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.

darkPrince010 wrote:Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.

Sociopaths are incapable of relating to other people (they are incapable of empathy). Children are perfectly capable, if not more capable than adults in some ways, of empathy. Being socially inexperienced and sociopathic are not comparable concepts.

Frazzled wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Turing helped kill Nazis.

Right. All that computer stuff was a hobby.

I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.

Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?

Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.

Turing practically invented the programmable computer, his work is what allows you to post on DAKKA

I thought that was legoburner.

Ah. I stand corrected. I do fully admit then that sociopathy is innapropriate (I thought it meant rejection of social norms or expectations). Sorry about that

However, unless I have been deeply misguided on the subject, childhood is a very important formative period for ideals and predjudices. This makes it important to expose them to people different from themselves early on, and reinforce the idea that they are their equals. While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.

Initially I was against this myself, but now that it's been made clear that this isn't an entirely seperate class, but an inclusion into other pieces of history, I honestly don't see the argument against it.

darkPrince010 wrote: This makes it important to expose them to people different from themselves early on, and reinforce the idea that they are their equals. While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.

I am not worried about the "everyone is a winner" stuff.
I AM worried about children being told that their parents are 'wrong' about their deeply held religious beliefs. I worry that children will be 'tested' on their acceptance of homosexuality. I am worried that, given time constraints, that real history will be pushed into the back and 'social reprogramming' will come to the fore.

So if their deeply held religious beliefs say that America Must Die, you have no problems with parents teaching that to their children?

And are we REALLY going to get into a religious debate now? It's okay to be racist/misogynist/homophobic/antisemite as long as you base your hate on religion! YAAAAAAY!

If a child says their parents call black people n*****r, why is it any more or less wrong to say that's a bad thing to say as compared to 'f****t"? Deeply held religious beliefs are important, but should not take presedence over the laws of the land (Religiously accepted discrimination of minorities should not supersede laws against discrimination just as religiously-encouraged naked frolicking should not supersede public nudity laws).

We don't "test" kids on their acceptance of other races now (Teachers don't give kids a pop equality quiz every couple weeks), so I doubt this law will do little more than add a sentence or two to the end of a couple of biographical entries (like poor, abused Mr. Turing...), and possibly add another paragraph or two into chapters for stuff like the Civil Rights movement.

I would be fully with you in objecting it if it was going to be that severe of a law, but it reads as simply an addition to an already long list of things not to use for prejudice.

Melissia wrote:So if their deeply held religious beliefs say that America Must Die, you have no problems with parents teaching that to their children?

And are we REALLY going to get into a religious debate now? It's okay to be racist/misogynist/homophobic/antisemite as long as you base your hate on religion! YAAAAAAY!

Sexual morality exists as a concept. But different people have different ideas on where the line is. Who is right? What do we teach?
If we validate one alternate lifestyle, why not the others? Is homosexuality better than others? Is it more natural than an adult man with a 12 year old girl?

There is absolutely no valid reason to discuss sexuality in a history class.

Funny enough, religion is where morals should be discussed. You may think they are all a bunch of evil greedy hate-mongers, but religion gave us the abolishment of slavery, sufferage, age of consent above 12 (1885+), civil rights movements, and so on...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkPrince010 wrote:If a child says their parents call black people n*****r, why is it any more or less wrong to say that's a bad thing to say as compared to 'f****t"? Deeply held religious beliefs are important, but should not take presedence over the laws of the land (Religiously accepted discrimination of minorities should not supersede laws against discrimination just as religiously-encouraged naked frolicking should not supersede public nudity laws).

And existing rules in place prohibit bullying and harming homosexuals. So what is the point of the law?

What "religiously accepted discrimination" are we talking about? That homosexuality is not right? How is that discrimination? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens to those who disagree with you?

You are accepting the moral absolutism of accepting homosexuality. But I highly doubt you'd support moral absolutism in other areas. The world really is a place full of shades of grey.

It is better to avoid the moral and philosophical debates and instead go with history in a history class.

(I thought it meant rejection of social norms or expectations)

No sir, that's not a sociopath. That's just a redneck like me.

The point of the law is simply to bring more attention to the impact of homosexual people in history. Bullying and harassment will be less of an issue once generations begin to grow up without preconceived prejudices against certain groups, either due to outright discrimination that they grew up in or simple ignorance (and thus possible fear of the unknown or unfamiliar).

As for the religious argument, I also don't want to get into a religious debate. I'll simply say that I personally believe that discriminating against sexuality based on religious beliefs is as close-minded as discriminating against race or other religions based on your religious beliefs.

As for history, history is history, and that's all that should be in the history class. However, all factors affecting events in history should be discussed, no matter how much the impetus in question may offend or irk certain other special interest groups. Otherwise, you're only getting a partial image of the event in question.

darkPrince010 wrote:While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.

Yeah, definitely agree that the 'everyone is a winner' stuff is horrible and only helps in producing confident but useless people. But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.

sebster wrote:I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.

^ That's actually a very good point. +1 to you, good sir

darkPrince010 wrote:As for history, history is history, and that's all that should be in the history class. However, all factors affecting events in history should be discussed, no matter how much the impetus in question may offend or irk certain other special interest groups.

So they should just stick to history, even if it offends a certain special interest group?

darkPrince010 wrote:Bullying and harassment will be less of an issue once generations begin to grow up without preconceived prejudices against certain groups, either due to outright discrimination that they grew up in or simple ignorance (and thus possible fear of the unknown or unfamiliar).

That may be true, but History class is not the place for social engineering.

darkPrince010 wrote:As for the religious argument, I also don't want to get into a religious debate. I'll simply say that I personally believe that discriminating against sexuality based on religious beliefs is as close-minded as discriminating against race or other religions based on your religious beliefs.

So we should not discriminate against bestiality, necrophilia, etc. because of religious beliefs? And before you say that such things are against the law, if we use that argument we have to accept that homosexuality was against the law too. Why can one change and not the other?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote: But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.

And what class is about tolerance? Is it history? Math? Chemistry? What curriculum covers humility? It is not the role of a school to teach humility and tolerance. That is the role of a parent.

sebster wrote:But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.

But you can still easily be tolerant and confident.

To address your points:
1) Yes, we should stick to history, even if it offends special interest groups. As long as it represents all valid sides of an issue equally, it should be included (By valid I mean history should teach historical facts, unfiltered insofar is possible by biased viewpoints. Similar to why science classes should teach scientific facts and proven theorems instead of creationism and religious dogmas).

2) You seem to misunderstand. Social engineering does not mean the children will be strapped into chairs and forced to change their viewpoints. The social "engineering" in this regard is simply having the school environment be openly supportive of the LGBTQ community and it's historical figures, which will foster better relations between students of that culture as well as the rest of the student body.

3)No, we shouldn't discriminate based on religious beliefs. However, therein lies the gray area. A better idea than solely relying on disparate religious dogmas for our laws could simply be to use health reasons for those laws: the risk of introducing a transgenic (animal to human) disease, especially the more virulent ones, increases when in close proximity to animals. Ever wonder where STDs like HIV come from, especially when HIV are mere base pairs from being different from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus)?

4)True, parents should be the main role models for kids. But when kids are more and more being left at school as a pseudo daycare, or when parents are leaving children with poor social skills (that they should have developed at home) at school, invariably they will derive a great deal of their social skills (including concepts of humility and tolerance) from their teachers and classmates.
As for what class covers tolerance and humility, I'd say personally that History would fit that niche nicely.
Tolerance can be taught by showing the atrocities committed by others all the way from persecution of others with differing religious beliefs in the Middle Ages all the way up to the hate crimes perpetrated against supporters of the Civil Rights Movements of the 60s and 70s. When kids are shown the fire hoses turned on children, and told that all they were doing was peacefully protesting, you can bet the kids will (hopefully) be able to draw the conclusion that these were intolerant and unacceptable actions.
Humility is greatly displayed by History as well; What culture invented the written word first? (Mesopotamia/Egypt) Who invented paper? (China) Gunpowder? (China again) Biological warfare? (The mongol empire with Black Death bodies as ammo, and later the British with the infamous smallpox blankets). Which country has the largest English speaking population? (China, by population). Exposing kids to history helps give them the humility that they need in order to appreciate how the world came to be in it's current state, instead of a narrow-minded view that would result from ignoring relevant aspects of history.

School's shouldn't have to teach these things to kids, but in the absence of good parenting (which can happen all too often), it becomes the main alternative.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.

But you can still easily be tolerant and confident.

You can be tolerant, humble, and confident all at once. Heck, I'm all for injecting some humility lessons into the elementary school. Too much of "you're special and amazing just the way you are" and you get d-bags. Then again, too much humility just might get us a bunch of depressed 6th graders.

Hmmm...

Eh, I think there's a middle ground in there somewhere. It'd be better imho if we simply encouraged students to pursue what they're good at, and recognize them for those talents, but not simply say that anything and everything they do deserves a gold star.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:And what class is about tolerance? Is it history? Math? Chemistry? What curriculum covers humility? It is not the role of a school to teach humility and tolerance. That is the role of a parent.

Learning shapes a person. That's the point of it. Values and knowledge aren't seperate things.

Arguing that kids should go to school and learn all these facts about how the world works while they undergo some seperate process to build their moral code is tosh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:But you can still easily be tolerant and confident.

Humility and confidence aren't mutually exclusive.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:...religion gave us the abolishment of slavery, sufferage, age of consent above 12 (1885+), civil rights movements, and so on...

I lol'd. Fairly hard.


But I also cried a little.

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Turing helped kill Nazis.

Right. All that computer stuff was a hobby.

I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.

Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?

Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.

Turing practically invented the programmable computer, his work is what allows you to post on DAKKA

So he's the Enigma guy, as I originally said. Note him for Enigma (maybe, its just a factor not a reason for the war or effect after the war). You could even put in a footnote about his preferences, but its absolutely not relevant to his accomplishments or why he's famous. Thats the problem.

Like I said, if they are important because their accomplishment was directly related to their preference then its relevant. If not, its not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:...religion gave us the abolishment of slavery, sufferage, age of consent above 12 (1885+), civil rights movements, and so on...

I lol'd. Fairly hard.


But I also cried a little.

Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?
*The ending of slavery in the US was started by abolitionists, predominantly deeply religious people who felt slavery was an abomination to God and Jesus teachings.
*Civil Rights in 50s and 60s were started and led by extremely brave southern preachers. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Frazzled wrote:Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?

Religion was used as a justification for slavery and segregation.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?

Religion was used as a justification for slavery and segregation.

And extremely religious people used their faith to support them against those.

<OTT hyperbole removed. Please stay polite when debating with other dakka members. Thanks ! >

That the attempt to try to make religious extremists look better by claiming that they helped social progress when normally they oppose it is misleading.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?

Religion was used as a justification for slavery and segregation.

And extremely religious people used their faith to support them against those.

I am inclined to agree with frazz here, donkey-caves will be donkey-caves regardless of what form justification takes. I mean look at mengele doing horrible things for [and I do use the term loosely] science.

Melissia wrote:That the attempt to try to make religious extremists look better by claiming that they helped social progress when normally they oppose it is misleading.

Slaves were kept for monetary reasons since before writing in nearly ever culture. But it took people of faith to start the ball rolling to free them, both in the US and Britain.
Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.

Frazzled wrote:Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.

Just because you want to jump to defend religious extremists (who said anything about Christians? oh wait, only you) dosen't mean you're right, either.

Even the homophobia justified by religious extremists across the globe today is often inherently contradictory to their own faith.

And are you REALLY trying to drag this back on to a religious discussion?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.

Just because you want to jump to defend religious extremists (who said anything about Christians? oh wait, only you) dosen't mean you're right, either.

Even the homophobia justified by religious extremists across the globe today is often inherently contradictory to their own faith.

And are you REALLY trying to drag this back on to a religious discussion?

You do realize that the liberal state of California (I live here, and I mean it when I say LIBERAL) failed to get half of its population on board for gay marriage, right?
Does that mean over half of the state of California is "religious extremists"?

And history does show that religion was the driving force for much of the good we know. You can plug your ears and go "Na na na na..." but that wont change. Why do you refuse to see any good associated with religion?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

That may be true, but History class is not the place for social engineering.

Indeed. probably worth mentioning then that homosexuals people have also made many worthy contributions to our history.

And the truth shall set you free. Apparently.

This is getting a little spiky here people. Whilst I'm sure that this, the 12,345th time we've hashed over this argument will, of course, be different from the 12,344 times before we've done this dance, please take a moment to compose yourselves before posting. Several warnings have, regrettably, already been sent to various members, we'd much rather not have to take this further.

.. you're on the OT board of a wargaming site people, relax, if someone is wrong.. it really don't matter too much.

Just laugh it off, or chalk it up to cynicism/ naivety, take amoment to enjoy the power and beauty of your youth; oh nevermind; you will not
Understand the power and beauty of your youth until they have faded.
But trust me, in 20 years you'll look back at photos of yourself and
Recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before
You and how fabulous you really looked….You're not as fat as you
Imagine.

Don't worry about the future; or worry, but know that worrying is as
Effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing
Bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that
Never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm
On some idle Tuesday.

Do one thing everyday that scares you

Sing

Don't be reckless with other people's hearts, don't put up with
People who are reckless with yours.

Floss

Don't waste your time on jealousy; sometimes you're ahead, sometimes
You're behind…the race is long, and in the end, it's only with
Yourself.

Remember the compliments you receive, forget the insults; if you
Succeed in doing this, tell me how.

Keep your old love letters, throw away your old bank statements.

Stretch

Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your
Life…the most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they
Wanted to do with their lives, some of the most interesting 40 year
Olds I know still don't.

Get plenty of calcium.

Be kind to your knees, you'll miss them when they're gone.

Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't, maybe you'll have children, maybe
You won't, maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky
Chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary…what ever you do, don't
Congratulate yourself too much or berate yourself either – your
Choices are half chance, so are everybody else's. Enjoy your body,
Use it every way you can…don't be afraid of it, or what other people
Think of it, it's the greatest instrument you'll ever
Own...

Dance…even if you have nowhere to do it but in your own living room.

Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.

Do NOT read beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly.

Get to know your parents, you never know when they'll be gone for
Good.

Be nice to your siblings; they are the best link to your past and the
People most likely to stick with you in the future.

Understand that friends come and go, but for the precious few you
Should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and
Lifestyle because the older you get, the more you need the people you
Knew when you were young.

Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard; live
In Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft.

Travel.

Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will
Philander, you too will get old, and when you do you'll fantasize
That when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were
Noble and children respected their elders.

Respect your elders.

Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund,
Maybe you have a wealthy spouse; but you never know when either one
Might run out.

Don't mess too much with your hair, or by the time you're 40, it will
Look 85.

Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who
Supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of
Fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the
Ugly parts and recycling it for more than
It's worth.


.. or something.


.. obliged.

reds8n.

It has been a driving force for good, but does that by extension mean all of the viewpoints inspired by religion are then good ones? For example, Christian edicts against murder or theft are, imo, "good" laws, while those cherry-picked to condemn homosexuality are not. And as has been stated earlier, morality is a "gray" issue, and does not (and should not) be a black or white thing, just as people obey certain laws from their religion but not all of them.

As for Proposition 8, the anti-homosexuality camp was funded heavily by the LDS church, likely outweighing by an order of magnitude the funding the LGBTQ community in California would have been able to raise. This led to a massive ad campaign from a single point of view, with far fewer ads in support of gay marriage then opposed to it. Does that necessarily mean that everyone who voted against the bill was against gay marriage before the multimillion dollar ad campaign? I would suspect a sizable percentage were people on the fence about the issue (as there always is regarding social laws and changes) that were swayed by sheer force of advertisement from the opposing point of view.

The argument I hear over and over again from the Christian camp regarding gay marriage (not sure what other religions views are on the matter) is that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity and purity of "regular" marriage. Did interracial or cross-religion marriage ruin the "purity" of traditional Christian marriage? No, and neither will gay marriage.