviance isn't much in the way of derision or mockery. A deviance is a contradiction or an exacerbation of an object of being's end (or ends).
So you're not using the term "deviance" in the societal context. Then your comment has little relevance.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Bread is a deviance of wheat. Bread isn't a problem for wheat until bread makes impossible wheat, in which case in contradicts it's own end as well as another object's end.
What? Are you confusing "derivation" with "deviance"? And you're starting to sound pretty homophobic.
Kovnik Obama wrote:The actual Aristotelian-thomist ontology, which people use to mark homosexuality has something evil, clearly states that it isn't evil. It doesn't contradicts any of the identifiable ends of sexuality, it just exacerbates them. But then, religious people are often known to pick and choose when they dig in philosophy to back their beliefs.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. It's not particularly relevant to this conversation, but there you have it.
Delephont wrote:
Perhaps the problem is actually the education system. Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system that clearly does not respect individuality, creativity, and free thought (no matter what the pundits say).
That's the biggest load of bs I've ever heard. The entire time I was in education i was forced to "be creative" when what I actually wanted to do was learn. Why read a textbook when you can make a poster!
Seriously even at university our first lesson involved making a "mind map".
Kids don't need to express themselves at school, they need to be tought things that will help them getting a job.
Yeah, welcome to the comversation, clearly manners was another aspect of your schooling that was missing.
Ironically, you prove my point. Where you have limited your view to the word "creativity" at the expense of actually reading the rest of the statement (oh, maybe that was another lesson missed)....but you'll notice individuality in that statement as well. Your school, University, whatever it was clearly didn't consider your wants and drives, and therefore you were "forced" into being creative.....hence the reason why I stated "Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system......"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Delephont wrote:
Perhaps the problem is actually the education system. Putting 30 kids into a classroom and trying to mold them into a system that clearly does not respect individuality, creativity, and free thought (no matter what the pundits say)
The pundits are right.
That's total nonsense by the way, are you the wrong side of fifty years of age or something?
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
As far as Im concerned schools spend far too much time respecting individuality and creativity and feth all time demanding the basics.
Hippy crap......looks like you need to consider your question of age while looking a mirror methinks.
Hippy crap......looks like you need to consider your question of age while looking a mirror methinks.
Huh?
My question was "are you the wrong side of fifty?"due to the fact you seem to think that our schooling system is stuck in the 1930s, what on earth did you think I was saying?
In the sense that you want to return to the classic curriculum? If that's so, I don't understand how you could view the Catholic Church and the Jesuits has a better option as far as philosophy of teaching.
So you're not using the term "deviance" in the societal context. Then your comment has little relevance.
Anteriority of discourse. Epistemological > Meta-Ontological > Ontological > Physical > ... > Political > ...
What? Are you confusing "derivation" with "deviance"? And you're starting to sound pretty homophobic.
Nope and nope. Or at least I hope so. If I am homophobic, I don't understand how I got on the defending end of so many debate on homosexuality ^^. Wheat as a clearly identifiable end (like all living beings) of propagating. But no one is stupid enough to say that bread, which annuls that very end, is ''evil'' for wheat. According to the Aristotelico-Thomist, on which the "gay is evil'' argument is based, that's not because wheat doesn't perceive, like modern thinks, but because deviations are perfectly fine, if they don't altogether makes impossible the previous end. Hence, as long as their is enough wheat in the world to reproduce, making bread is completely, morally neutral (again, ancients and religious folks tend not to make a division between ontology and morality).
Schematically, an object or being can 1) comply to it's nature (objectively good) or 2) deviate from it (objectively neutral). If 2), then he can 3) contradict them (objectively bad; when someone's life choice comes at a high cost of health, for example) or 4) he can exacerbate them (potentially bad, neutral or good ; when someone ignore their natural tendencies without suffering stress of health degradation from them. Possibly, it's a way of sorting through natural tendencies, and selecting the ones you want to ''specialize''.
Neo-aristotelian-thomists have added a few after 4), but that's irrelevant now. The only reason why I'm explaining all this is this is where the whole ''Homesexuality is against Natural Law'' comes from, and it's clearly not what's supported by the theory.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. It's not particularly relevant to this conversation, but there you have it.
Hippy crap......looks like you need to consider your question of age while looking a mirror methinks.
Huh?
My question was "are you the wrong side of fifty?"due to the fact you seem to think that our schooling system is stuck in the 1930s, what on earth did you think I was saying?
I knew exactly what you were saying, but you clearly didn't understand what I was saying. Let me spell it out for you:
A guy goes into an office, with 30 computers, all running the same software, all built to the same spec. He wants to run an upgrade, all things being equal (and the computers being networked, of course) this should be no problem, and the computers should (in theory) all function the same afterwards.
Thats what modern schooling does (or tries to do) put 30 kids in a class and run an upgrade. No real allowance is made for the fact that each child is not built like the other, or running the same software.
That's what I'm saying. The only solution would be one on one tuition, and we all know that (to an extent) is impractical.
Gay people pay taxes, and don't give birth to new little spawnlings, so I have no quarrel with them.
As far as gay teachers are concerned, I think that can be nothing but good. Bigotry has a lot to do with fear and ignorance, and 'forcing' people to be in close contact with gays (or anyone they're unfamiliar with) often desensitizes them.
What's the worst that can happen? A child decides that he's comfortable being gay because his gay teacher make him understand that it's okay? It's no worse than a teacher antagonizing a student to be heterosexual...
Kovnik Obama wrote:In the sense that you want to return to the classic curriculum? If that's so, I don't understand how you could view the Catholic Church and the Jesuits has a better option as far as philosophy of teaching.
No, in the sense that I'm a classical liberal in favor of individual freedom. I'd also consider myself an anti-Federalist, but that's only relevant to a small part of the conversation.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Anteriority of discourse. Epistemological > Meta-Ontological > Ontological > Physical > ... > Political > ...
Neat. Unfortunately, I was too busy learning more practical things when I went to college.
Kovnik Obama wrote:But no one is stupid enough to say that bread, which annuls that very end, is ''evil'' for wheat.
Depends on your concept of evil. If you believe that the highest good is propagation of the wheat, then it certainly is. Animal rights advocates make this type of argument all the time.
But again, this really has no connection to the argument you're making. You claimed (implicitly) that criticizing sexuality is wrong. Then used disparaging terms towards different types of sexuality. Either it's wrong or it's not, the rest is just line drawing and personal opinions.
biccat wrote:Then used disparaging terms towards different types of sexuality. Either it's wrong or it's not, the rest is just line drawing and personal opinions.
Labeling something as deviant does not imply disparagement, even in the societal context.
No, in the sense that I'm a classical liberal in favor of individual freedom.
Ah. Well. All I can say is that I would trade our crappy neolibs for your kind of libs any day, even if we don't agree ^^
Neat. Unfortunately, I was too busy learning more practical things when I went to college.
Yeah because epistemology of science doesn't have any practical applications in science, or even more on-topic, on education *Cue in Sheldon's voice'* Typical positivists. Better to leave you to your 'engines' and 'axles' while we figure out the structure of the universe.
Depends on your concept of evil. If you believe that the highest good is propagation of the wheat, then it certainly is. Animal rights advocates make this type of argument all the time.
It does, but I was referencing the frame of thought that gave birth to the very argument OP is asking about.
But again, this really has no connection to the argument you're making.
You keep repeating this. I don't get it. No parts of my argument was either far or off the topic of education, homosexuality, and the values and concepts behind homophoby. That's what the dude is asking about.
You claimed (implicitly) that criticizing sexuality is wrong.
No I didn't. I said it was incredibly reprehensible to be impolite or insulting toward a person's sexuality, and that if we give courses of sexual politeness in classes, then I'm perfectly fine with it, since kids are amongst the most bastardly and impolite of fethers. You can criticize a sexuality, especially if you have the proper medical training to know the repercussion of that sexual lifestyle.
Then used disparaging terms towards different types of sexuality.
Only if you do not know the actual semantics behind 'deviation', or cannot read the context in which it was used. I was clearly being supportive of talking openly about homosexuality. Homosexuals with which I have had this very conversation are perfectly fine with the use of the word deviation. They have no problem accepting the fact that a fictional Mother Nature didn't plan for fellatio. Lots of fun and perfectly acceptable things aren't natural. It's what we call Art and artifice. Maybe 'deviation' is a more acceptable word in French, but I would have thought the contrary considering things like the enormous gay following of sites like DeviantArt.com. Still, it's just your view that's clouded to the semantics
Either it's wrong or it's not, the rest is just line drawing and personal opinions.
Hmm, no. Sorry, let's just say I won't have studied ethics at the highest degree available, simply to accept such reductionism of moral experience.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah because epistemology of science doesn't have any practical applications in science, or even more on-topic, on education *Cue in Sheldon's voice'* Typical positivists. Better to leave you to your 'engines' and 'axles' while we figure out the structure of the universe.
Darn tootin'.
Kovnik Obama wrote:You keep repeating this. I don't get it. No parts of my argument was either far or off the topic of education, homosexuality, and the values and concepts behind homophoby. That's what the dude is asking about.
I thought we were discussing whether it's wrong to criticize someone's sexuality or sexual proclivities.
Kovnik Obama wrote:No I didn't. I said it was incredibly reprehensible to be impolite or insulting toward a person's sexuality
Use of the term "reprehensible" is making a value judgment about an action. If it's wrong to be impolite or insulting towards a person's sexuality if they're homosexual, why are you applying a different standard towards a person's sexuality if they have a fetish?
Kovnik Obama wrote:You can criticize a sexuality, especially if you have the proper medical training to know the repercussion of that sexual lifestyle.
Well, not today in America.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Only if you do not know the actual semantics behind 'deviation', or cannot read the context in which it was used. I was clearly being supportive of talking openly about homosexuality. Homosexuals with which I have had this very conversation are perfectly fine with the use of the word deviation. Maybe it's more acceptable in French. I would have thought the contrary considering things like the enormous gay following of sites like DeviantArt.com
Gays follow DeviantTart? Huh.
Also, the first few pages of this thread are arguing the normalcy of homosexuality, so I'm not sure "deviant" is the proper word. Just to be clear then, it is equally reprehensible to insult or be impolite towards fetishes?
I thought we were discussing whether it's wrong to criticize someone's sexuality or sexual proclivities.
...we are... I guess... I thought...
Use of the term "reprehensible" is making a value judgment about an action. If it's wrong to be impolite or insulting towards a person's sexuality if they're homosexual, why are you applying a different standard towards a person's sexuality if they have a fetish?
Well 1st you are the one perceiving it has insulting to characterize something as a deviancy. I have rarely been told that, so, in the context where I would meet someone gay or fetishists and talked about it as a deviancy, and later learned that I had hurt them, I would definitely go and apologize, and try to clear up the confusion. If I have a phobia, it's about being perceived as either a racist, a sexist or an homophobic.
Well, not today in America. [...] Just to be clear then, it is equally reprehensible to insult or be impolite towards fetishes?
Of course, because a) criticizing doesn't equate being impolite, but more importantly b) being impolite serves no purpose whatsoever toward the resolution of an actual or perceived problem about sexuality.
As far as fetishes go, one must be more precise. Many cases of fetishes aren't even really deviations (foot fetishes, for example), just an abnormal level of fixation. Other fetishes (heavy sadism) are clearly identified in my Sex Psy book as sexual disorders.
Gays follow DeviantTart? Huh.
Like flaming ducklings follow a house redecorating hen.
Also, the first few pages of this thread are arguing the normalcy of homosexuality,
Use of word, man use of word. Homosexuality isn't 'normal', since it isn't the set of cultural habit chosen by the majority. Again, doesn't mean it's evil. The contrary is also true. Eating your opponents was 'normal' (the norm) for New Guinea tribes until recently. What's normal (or should be) is respecting other's privacy and psychological integrity by not insulting them, directly or indirectly.
biccat wrote:Then used disparaging terms towards different types of sexuality. Either it's wrong or it's not, the rest is just line drawing and personal opinions.
Labeling something as deviant does not imply disparagement, even in the societal context.
Looking at the shear volume of disagreement based around the misunderstanding of what people are saying is tremendous in this thread. At first I thought people were being ignorant on purpose, but clearly a topic such as this defys discussion at forum level.
I would like to try and add what I can to this thread. Disregarding the mechanics of how/why one prefers a specific sexual act, the deeming of that act as good or bad is, at least from what I can tell, an entirely a social one.
Sense the US government and many of it's citizens believe in Christian values and morals, it only makes sense to have their social ideas dominate the laws and ideas of today. Now, while that is changing today, due more and more people moving away from these values, the envolope for certain acts are become more socially acceptable than others, even if they belong to the same group. Or, in this case, homosexuality and other sexual acts.
Really, the way I see it, our values and views, while we think are logically sound, are shaped heavily by social pressures from our upbringings (is that a word?) and can skew our perception of actual facts.
Interestingly, I used to belong to a church group called the Church of the First Born and the General Assembly of God. For reasons unknown to me, my family and I had stopped going to church and I never returned due to this. But I still strongly agree with a lot of the values, morals, and ideas of not only Christians but to this church. Of course, up until a few months ago, I did not know this church also practiced faith healing and had been a direct cause of several child deaths due to placing complete faith in God and not seeking a doctor.
The point is, as socialitial (again, a word?) views change, so will the concept of right and wrong for not only sexual views but many other aspects.
I totally agree with you. In fact a point I made earlier comes close to this. Are we championing homosexuality in our culture because we now recognise that a larger part of our society falls under that banner, and due simply to weight of numbers we now (HAVE) to treat homosexuals with respect, or have we learned through years of social development that everyone (be them of the minority or majority) is entitled to compassion and respect?
Take the "norms" of Ancient Rome, acts that they performed that were classed as civilised (Orgies, Gladitorial fighting, incest, etc) would today be condemned.....and no doubt a 100 years from now, the things we class as enlightened may be looked upon in a much darker light.
Zyllos wrote:
Really, the way I see it, our values and views, while we think are logically sound, are shaped heavily by social pressures from our upbringings (is that a word?) and can skew our perception of actual facts.
Though the shaping is often unpredictable. Take the example of the child who grows up in a Christian household, and comes to reject any sort of empirically grounded morality.
Zyllos wrote:
The point is, as socialitial (again, a word?)...
Yep, though its spelled "societal".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delephont wrote:
Take the "norms" of Ancient Rome, acts that they performed that were classed as civilised (Orgies, Gladitorial fighting, incest, etc) would today be condemned.....and no doubt a 100 years from now, the things we class as enlightened may be looked upon in a much darker light.
Hey now, everyone likes a good orgy every now and again.
While I may hold a degree in CompSci, freaking spelling has got to be my number one nemesis! Societal...just makes sense now that I have seen someone spell it
But, after agreeing that society holds an influence on what is considered right/wrong, how do you determine if it is truely right/wrong? For anything directly relating to math/science, it is easy by just checking your answer. If it doesn't match, its wrong. But how do you do that for something like homosexuality? Do you see if it spreads disease comparitively to other sexualities? And once you determine the equation to answer the question, how do you get that point across to individuals who either can't, or won't, understand the reasoning? And if the majority can't or won't, then you be damned for trying to push your idea.
It makes the argument hard to continue due to so many opinions and facts that muddy the waters.
Zyllos wrote:
Really, the way I see it, our values and views, while we think are logically sound, are shaped heavily by social pressures from our upbringings (is that a word?) and can skew our perception of actual facts.
Though the shaping is often unpredictable. Take the example of the child who grows up in a Christian household, and comes to reject any sort of empirically grounded morality.
Stop talking about me Dogma!
Spoiler:
While I may hold a degree in CompSci, freaking spelling has got to be my number one nemesis! Societal...just makes sense now that I have seen someone spell it
But, after agreeing that society holds an influence on what is considered right/wrong, how do you determine if it is truely right/wrong? For anything directly relating to math/science, it is easy by just checking your answer. If it doesn't match, its wrong. But how do you do that for something like homosexuality? Do you see if it spreads disease comparitively to other sexualities? And once you determine the equation to answer the question, how do you get that point across to individuals who either can't, or won't, understand the reasoning? And if the majority can't or won't, then you be damned for trying to push your idea.
Sadly, morality is relative. The one good thing I can see about Christ's teachings is love for everyone regardless of their beliefs or deeds. I'd like to think a portion of the west, even non Christians, have built upon that to the point where practices such as homosexuality are no longer ostracized simply because it is not inherently evil (at least from my standpoint).
Zyllos wrote:Sense the US government and many of it's citizens believe in Christian values and morals, it only makes sense to have their social ideas dominate the laws and ideas of today.
Which Christian values and morals?
Because not all Christians, nor all Christian churches, are homophobes who attempt to use badly translated versions of the bible to justify their homophobia. Just the most vocal and outspoken ones.
I wouldn't hold Sam Harris up as a student of ethics and morality any more than I would hold Richard Dawkins up as a student of religion
Well, yeah, and I don't agree with him integrally, but he is at least a proponent of scientifically objective morality. And while that is left to one's own opinion, I find that he properly trashed Craig in the God Debate II, who is a much more 'classical' student of ethics and morality.
And I wish people would forget about Dawkins already.
Joey wrote:A mind map is when you write random stuff in bubbles that you connect to other bubbles. In another module the first thing we learned was how to multiply numbers. I'm not even kidding.
This is what happens when schools focus on letting children express themselves. Not only is it far cheaper and easier than teaching them things, it leads to a generation of people whose only knowledge has been imparted on them by their parents, hence why the class system is a lot more rigid than it was.
Wow thats stupid. You need to learn more important things like I did.
My first lesson was: 1) that rumbling you hear and think is a truck outside is not a truck; 2) Iranian math professors are better than canines in early earthquake detection. When they stop talking and just bolt from the classroom its probably and earthquake; and 3) Californians are absolute girly men, running outside screaming OHGODOHGODEARTHQUAKEOHGOD whilst Frazzled, pondering the sudden suspension in class on the first day, meanders outside. Later, he discovered VW Jettas are chick cars, but ONLY CUTE chick cars.
Frazzled learned on that day he was going to like college.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Melissia wrote:Yeah, physical education classes can be pretty worthless at times.
I think this is the understatement of the year. The fact colleges require them is even more asinine.
On the positive without college PE I would never have discovered:
1. Aerobics classes in college are extremely enjoyable. The scenery is inspiring. 2. Don't put me against the teacher's pet in a fencing match after I've had a pitcher of beer. Giving him complements on his strike and technique after scoing on Frazzled will only make Frazzled "accidently" kick out his legs and send him flying. Ooops.. Sorryyy (hiccup).
Morals or standards of behaviour can be developed isolated from religion - a great number of athiests are capable of going out and not killing and raping people every day!
It is pretty easy to work out if something should be allowed or not: does it hurt anyone? If so, who, how much and in what way?
If the harm outweighs any benefits, then it will not be allowed.
mattyrm wrote:[
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
You must have gone to a 'special' school
No as I posted above that crap is endemic.
Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
This is not even remotely true. I think that you just have some serious psychological issues with education.
mattyrm wrote:[
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
You must have gone to a 'special' school
No as I posted above that crap is endemic.
Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
This is not even remotely true. I think that you just have some serious psychological issues with education.
I go to a state school in a very Left-Wing (See: Hippie) area, and we have always done Maths and English Papers over gaking ourselves and watching Barney.
mattyrm wrote:[
Schools done away with learning by rote and introduced a load of hippy crap. When I was at school I was stunned how little time we spent actually learning hard science and maths, and how much time we spent playing Puff The Magic Dragon on the BBC and drawing spider diagrams with slang terms for fanny's.
You must have gone to a 'special' school
No as I posted above that crap is endemic.
Actual education is reserved for private/grammar schools. State school kids are, basically, given balls of string to play with all day.
This is not even remotely true. I think that you just have some serious psychological issues with education.
I tend to disagree with Alby on a lot but he's got a point...
It really isn't like how you describe it...
As for psychological issues... lets just leave that out shall we?
Corpsesarefun wrote:But Alby, if he didn't succeed at uni the system MUST be broken. Right?
Bingo!
And incidentally, it's only once I came to terms with my learning difficulty that I stopped blaming the education system, and started excelling in it. It took me more than ten years, mind.
I think Joey could benefit from my experience there, in actual fact. It wasn't a dig at all.
Maybe it's a Euro thing. Here in the states, public colleges can actually have a fairly good reputation for education.
The one I'm going to is quite well known for its excellent nursing program, for example (which I'm thankfully not in, as it requires a perfect score practically to get in).
My wife is a teacher in the state sector and my parents both teach in the private sector. They all teach science and they all teach pretty much the same stuff (the methods are somewhat different as my parents have been teaching a long time and are a bit old schooland my wife is reasonably new and so was trained in many of the newer educational styles).
Pretty much the only difference is the kids - the state sector has to acommodate a much wider cross section of abilities and backgrounds than private schools do. A C grade at my parents school is pretty much an absolute failure, while some of the kids my wife teaches will be lucky to leave with any qualifications at all, not through how they are taught but because of other factors like home life, being in care, not wanting to learn, etc.
It does help that teachers at private schools will tend to try and do more for pupils than in some state schools, but at the end of the day they are teaching the same material in pretty much the same ways.
My missus has taught in both private and state primaries, and currently teaches in a specialist private school for autistic kids, and I can confirm what SilverMK2 is saying. I would add that the difference in class sizes seems to be an important factor in making private schools perform, on average, 'better' than state schools.
Private school kids just get better attention, if not facilities. In fact, all the private schools I've had experience of seem to have slightly worse facilities than the average modern state school. It seems obvious that if you put more money into teaching, kids perform better, even if your school is dropping to bits, and has old textbooks/computers.
Frazz HEck, The Community college i go to is one of the best ever. We even have teachers who come here to teach from those universities to teach because they think its a great scool
Oxbridge is well regarded for a lot of things. However I do laugh every time we go to visit my brother in law in Oxford that their engineering department's sign is falling over
SilverMK2 wrote:Oxbridge is well regarded for a lot of things. However I do laugh every time we go to visit my brother in law in Oxford that their engineering department's sign is falling over
Melissia wrote:There's also the fact that students are more likely to be working while going to school in public colleges than private ones.
That depends on the university. You don't see many working class kids at University of Illinois, for example, but you see plenty at North Illinois, Western Illinois, and Eastern Illinois. The big name public universities in the US are, often times as, if not more, selective than private schools and often cost just as much.
Albatross wrote:It seems obvious that if you put more money into teaching, kids perform better, even if your school is dropping to bits, and has old textbooks/computers.
In the States you also have the option of expelling students, which has a way of keeping out the kids with disciplinary problems or, in some cases, poor academic performance. Public schools, by contrast, can't kick anyone out.
I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else.
The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
hotsauceman1 wrote:I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else.
The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
Agreed. It is the Wife and I's firm belief that everyone should first work in retail or food service.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else.
The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
Agreed. It is the Wife and I's firm belief that everyone should first work in retail or food service.
The only thing that sucks more than food service are the idiots who whine if their order takes more than three minutes.
No, its those who complain about it having something they dont like. If you didnt want it on your food in the first place. Tell us. dont cry and get upset when we have t make your order again
You're both right. OK there are worse jobs than food service, but its right up there in crappy First World jobs.
My crappy first job was a horrific job operating rides at a small children's amusement park, basically just a wandering fair that wasn't wandering. My job after that was at a big box retailer as shelf monkey, and it was like paradise in comparison. The Wife's first job was in a high end Chicago steakhouse as a chef, and had other jobs as in the exciting field of pizza restaurant and department store candy shop (now that DOES sound fun) before her real gigs in such places as Head Start and the Austin PD.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else.
The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
I agree too.
I had a lot more work ethic when I went to university in my 40s than when I was about 20. I was a lot more "sorted" generally, and I found it easy to complete the work on top of a full time+ job. In fact I couldn't understand how it takes people three years to complete an undergraduate degree as a full time student.
I had a lot more work ethic when I went to university in my 40s than when I was about 20. I was a lot more "sorted" generally, and I found it easy to complete the work on top of a full time+ job. In fact I couldn't understand how it takes people three years to complete an undergraduate degree as a full time student.
Lets be clear in the US college means university. Public colleges in the US are some of the best schools in the world.
I'd put University of Texas, UC Berkeley and UCLA up against anyone. Plus Texas has its own nuke reactor. We'll nuke YOU!
Up in the French North we have things a bit different. Primary school 1-6 (7 through 12), then Secondary School 1-5 (12 through 17), then College, where one finally specialize, either as a Tech (3 years) or as pre-Uni (2 years). Then we have University. Techs can either work immediatly after, of continue specialization.
Colleges are often laughed at for being a straight 2 years of drinking and sexing, for the Pre-Uni part of it at least, but I think it's fine since it's likely everyone will go through a phase sorta like that during that age period.
But one thing that is clear, is that if there is little difference between Private and Public Primary and Secondary Schools, there are HUGE differences between Private and Public Colleges, Public being so much better at just about everything. People go to Private College because that particular College has a good reputation for a certain Tech program. I went 1 year to a Private College, in Humanities, and it was basically a regression in comparison to what I had learned in Sec 5. I switched for my last year to a public College.
We don't really have Private Universities here. I guess McGill would be the closest thing to one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else. The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
Agreed. It is the Wife and I's firm belief that everyone should first work in retail or food service.
The only thing that sucks more than food service are the idiots who whine if their order takes more than three minutes.
Did three months in a pig butchering plant. On the casings line. The first few weeks, before going to sleep, when I closed my eyes, I saw only pig's viscera passing in front of me.
It was still better than my year as a bossboy in a 4 stars restaurant.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I think work humbles alot of students. When you do nothing but clean grease all day you tend to realise you are no better then anyone else.
The world would be a better place if everyone worked menial labor job that crushes your soul for even just a little while
I agree too.
I had a lot more work ethic when I went to university in my 40s than when I was about 20. I was a lot more "sorted" generally, and I found it easy to complete the work on top of a full time+ job. In fact I couldn't understand how it takes people three years to complete an undergraduate degree as a full time student.
Agreed. To be honest, university is piece of piss if you just put a bit of effort in. I just don't understand how people could drop out or fail - I managed to hold down a job and get all my work completed to a high standard in a timely fashion. I think it genuinely does come down to work ethic. All the people I've met who struggled or dropped out simply weren't putting the graft in, or hardly turned up to lectures.
Obviously, some people have special educational needs, but I found the assistance on offer ridiculously generous - even if I didn't actually avail myself of any of it.
Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. It is the Wife and I's firm belief that everyone should first work in retail or food service.
General labor isn't bad either, after that everything seems easy.
My first full time job was working in a text book warehouse as an "inventory manager" (read: I walked around and scanned individual books into the computer system.) it wouldn't have been so bad were it not for the absence of air conditioning, the paper dust, and the quota system.
Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. It is the Wife and I's firm belief that everyone should first work in retail or food service.
General labor isn't bad either, after that everything seems easy.
My first full time job was working in a text book warehouse as an "inventory manager" (read: I walked around and scanned individual books into the computer system.) it wouldn't have been so bad were it not for the absence of air conditioning, the paper dust, and the quota system.
Its the interaction with the excellent clientele while being efficiently and expertly managed that is the key factor*
But his partner on the other hand, its surprising when you finally meet him, that hes gay.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
