Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).

biccat wrote:

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.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

Joey 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).

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.

Delephont wrote:

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?

However, I prefer the term "classical liberal."

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.

Well that would have been better said before I wrote this damn wall ^^ But actually, it isn't irrelevant. The fact that this theory was so twisted by the very same agency that produced it suppose the need for a higher agency to maintain available the initial theory in it's integrity. For SCIENCE!!! in general, libraries tend to do that. Since universities are incredibly biased toward their own research and fields of expertise, I don't trust them to actually handle their curriculum on their own. We have enough crap going on in our universities in Québec right now...

mattyrm wrote:

Delephont wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:
Especially when government mandated programs is biased.

As opposed to all those unbiased educational programs that instruct without regard for truth or falsity.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

The term IS often used that way though.

Melissia wrote:The term IS often used that way though.

Sure, but its about the single worst attempt at an insult that exists. It ranks up there with "unnatural".

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.

Melissia wrote:The term IS often used that way though.

... by people
a) of certain religious backgrounds,
b) of little understanding for semantics
c) that use philosophy as a cheap politico-religious trick

... all of which won't be restricting my use of a proper term. Especially since they are often the ones doing the hurting.

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.

@ Zyllos

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.

dogma wrote:
Hey now, everyone likes a good orgy every now and again.

Never had the pleasure....unless you count Brazzers?

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.