This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
It's good to know that kids will finally learn that
men who have sex with other me
n do other stuff besides intercourse. I don't understand why this is important. I suppose it teaches tolerance, which is good, but I don't understand the emphasis on homosexuality itself.
They only mentioned the part of the bill that some people would object to, the
full version
includes:
This bill would update references to certain categories of persons and
additionally would require instruction in social sciences to include a study
of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans,
persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups
,
to the development of California and the United States.
I suspect this was just an attempt to get conservatives angry about it.
I see. I just have a hard time imagining myself in a classroom, as a very young kid, and learning about some poet, and hearing about his contributions, and then my teacher is like "he liked to have sex with other men". I just don't get why THAT aspect of people's lives is relevant to their contribution. Teach kids to be tolerant of those around them, yes. Teach kids what the sexual preference was of the people they are learning about, no. Even disabled people, I don't get. If some guy is a brilliant mathematician, and I learn about him, and the teach is like "he was diabetic", or "she was confined to a wheelchair", I just don't understand what that has to do with the math. Now, if their disability was a hindrance to their accomplishment, then THAT matters. For instance, if a famous mountain-climber were blind, that is pretty cool. I don't think sexual preference would ever be a hindrance, though. I don't get why it matters. It's as irrelevant to their accomplishments as their choice of food. If the goal is to teach tolerance, then they should have classes on tolerance.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I see. I just have a hard time imagining myself in a classroom, as a very young kid, and learning about some poet, and hearing about his contributions, and then my teacher is like "he liked to have sex with other men". I just don't get why THAT aspect of people's lives is relevant to their contribution. Teach kids to be tolerant of those around them, yes. Teach kids what the sexual preference was of the people they are learning about, no. Even disabled people, I don't get. If some guy is a brilliant mathematician, and I learn about him, and the teach is like "he was diabetic", or "she was confined to a wheelchair", I just don't understand what that has to do with the math. Now, if their disability was a hindrance to their accomplishment, then THAT matters. For instance, if a famous mountain-climber were blind, that is pretty cool. I don't think sexual preference would ever be a hindrance, though. I don't get why it matters. It's as irrelevant to their accomplishments as their choice of food. If the goal is to teach tolerance, then they should have classes on tolerance.
I see your point. But I also believe that people are less likely to be intolerant about certain groups if they know more about people from said groups, and this may be a good way to do it, though not as bluntly as you put it :P
I see... It just seems like...
California has a misplaced focus
.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, when it came to mathematicians like Turing, homosexuality ended up being deadly.
Also of interest is that it became illegal during the American supported military government of Greece to write that Socrates was homosexual.
Likewise,
this
.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, when it came to mathematicians like Turing, homosexuality ended up being deadly.No. When it came to mathematics, Turing having sex with other men was a nonissue. When it came to government intervention, Turing having sex with men was deadly. When teaching government, bringing up homosexual treatment is perfectly reasonable, because it is APPLICABLE.Also of interest is that it became illegal during the American supported military government of Greece to write that Socrates was homosexual. I love how this is somehow an American problem. But, again, this had little to do with Socrates, and more to do with government treatment of people. When it comes to teaching people tolerance or government, the subject of disabilities, homosexuals, religious views, etc, are ALL applicable. When it comes to teaching math, the 'by the way he was gay', thing is completely unnecessary. If you were to have a class where kids learn the sexual preference of historical figures, then that seems useless as well. This belongs as a side subject to government and/or philosophy, NOT as a subject in and of itself.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hunger
I see. I just have a hard time imagining myself in a classroom, as a very young kid, and learning about some poet, and hearing about his contributions, and then my teacher is like "he liked to have sex with other men". I just don't get why THAT aspect of people's lives is relevant to their contribution. Teach kids to be tolerant of those around them, yes. Teach kids what the sexual preference was of the people they are learning about, no. Even disabled people, I don't get. If some guy is a brilliant mathematician, and I learn about him, and the teach is like "he was diabetic", or "she was confined to a wheelchair", I just don't understand what that has to do with the math. Now, if their disability was a hindrance to their accomplishment, then THAT matters. For instance, if a famous mountain-climber were blind, that is pretty cool. I don't think sexual preference would ever be a hindrance, though. I don't get why it matters. It's as irrelevant to their accomplishments as their choice of food. If the goal is to teach tolerance, then they should have classes on tolerance.
I see your point. But I also believe that people are less likely to be intolerant about certain groups if they know more about people from said groups, and this may be a good way to do it, though not as bluntly as you put it :P
I see... It just seems like...
California has a misplaced focus
.
That's why Jerry Brown is cutting money from education!
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I agree there. We didn't learn anything about anyone in maths class, other than the fact that the Pythagorean theorem was named after a Greek guy.
I just had to bring up the fact that it was an American operation (Gladio) because frequently challenging the notion that America supports democracy is the healthiest attitude to take on a message board frequented by Americans. After all, we don't want to repeat history.
Post by
MyTie
but I think just leaving it unspecified leaves way for tolerance
Because that's worked so far right?
Do you believe that telling middle schoolers that Turing was into dudes is going to remedy any problems?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Do you believe that telling middle schoolers that Turing was into dudes is going to remedy any problems?
Maybe. Certainly more than teaching them Leviticus.
I disagree. I think anyone who understands the Bible knows that we are taught to 'love your neighbor'. I'm not sure if this is a diversion tactic. Do they teach Leviticus in California public schools? I'd love to wander there with you, but I think it's a bit off topic.
Back to the public school system: I think the first step to teaching kids to be tolerant of homosexuals, is to teach them to be tolerant of the other kids in the room. Kids are hateful and hurtful to other kids all the time, for no reason at all, and with little chance of real consequences.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think the idea isn't so much that someone's disability, religion or sexual preference is relevant to whatever they accomplished. It's more that the bane of intolerance is familiarity. People hate what is different, make assumptions about things they have no first hand knowledge of, and tend to fall prey to believing in stereotypes when no other information is presented. Intolerance of a group of people requires that the person in whose mind they are distasteful has de-humanized them to some degree or another. You can't hate normal people who have never done anything to you- that's insane. So, they hate a label, or a name, or an image created by bits and pieces of dubious information from different sources. Not real people, just (insert appropriate slur here).
The point of telling people that a black man created x invention, a woman of Y religion fought and died for civil rights or a person of Z sexuality was the head of whatever organization that helped thousands of people isn't to show that they had some kind of advantage because of who they were. It's to show that people who fall into these stereotyped groups are still human, and have the capacity to do great things. Even more effective are shows and programs that teach kids that they're normal people who live normal lives, and just happen to look different, or have a different color skin, or have a different life style than they're used to. All of that helps create tolerance, by teaching kids from an early age that people are people, and to judge them based on a stereotype, or think that all people of X type are some separate group that's nothing like you or people you know is just not accurate.
Post by
MyTie
I think the idea isn't so much that someone's disability, religion or sexual preference is relevant to whatever they accomplished. It's more that the bane of intolerance is familiarity. People hate what is different, make assumptions about things they have no first hand knowledge of, and tend to fall prey to believing in stereotypes when no other information is presented. Intolerance of a group of people requires that the person in whose mind they are distasteful has de-humanized them to some degree or another. You can't hate normal people who have never done anything to you- that's insane. So, they hate a label, or a name, or an image created by bits and pieces of dubious information from different sources. Not real people, just (insert appropriate slur here).
The point of telling people that a black man created x invention, a woman of Y religion fought and died for civil rights or a person of Z sexuality was the head of whatever organization that helped thousands of people isn't to show that they had some kind of advantage because of who they were. It's to show that people who fall into these stereotyped groups are still human, and have the capacity to do great things. Even more effective are shows and programs that teach kids that they're normal people who live normal lives, and just happen to look different, or have a different color skin, or have a different life style than they're used to. All of that helps create tolerance, by teaching kids from an early age that people are people, and to judge them based on a stereotype, or think that all people of X type are some separate group that's nothing like you or people you know is just not accurate.
I agree totally. I think we should be trying to teach kids that things which are not 'normal' are not necessarily things which should be treated negatively, instead of making things which are treated negatively 'normal'. In the end, I still think we should be teaching more math and reading.
Post by
MyTie
Why is it that sports fans
piss me off
to such a great degree? It's behavior like this that leads me to hate pretty much all professional sports. The degree to which a lot of you just blanket hate religion, regardless of what it teach, should understand me. Pro sports doesn't teach anything. It doesn't stand for anything. Yet people will kill over it. Religion at least teaches something, and is useful to the vast majority of those who subscribe to it.
Post by
gamerunknown
I immediately thought of two videos from Chomsky (he's like at the lunatic fringe extreme left libertarian wing and he's an atheist, so bear that in mind - oh and I know the irony of not giving my own independent position and relying on an authority figure instead):
His approach to religion
.
His approach to sports
.
Post by
MyTie
His approach to religion
Wow. So, wait, the US gov is out to slaughter anyone who believes in the gospels in latin America, who isn't white? ... that guy is allowed to teach? I love how he also lists a bunch of awful murdering dictators, like Pinochet, and then, almost nonchalantly says "Reagan's favorites", as a side though. Somehow, Pinochet is linked to fundamentalist Christianity, which is linked to Ronald Reagan, which is linked to US training assassin squads to kill non conformists. It's so close to sounding rational, in the way that it is said, and many of the things he says are facts, that when you link unrelated facts together, it sounds like it means something it doesn't.
The catholic church wanted to be more fundamentalist in the 1960s. The US responded to this. A troop of US trained fighters killed some people. etc etc etc.
allow me to illustrate how this looks to my mind:
In 1945 Germany lost WW2. The Americans were very happy about this. Afterward, the Soviet Union gained nuclear weapons. I ate a burrito. As you can see, the Americans not only supported the rise and nuclear armament of the Soviet Union, but they also supported me eating a burrito, especially Reagan.
If I was drunk, and I mean so drunk that I had lost the capacity to stand, I might be stupid enough to believe this guy. On second thought, no, I'd never be that gullible.
His approach to sports
.I understand and agree with a few points of his. The "irrational jingoism" strikes me as self evident. When I don't get, and what he didn't provide supporting details (in that video) for, is the part about "submission to authority". I don't get why watching NFL is a submission to authority. I don't think there is some authority that is cleverly diverting people's attention from things that matter. I think people are voluntarily diverting their own attention from things that matter.
Edit: OH I SEE NOW! This guy is one of the original trolls.We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.George Bush is a Nazi TROLOLOLOL
Post by
gamerunknown
Learn some
history
mejt.
The school of the Americas
. An
alumnus
- note his officially sanctioned awards ceremony in Washington. Reagan said El Salvador was making "progress".
Someone
killed
for what they believe in. Along with
another few individuals
.
Why watching sports is a submission to authority? It's an officially sanctioned hierarchical game that has absolutely no bearing on our own lives. It serves as a diversion from reality and a way of tribalistic arbitrary division that prevents people from determining who really opposes them. You'd need to watch the whole documentary (Manufacturing Consent) in order to grasp the point though.
George Bush is a Nazi TROLOLOLOL
You've sadly completely missed the point of his quote, which makes a lot of sense in context. He has two moral precepts which he judges as necessary to continue a discussion of foreign policy. I don't remember the other, but the first is essentially that the same standards we apply to others we apply to ourselves. So if aggression is a war crime for another country, it is a war crime for this country. If water boarding is torture when other people do it, it is torture when we do it. The second may be that we take
official documents
at face value (quoted) and it is usually in reference to these (rather than some kind of independent moral precept) that Chomsky judges those that contravene them.
Here
is the reasoning provided which goes up to Bush Senior.
Post by
MyTie
I took it as freedom of expression
Post by
MyTie
I don't remember the other, but the first is essentially that the same standards we apply to others we apply to ourselves.
This has been taken a bit far, though. If I am a murderer, and I try to stop someone else from murdering, could that person then tell me that I have no business stopping him? Just because I have made mistakes in my past, doesn't make it wrong from correcting other people. I think there is a big difference between correcting others, and thinking you are better than others. I don't think I'm better than other people who make the same mistakes as me. However, a mistake is something to be avoided and corrected, all the same. Why should I not correct them?
That was a personal touch on the whole US foreign policy line of thinking that Chomsky and a lot of liberals have. "The US thinks they are so much better than X". It's really nothing to do with thinking we are better than others. You want to stop the use of waterboarding? Fine. You think Bush was wrong? Fine. Those really have nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden. I'm telling you, this guy has a way of sewing a bunch of unrelated facts together and trying to draw conclusions based on comparisons. It's some kind of way of weighing judgement against some things and not against others. Look at a situation, and judge that situation based on the facts presented.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.