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.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Delephont wrote:

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.

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?

Melissia wrote:

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...

Delephont wrote:

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

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.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I mean, Should they say "Its Ok to be Gay, Nothing is wrong with you"

Can't be anymore harmful than Pat Robertson's idea that that Empires like Rome and Greece collapsed because God didn't like their homosexual behavior.

Sure does take God a long time to end empires, Pat.

Piston Honda wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I mean, Should they say "Its Ok to be Gay, Nothing is wrong with you"

Can't be anymore harmful than Pat Robertson's idea that that Empires like Rome and Greece collapsed because God didn't like their homosexual behavior.

Sure does take God a long time to end empires, Pat.

He was probably just taking a nap.

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.

In my opinion homosexuality should be taught on a par with heterosexuality in sex-ed; that is 'You can do this or this; both are natural.'

At the end of the day you have no control over which way you lean.

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".

If a rape victim climaxes, were they not raped?

dogma wrote:

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.

Delephont, you seem to be suggesting that the purpose of sexual education is to teach you all the amazing ways one can have sex?

It's not; its prime concern is to teach you about safety, the use of condoms and awareness of sex in general.

You don't tend to get teachers saying 'oh but of course, missionary is just boring.'

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.

Delephont wrote:

Trying to explain my point inside and out basically lead to the point being lost in translation.

We both speak English mate, I understand everything you have said, I just think your wrong.

dogma wrote:

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.

Fair 'nuff.

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.

@ Dogma

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 love Maths.

Do you like Maths, biccat?