NationStates Jolt Archive

Critical thought huh? Then why was the student not given an alternate assignment? Why was the subject so specific and about minority groups in general? Why didn't the teacher use critical thought and put herself in place of the student?

Someone mentioned a politically correct agenda and they are absolutely right. this was not an excercise in critical thought.

agreed.

Oh yes, let's ignore sensitivity training. Let the children learn instead from their bigoted parents or psycho-racists on the 'net. Are we going to repeat the '50s and '60s? The last thing we need right now is the "gay panthers" blowing up buildings.


ahh yes, a typical individual who believes the state knows better than the parents. forget about those ignorant fools, their children's minds and futures belong to the state! unless ofcourse that state is controlled by a party you disagree with, whatever will you do then?

Why the hell is the school talking about the homosexual community in the first place? Stick to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic instead of "sensitivity training".

Just get rid of health classes then? Or should health classes leave out sex ed? Or just discussion of sexuality?

just because someone, especially a kid in the 9th grade, has reservations about homosexuality does not mean they are a hateful bigot.

Reservations about homosexuality wouldn't lead to refusing to do an assignment.

would you have been approving if a homosexual was asked to consider a Christians point of view?

That is a question that wouldn't make sense. The homosexual is just as likely to be Christian as anyone else in the class. Now, if, in a social studies class, students had been asked to imagine that they were Christians in a majority Muslim/Buddhist/[insert other religion here] society, that would be a very appropriate assignment.

It was a stupid assignment and the teacher was insensitive to the girls religous views.

How so? The girl could easily have completed the assignment by expressing her religious views. She chose not to.

This is newsworthy and absolutely should be in the headlines. it shows how distracted our school system is from the basics of learning.

What do you consider to be the "basics of learning"? Personally, I think thinking and discussion are an integral part of learning. Thought-exercises are an integral part of learning.

Are you one of those people who thinks "learning" should be nothing but rote memorization?

can someone please explain to me what the assignment had dto do with health/P.E.????:confused:

In the UK at least, health education often also covers "personal and moral" education, so it's probably the same in Australia.

It's why things like drugs are covered, despite technically not being a health issue per se.

Critical thought huh? Then why was the student not given an alternate assignment? Why was the subject so specific and about minority groups in general? Why didn't the teacher use critical thought and put herself in place of the student?

Someone mentioned a politically correct agenda and they are absolutely right. this was not an excercise in critical thought.

Why should she get special treatment? On what grounds? I nver beleived in advanced trigonometry and still don't, should I have received alternate assignments? Should we design special assignment for each and every student, so as not to inconvenience any of them?

Where was that a political assignment??? Asking kids how they would feel if their sexuality wasn't the accepted norm is a roleplay outlining discrimination, coping mechanisms and tolerance issues.

ahh yes, a typical individual who believes the state knows better than the parents. forget about those ignorant fools, their children's minds and futures belong to the state! unless ofcourse that state is controlled by a party you disagree with, whatever will you do then?

Emmigrate?

*sheesh* :rolleyes:

ahh yes, a typical individual who believes the state knows better than the parents. forget about those ignorant fools, their children's minds and futures belong to the state! unless ofcourse that state is controlled by a party you disagree with, then whatever will you do then?

Are you arguing that Christians aren't capable of making up their own minds and need to be protected from opposing viewpoints accordingly?

And, as I pointed out before, you're asking for special dispensation for religious beliefs. That's not equal treatment.

Critical thought huh? Then why was the student not given an alternate assignment?
She didn't ask for one. (Alternative answer: Her objection didn't preclude her doing the assignment.)
Why was the subject so specific and about minority groups in general?
Because gays are the only minority group it's still okay to discriminate against. You're not going to think much if you're talking about a black colony, are you?
Why didn't the teacher use critical thought and put herself in place of the student?

She did, probably.

So you're against the current move in some schools to teach abstinence? How about art and music? Home economics? Sports?

Schools should NOT teach abstinence. There's oodles of proof that abstinence DOES NOT work. Birth Control would work a LOT better, but noooo... That's not what our lord god, which for some reason we speak for all of a sudden, WANTS.

And daemonocracy, I do not believe the state knows better than the parents. I believe that the state needs to HELP teach tolerance. They need to teach about all the stuff MLK did. Frankly, I HATE it when the schools tell our kids how to think, but she's not being told HOW to think
She's being told TO think.

because it went aganst her belifes in what ever way she has the right to refuse the assignment and not fail the class

Once again let me point out that an issue cannot go against someones beliefs, only an opinion or statement about that issue can


true but she was not trying to wipe homos off the face of the earth she just was opposed to writting about living in a gay couminity

She wasn't asked to be sympathetic or supportive to that community. She wasn't asked to imagine being gay, or being friends with gay people. In fact, she could well have said "I think such a society should be wiped off the face of the earth"



again with tolerance. show me wher in the artical where it sayis the girl was in tolerant of gays. she obivously didnot accept gays but again there two different words.

Refusing to discuss or even acknowledge the existence of a hefty subset of people in the world isn't intolerent?

yeah discussed not say " write about a gay couminity or you fail, oh and don't tell your mom (mum)."

Or alternativly "Do your homework or you fail, and don't ask your parents to help you write it, because we want your opinions, not theirs"

because it went aganst her belifes in what ever way she has the right to refuse the assignment and not fail the class

No, she doesn't. She has the right to refuse the assignment if it goes against her beliefs (although I have yet to hear of any religious belief that would keep someone from doing this assignment). She does not have the right to special treatment for not doing the work. She receives a zero on the assignment. If factoring that in means that she gets a failing grade, she has gotten exactly the grade she earned, and thus has gotten exactly the grade she deserves.

If I believe that I shouldn't do math, do I have the right to not fail a math class when I refuse to do the assignments?

true but she was not trying to wipe homos off the face of the earth she just was opposed to writting about living in a gay couminity

Yes, for the same reasons that a racist person might refuse to write an assignment about being the minority white person in a majority black community.

again with tolerance. show me wher in the artical where it sayis the girl was in tolerant of gays. she obivously didnot accept gays but again there two different words.

Not really. They are pretty much the same. If you don't accept that a specific group of people even exists, you are quite obviously intolerant of that group.

yeah discussed not say " write about a gay couminity or you fail, oh and don't tell your mom (mum)."

The assignment wasn't "Write about a gay community." It asked the student to discuss what life might be like if they were a minority heterosexual in a majority homosexual society.

And, as others have expressed, I highly doubt that the admonition was, "Don't tell your parents." I suspect that it was more along the lines of, "This is your assignment, not your parents'."

And if you don't complete an assignment, you *should* fail that assignment. If that means that your final grade comes out to be a failing grade, you have received the grade you earned.

Critical thought huh? Then why was the student not given an alternate assignment?

The same reason that I wouldn't be given an assignment about organic chemistry if my class was discussing transition metals.

Why was the subject so specific and not about minority groups in general?

Probably because this was a health class in which sexuality was discussed.

Why didn't the teacher use critical thought and put herself in place of the student?

She probably did, and realized that a rationally thinking person would do the assignment. Even a person opposed to homosexuality can imagine what it would be like to live in a society that was majority homosexuality. In fact, it gives them the perfect platform to discuss their views. Such a person could complete the assignment by imagining being a bastion of morality in an immoral culture, and could discuss how they would try and "convert" the homosexuals.

Someone mentioned a politically correct agenda and they are absolutely right. this was not an excercise in critical thought.

And this has been demonstrated.....how, exactly?

Did any of you guys even read the article???
She was not asked to write about homosexuals, she was asked to write about how she would feel if her own sexuality would be the minority and how she would cope with the discrimintations to be expected in such a situation.
She was not told not to tell her parents, her mother complained that she wasn't explicitly told about this specific assignment.

:rolleyes:


i understand. read my other posts i phrased it like that to add to the stupidnessicody of the assignement. if i was in that same classroom i would protest. (tough i would do the assignment for the sake of my grade) it has no place in health class and is Politically correct bull shit. it is not my fault that gays are the minority(thoiugh me being stright contibrutes to it). why should i have to write about life in that situation when i should be learning about STDs teen pregnancy and the harms of tobbaco and other drugs. that is why i have a objection to this assignment.

Schools should NOT teach abstinence. There's oodles of proof that abstinence DOES NOT work. Birth Control would work a LOT better, but noooo... That's not what our lord god, which for some reason we speak for all of a sudden, WANTS.

To be fair, abstinence does work. Abstinence education, on the other hand, does not. Most people, quite simply, are not going to abstain. If we want them to be safe, we have to teach them how - whether they decide to abstain or not.

I'm not proud to admit it, but I was once a homophobe. Meeting someone who was gay changed all that. Hopefully one day this student, too, will see the light.

I still am a homophobe but not for the usual reasons or in the same way..

To be fair, abstinence does work. Abstinence education, on the other hand, does not. Most people, quite simply, are not going to abstain. If we want them to be safe, we have to teach them how - whether they decide to abstain or not.

However, those who take vows of abstinence are more likely to participate in...other kinds of sex, and less likely to use a condom the first time.

i understand. read my other posts i phrased it like that to add to the stupidnessicody of the assignement. if i was in that same classroom i would protest. (tough i would do the assignment for the sake of my grade) it has no place in health class and is Politically correct bull shit. it is not my fault that gays are the minority(thoiugh me being stright contibrutes to it). why should i have to write about life in that situation when i should be learning about STDs teen pregnancy and the harms of tobbaco and other drugs. that is why i have a objection to this assignment.

Because sexual orientation is part of sexuality? Because sexuality does not only have biologial aspects, but social, cultural and even religious ones? Because good schools teach thought about subjects as well as facts about subjects?

What does the assignment have to do with political correctness? It isn't even about politics. It was asking personal opinions, and personal ideas and strategies on how to cope with a socially difficult situation. It was not asking the kids to describe what the right way to behave was, or why discrimination against gays might be wrong. It was asking them what they would do if they found themselves part of a minority defined by their sexual preference.

Schools should NOT teach abstinence. There's oodles of proof that abstinence DOES NOT work. Birth Control would work a LOT better, but noooo... That's not what our lord god, which for some reason we speak for all of a sudden, WANTS.

She's being told TO think.Actually, I think abstinence has been shown to work as one taught part of a fully rounded sex education, which also include the mechanics, and birth control.

What doesn't work, and I suspect we agree on this is only teaching abstinence or, even worse, attempting to enforce it through guilt. The latter is what leads to so many of the pledgers not using contraception on their first sexual experience.

Actually, I think abstinence has been shown to work as one taught part of a fully rounded sex education, which also include the mechanics, and birth control.

What doesn't work, and I suspect we agree on this is only teaching abstinence or, even worse, attempting to enforce it through guilt. The latter is what leads to so many of the pledgers not using contraception on their first sexual experience.

*lol

Well, it's rather hard to teach them about sex and not at the same time teach them about abstinence in a way.

"If you fuck without contraception, you might make a baby" implies that if you don't, you won't, doesn't it? ;)

The gayz are taking over the school system! oh noes!

_________________________________________________________________

Because heaven forbid, she actually be confronted with how her viewpoints actually affect people. The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance, understanding and reading comprehension. The assignment didn't actually ask her to imagine she was gay, agree with the homosexual orientation, or even debate homosexuality. What it did was ask her to imagine what it would feel like to be in a minority.



What we got here folks, is your garden-variety liberal hate monger. its oh so bad when the queers and the Muslims get insulted, but what about Christians? You could care less! Have you ever thought about how YOUR viewpoints ever affect anybody? probably not, because you, like most liberals, are self-rightous bastards. To hell with you.

What we got here folks, is your garden-variety liberal hate monger. its oh so bad when the queers and the Muslims get insulted, but what about Christians? You could care less! Have you ever thought about how YOUR viewpoints ever affect anybody? probably not, because you, like most liberals, are self-rightous bastards. To hell with you.

You seem to have lost your ability to present rational arguments.

Have you tried down the back of the sofa? It's where I always end up leaving my keys.

hey! ive NEVER had an ability to present a rational argument. I just want the chiristian basher to stfu before Jesus gets pissed off!

ok i got some stuff to say.


1.someone said that acceptance and tolerance pretty mutch are the same. their not. tolerance means that you TOLERATE somthing or someone like not harassing, beating, stealing from, or beioing predjuce aganst them. i can tolerate you but not accept you. witch is how most fundemental christians who are aganist gays are.

2. someone one good reason that this should be in health/PE. i fail to see how this applies to the things that are in heralth at least the thing that i was taught in health.as far back as i can rember the things we went over were the body systems, druhs and alcohol, tobbacco, STDS, Teen pregancey, human groth & devolepnment, phyical health, mental health, emotional health and maby w touched on disabilitys. never umm... what ever catigory that assignment falls under.

3. dubya tee eff?

4 .in if this were to happen at my school there would have to be a note home that the perantels would have to sign and consent to before we started a unit on gayness or uh i guess accepting others or maybe like alternitive lifestyles err what ever.like i said before i would protest the fact thaty we are doing it in PE

1.someone said that acceptance and tolerance pretty mutch are the same. their not. tolerance means that you TOLERATE somthing or someone like not harassing, beating, stealing from, or beioing predjuce aganst them. i can tolerate you but not accept you. witch is how most fundemental christians who are aganist gays are.Yes, and refusing to do the assignment at all is not tolerance.
someone one good reason that this should be in health/PE. i fail to see how this applies to the things that are in heralth at least the thing that i was taught in health.as far back as i can rember the things we went over were the body systems, druhs and alcohol, tobbacco, STDS, Teen pregancey, human groth & devolepnment, phyical health, mental health, emotional health and maby w touched on disabilitys. never umm... what ever catigory that assignment falls under.Emotional Health covers it surely?

3. dubya tee eff?
what

4 .in if this were to happen at my school there would have to be a note home that the perantels would have to sign and consent to before we started a unit on gayness or uh i guess accepting others or maybe like alternitive lifestyles err what ever.like i said before i would protest the fact thaty we are doing it in PEUm, don't you think you should see the school curriculum and what the subject covers before claiming this was outside its remit?

And I'm genuinely not trying to flame you here or to be nasty, but is there any chance you could stick your posts through a spellchecker? I am genuinely finding them quite hard to follow at the moment.

ok i got some stuff to say.



Jerri Blank is that you?

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/04/strangerswithcandy.jpg

also she wasnt asked to think like a homosexual, she was asked about her views on if heterosexuals were in the minority.

Otherwise it's like asking a virgin about wether they prefer doggystyle or missionary.

No... it's rather like asking someone to imagine they are an individual who doesn't share much in common with anyone around them.

i wonder if there'd been such a fuss if the kids had been asked to write about what it would feel like to be a black person in a country of predominantly white population? or visa-versa.

I would think that probably would be discarded as 'not a good idea' from the PC faction, given the history of the white settlers and aboriginies in Australia...

What we got here folks, is your garden-variety liberal hate monger. its oh so bad when the queers and the Muslims get insulted, but what about Christians? You could care less! Have you ever thought about how YOUR viewpoints ever affect anybody? probably not, because you, like most liberals, are self-rightous bastards. To hell with you.

How does asking a Christian to imagine being heterosexual in a majority homosexual community harm them?

Come to think of it, what does being Christian have to do with the discusion at all?


1.someone said that acceptance and tolerance pretty mutch are the same. their not. tolerance means that you TOLERATE somthing or someone like not harassing, beating, stealing from, or beioing predjuce aganst them. i can tolerate you but not accept you. witch is how most fundemental christians who are aganist gays are.

If you don't accept someone, you are prejudiced against them.

Tolerance and acceptance basically mean the same thing. They mean that you accept that person for who they are. You may not agree with their choices, or some aspect of their personality, with their culture, or with their sexual orientation. But, in order to be tolerant, you do have to accept them as they are, and that they will live their lives as they wish.

2. someone one good reason that this should be in health/PE. i fail to see how this applies to the things that are in heralth at least the thing that i was taught in health.as far back as i can rember the things we went over were the body systems, druhs and alcohol, tobbacco, STDS, Teen pregancey, human groth & devolepnment, phyical health, mental health, emotional health and maby w touched on disabilitys. never umm... what ever catigory that assignment falls under.

In the past, most health classes didn't discuss sexuality, this is true. Of course, that was an error. They discussed puberty and basically told boys that they would be attracted to girls and girls that they would be attracted to boys. This, of course, is not the case with homosexuals. Bisexuals will find themselves attracted to members of both sexes. Someone who is asexual will not feel those things at all. In order to truly cover the subject, sexual orientation *must* be discussed.

It would also, by the way, fall under the issues of mental and emotional health. There are issues that those in a minority - especially one often discriminated against - have to deal with. Learning about them is not out of place.

4 .in if this were to happen at my school there would have to be a note home that the perantels would have to sign and consent to before we started a unit on gayness or uh i guess accepting others or maybe like alternitive lifestyles err what ever.like i said before i would protest the fact thaty we are doing it in PE

Health class is precisely where issues of sexuality should be discussed. Where else would you place it? Math?

And I don't agree with parents being able to opt their children out of sex ed and related topics. If they wish to restrict their children's education in that way, they need to find a private school that suits them.

It's totally rediculous to read these posts and replies on here day after day.

No one's keeping you.

because it went aganst her belifes in what ever way she has the right to refuse the assignment and not fail the class

Yeah, and when evolution is "against her beliefs" she should get a pass even though she refuses to participate in Biology class.

So, should a Klansman get a pass on any civil rights essays?

Just get rid of health classes then? Or should health classes leave out sex ed? Or just discussion of sexuality?

I just had a discussion about this with a friend of mine over the weekend. It centered on how graphic our "health" classes were at such a young age. We are in our mid 20s now and were exposed to quite a bit at 11, 12 and 13.

So much so that it actually lead to quite a bit of experimentation, even if the teacher herself did not suggest it. In some cases, kids thought it was ok to experiment with the same sex after being taught about how natural it is to experiment sexually and then learning in detail of sexuality. They later regretted their decisions.

Sex ed should cover how important protection is and what diseases there are out there, their symptons and which ones are treatable and which ones are not. Sex ed should also cover birth control and protection. Sex ed does not need to be so sexually explicit though. Why do sexual positions need to be covered? Why do the different lubricants for anal sex need to be covered? Why is anal sex brought up? Why are anal beads brought up? Why are different masturbation techniques covered? Why is sexuality discussed in such detail and experimentation basically encouraged? Why the hell is the G-spot even mentioned? Sex Ed degrades into borderline pornography after a point and these are young kids we are talking about.

So to answer your question, No I am not against Health Class and I think Sex Ed is a good addition to health class but it can be just too explicit. Sexuality is something a kid will discover for himself and if he/she needs some more literature on it a discreet pamphlet can be given to them.


Reservations about homosexuality wouldn't lead to refusing to do an assignment.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. She obviously had reservations about homosexuality due to the teachings of her religion. This is why she did not want to do the assignment.

That is a question that wouldn't make sense. The homosexual is just as likely to be Christian as anyone else in the class. Now, if, in a social studies class, students had been asked to imagine that they were Christians in a majority Muslim/Buddhist/[insert other religion here] society, that would be a very appropriate assignment.

The question makes perfect sense, you are dodging. How about asking a Black student to write about what it is like to be a white sepremacist? Or ask a descendant of an Aztec what it is like to be a Conquistador. Isn't this the sort of provocative or critical thinking that is so cherished by some in the academic community? It doesn't matter the class, it will put the student in an uncomfortable position either way. And the parents are left in the dark.

and the whole assignment of thinking what it is like to be a member of the gay community sounds more like a sociology assignment than one that belongs in health class.


How so? The girl could easily have completed the assignment by expressing her religious views. She chose not to.

The teacher could have easily offered her an alternate assignment. The article does not make it clear whether she did ask for this, but the teacher should have accomodated her after learning of the reasons she did not do the assignment. And the parents should never be left in the dark on what is in the school curriculum.

though you do make a good point. The girl probably should have done the assignment from the perspective of her faith; then again if it truly made her uncomfortable as she states then why force her? And who is to say the teacher wouldn't have given her a low mark if she inserted her faith and opinions on homosexuality? I personally have done every assignment given to me, even a most offensive assignment given to me by a terribly biased professor where i had to assume the identity of a Native American who watched his family get raped, tortured and murdered by American troops and then later approached by an american christian missionary preaching peace and love. I still did the silly assignment, and this is an extreme example, but it seems these "thinking exercises" are always tilted to the left and from a "PC" point of view.


Are you one of those people who thinks "learning" should be nothing but rote memorization?

as I said before, these "thinking" exercises are often slanted in one direction. And I think "learning" should focus more on training for real world skills. The choices in universities and even high schools these days are so absurd and often one sided. You can have a class on "Homosexual Transgender literature in the third world" or Wesleyan's class on "pornography and masturbation" but what the hell good is that? Why should credits be handed out for classes like that? A curious student can find books on almost any subject if he looks hard enough.

If you want to teach a student about critical thinking then teach him/her about greek philosophy and Socrates. This way, when the truly controversial issues are presented on the news and in the newspaper they use what they learned from that class and do productive critical thinking on their own and in the real world.

otherwise let the 13 year olds be kids.


oh and if we really want to get into critical thought, why can't schools put forth the theories of Intelligent Design as well as Darwinism?

Has everyone forgotten about how extremely pissed Muslims become if anything "bad" is said about their great prophet? Actually they get a little violent (HUGE understatement). Of course we should be tolerant of them, though.

And? You're contradicting yourself. You're saying no one should have challenged her beliefs, and now you're implying that we should challenge the beliefs of another group (as if we don't).

2. someone one good reason that this should be in health/PE. i fail to see how this applies to the things that are in heralth at least the thing that i was taught in health.as far back as i can rember the things we went over were the body systems, druhs and alcohol, tobbacco, STDS, Teen pregancey, human groth & devolepnment, phyical health, mental health, emotional health and maby w touched on disabilitys. never umm... what ever catigory that assignment falls under.

Homosexuality would easily be covered in a discussion about STD's (AIDS and similar) and emotional health (persecution, 'coming out' etc)


3. dubya tee eff?

presumabley WTF, short for what the f

4 .in if this were to happen at my school there would have to be a note home that the perantels would have to sign and consent to before we started a unit on gayness or uh i guess accepting others or maybe like alternitive lifestyles err what ever.like i said before i would protest the fact thaty we are doing it in PE

It isn't necessarily even about accepting homosexuality. Even if you were passionatly against it, I would expect you to be able to discuss it, and think about it. I would also expect you to know the arguments on both sides, and to have THOUGHT about your decision

As far as the disturbing thin goes - my little brother was ten when the WTC was destroyed. He understood what had happend and could think about and discuss it. I was 8 at the time of the Dunblane Primary School shootings, not so far away from where I live. I could understand and think about it. Personally I find terrorism and the murder of children a far more horrifying idea than homosexuality, and neither of us was screwed up by it.

So if you honestly feel your child would be warped or 'led astray' by a couple of sex ed lessons then you are either naive, or your parenting skills are questionable.

Congrats on everyone in the world and NS being a bigot

Congrats on your warning for flamebaiting.

Because gays are the only minority group it's still okay to discriminate against.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, FAT PEOPLE. It's okay to discriminate against FAT PEOPLE.

Personally I find terrorism and the murder of children a far more horrifying idea than homosexuality, and neither of us was screwed up by it.



Violence is always more horrifying than sex. That is why kids are more likely to experiment with sex than they are with violence.

Once again a debate on morals has boiled down to the existance of God. You all have fun with that. I'll stick to my "narrow minded" "bigoted" views on life. Tootles!

Some days I am ashamed to be lumped in to that big teeming mass called "Christians".

Violence is always more horrifying than sex. That is why kids are more likely to experiment with sex than they are with violence.

Never seen anyone get beaten up in a playground?

Some days I am ashamed to be lumped in to that big teeming mass called "Christians".

Why? You have your own personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ, so why should you ever be ashamed to be a Christian because of anothers interpretation?

No, but they made you uncomfortable for a good reason: because they were making you work hard.

This was not a case of making the student uncomfortable for a good reason. It was making them uncomfortable because it was confronting and attacking what they saw as correct and right. If you are entitled to your opinion, so are they, and they should not have their opinions threatened in school. Neither should you.

The student should have been offered an alternative assignment which did not make them feel threatened. It would not have hurt anyone to do so.

"Imagine what it would be like to refuse to do an assignment the whole rest of your class has no problem doing."

Never seen anyone get beaten up in a playground?


thats not experimenting. I have been both the bully and the bullied on the playground (i'm Irish so i blame my temper for this) and i never thought to myself..."hmmm i saw this guy get the crap kicked out of him, let me try that on someone else..."

Sex on the other hand is different. Looks harmless and fun.

Heaven forbid that a child should learn what it's like to be in someone else's shoes.

The exercise was created in an attempt to show the children what prejudice against minorities, whether racial, religious, or sexual, can do.

And if she gets away with it, what's to keep kids from saying "I do not believe in doing schoolwork outside of school. It is against my religion."

This just furthers my theory that the south and north should secede from each other. We take all the bigoted morons and toss them in the south and watch them kill each other, while we here in the north enjoy a new age of enlightenment. I mean, there's simply no dealing with these people!

Except that this story takes place in Australia.
And someone in Washington D.C. is a northerner by default? I kinda thought that at least the southern border of that city was... um, Virginia. ;)

With this post you have proven yourself to be a stereotypical, generalizing, bigoted, asshole bastard who can't see past his own nose. You've lost the right to be dealt with by logic, and now you face the wrath of KHHAAAAAAAAAN!

You're probably legally retarded, so I won't make fun of you.

MeansToAnEnd, that other guy, and Biblical Socialism are all dumbasses.

Yes, dumbasses.

Try reading the entire thread next time, guys. Or at least one post per page. Good try, though, what with that self righteousness and all. Too bad it didn't work out.

Warned for flaming.

she didn't do the assignment? then she gets an F for the assignment. simple as.

whether or not the assignment itself was acceptable is another matter. personally i don't think it sounds too terrible, and refusing to work on religious grounds is not acceptable and certainly would be no reason to get out of failing said assignment if it were up to me.

big deal.

I definitely think these guys are stupid and intolerant fuckwads. But for the human sexuality unit in my school (USA), those who feel uncomfortable can choose to do an alternative project. They should have provided that option for fundies. (They're taking over everything :()

thats not experimenting. I have been both the bully and the bullied on the playground (i'm Irish so i blame my temper for this) and i never thought to myself..."hmmm i saw this guy get the crap kicked out of him, let me try that on someone else..."

Seriously? Because more than once a fight was started because someone wanted to imitate a wrestling move, or a karate kick from a movie, etc at my old school.

Sex on the other hand is different. Looks harmless and fun.

What about all that moaning and screaming :p

Why read 1984 when you can just read The Patriot Act? Its way scarier!

The two sort of complement each other, or so some of my students have opined.

The question makes perfect sense, you are dodging. How about asking a Black student to write about what it is like to be a white sepremacist? Or ask a descendant of an Aztec what it is like to be a Conquistador. Isn't this the sort of provocative or critical thinking that is so cherished by some in the academic community? It doesn't matter the class, it will put the student in an uncomfortable position either way.
I dont know about anyone else, but I think this would be a GOOD idea.

Cherishing and protecting "comfort zones" only accomplishes stagnation, contined ignorance and narrow minds. Why would we want to practice that?

oh and if we really want to get into critical thought, why can't schools put forth the theories of Intelligent Design as well as Darwinism?

Ah, your agenda begins to surface. This dead horse just keeps being beaten. Do a search on "ID" for the several hundred other threads that are ALREADY discussing this issue.

ID can be dicussed in PHILOSOPHY classes. It is NOT SCIENCE and is not appropriate for discussion in SCIENCE class.

I definitely think these guys are stupid and intolerant fuckwads. But for the human sexuality unit in my school (USA), those who feel uncomfortable can choose to do an alternative project. They should have provided that option for fundies. (They're taking over everything :()

Why should they provide that option though? On what principle should we allow fundamentalist Christians to claim special treatment?

I was not aware that their was a religion that required you to be a slack-off.

No, that's Slackiism (the religion where one attempts to become The Slack, the ultimate state of not doing, and thus, not feeling pain. Sorta similar to Daoism/Buddhism except less productive.) :p

No, that's Slackiism (the religion where one attempts to become The Slack, the ultimate state of not doing, and thus, not feeling pain. Sorta similar to Daoism/Buddhism except less productive.) :p

You're referring to the church of the subgenius.

I just had a discussion about this with a friend of mine over the weekend. It centered on how graphic our "health" classes were at such a young age. We are in our mid 20s now and were exposed to quite a bit at 11, 12 and 13.

I've never participated in, nor heard of middle school health classes being as graphic as you describe.

So much so that it actually lead to quite a bit of experimentation, even if the teacher herself did not suggest it. In some cases, kids thought it was ok to experiment with the same sex after being taught about how natural it is to experiment sexually and then learning in detail of sexuality. They later regretted their decisions.

Sounds like they might not have been properly taught about sexuality. Various sexual orientations are natural, but experimentation for the sake of experimentation is generally not a good idea, especially at a young age, and there is no reason that this shouldn't be stated.

Sex ed should cover how important protection is and what diseases there are out there, their symptons and which ones are treatable and which ones are not. Sex ed should also cover birth control and protection.

Absolutely.

Sex ed does not need to be so sexually explicit though. Why do sexual positions need to be covered?

They don't.

Why do the different lubricants for anal sex need to be covered? Why is anal sex brought up?

The same reasons that oral sex or vaginal sex are brought up. These are things that students have most likely heard of, and might decide to try. Much like students should be taught about condom use in the even that they decide to have sex, about dental dams in case they decide to have oral sex, they need to know about the issues inherent in anal sex.

Why are anal beads brought up? Why are different masturbation techniques covered? Why is sexuality discussed in such detail and experimentation basically encouraged?

Make up your mind. Was it encouraged or not? Detail does not necessarily encourage experimentation. I can read all the detail in the world about the clotting processes in the blood, but I'm not going to go out and slice an artery just because I know how it works.

Why the hell is the G-spot even mentioned?

Probably the same reason that the clitoris or penis would be mentioned. If you are discussing the physiology associated with sex, you need to...well, discuss the physiology.

So to answer your question, No I am not against Health Class and I think Sex Ed is a good addition to health class but it can be just too explicit. Sexuality is something a kid will discover for himself and if he/she needs some more literature on it a discreet pamphlet can be given to them.

Sexuality is something that is very difficult to discover for oneself if one has no idea that one might be different from others.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. She obviously had reservations about homosexuality due to the teachings of her religion. This is why she did not want to do the assignment.

The problem is that the second does not follow from the first. Disagreeing with or having reservations about homosexuality cannot, in any logical progression, lead to a refusal to do this assigmnent.

The question makes perfect sense, you are dodging.

No, it doesn't. A homosexual is just as likely to be Christian as a heterosexual. In that case, it's likely to be, "What would you think if we asked a Christian to imagine being in the position of a Christian?"

How about asking a Black student to write about what it is like to be a white sepremacist?

That wouldn't exactly be along the same lines as the assignment. The girl was not asked to imagine what it would be like to be a homosexual. She was simply asked to imagine what it would be like if heterosexuals, rather than homosexuals, were the minority and how she would deal with being in that minority.

If a black student were asked what it would be like to be in the majority, with only a few whites in the society, and how they would treat them, that would be a "reverse", as it were of the assignment.

and the whole assignment of thinking what it is like to be a member of the gay community sounds more like a sociology assignment than one that belongs in health class.

The assignment wasn't about "what it is like to be a member of the gay community." She was not asked to think about being gay. She was asked how she would feel if she were a HETEROsexual in a society that happened to be majority homosexual.

The teacher could have easily offered her an alternate assignment. The article does not make it clear whether she did ask for this, but the teacher should have accomodated her after learning of the reasons she did not do the assignment. And the parents should never be left in the dark on what is in the school curriculum.

(a) Offering an "alternate assignment" is rarely, if ever, easy. You cannot grade an "alternate assignment" in the same way. You are unlikely to acheive the same learning goals with an "alternate assignment."

(b) Parents weren't left in the dark any more than they chose to be. There is nothing in the article to suggest that parents could not receive a copy of the curriculum. As far as I know, it has never been expected that a copy of the curriculum be sent to parents without the parents asking for it.

though you do make a good point. The girl probably should have done the assignment from the perspective of her faith; then again if it truly made her uncomfortable as she states then why force her?

She isn't being forced. She is simply being asked to take the consequences of her actions. If she chooses not to complete an assignment, she receives no credit for that assignment.

And who is to say the teacher wouldn't have given her a low mark if she inserted her faith and opinions on homosexuality?

None of us know the teacher, so I guess we can't say that. However, if this had occurred, then the teacher would be in error, and the child's grades should be changed. As it is, she simply refused to do the assignment at all, and got precisely the grade she earned.

I personally have done every assignment given to me, even a most offensive assignment given to me by a terribly biased professor where i had to assume the identity of a Native American who watched his family get raped, tortured and murdered by American troops and then later approached by an american christian missionary preaching peace and love. I still did the silly assignment, and this is an extreme example, but it seems these "thinking exercises" are always tilted to the left and from a "PC" point of view.

Why is that an offensive assignment? Is it really all that offensive to be put in another's shoes? Or are you claiming that situations like this never happened?

as I said before, these "thinking" exercises are often slanted in one direction.

The thinking is up to the person doing the exercise. Most "slant", if any, will come from them.

And I think "learning" should focus more on training for real world skills.

And you don't think that critical thinking and the ability to see things from another angle are included in "real world skills"?

If you want to teach a student about critical thinking then teach him/her about greek philosophy and Socrates. This way, when the truly controversial issues are presented on the news and in the newspaper they use what they learned from that class and do productive critical thinking on their own and in the real world.

Doubtful. If you talk about greek philosophy and Socrates, most students are going to get bored and learn just enough to pass whatever test you give them on the material. However, if you talk about current issues, they are more likely to approach them critically, as these are issues that actually have an effect on their lives.

oh and if we really want to get into critical thought, why can't schools put forth the theories of Intelligent Design as well as Darwinism?

They can, in a sociology, social studies, history, or comparitive religion class. What they cannot do, is present non-science as science. Unfortunately, that is precisely what they are trying to do.

Meanwhile, "Darwinsim" is not taught in schools. Evolutionary theory, which has progressed far beyond the writings of Darwin, has.

"Imagine what it would be like to refuse to do an assignment the whole rest of your class has no problem doing."
You should fail. Plain and simple.

This assignment wasn't offensive, and sounds like it was a scenerio wherein the students had to picture being in someone else's shoes. By simply flatout refusing to, this girl had demonstrated that not should she flunk that class, but life.

Not everything goes your wayl how often have you found yourself having to do something unpleasant? Many times I reckon...

"Imagine what it would be like to refuse to do an assignment the whole rest of your class has no problem doing."

Touche'!;)

well i think that we can put our differences asside,stop fighting and agree that everyone is kool as long as they have eyebrows.

well i think that we can put our differences asside,stop fighting and agree that everyone is kool as long as they have eyebrows.

:eek: ... I don't.





:( :( :(

hmm, are the swastikas hanging in the streets of Amerika yet?

hmm, are the swastikas hanging in the streets of Amerika yet?

Not quite.

But the proposed Amerika Opposer Opposition Hour is airing soon. Viewing mandatory. :eek:

All the stupid idiotic questions directed at me from each liberal on this board just goes to show how retarded and sick-minded all of you really are. :p

Warned for flaming.

As an aside: isn't it amazing that the people doing all the namecalling here are the ones holding themselves up as supposedly more moral than the rest? Shame on them.

Just for the record, I hope that the sane NS Christians will be able to see why crap like this inclines some of us to hold less-than-favorable opinions of members of their faith. I know, it's not fair of me to generalize the actions of a few loud idiots to cover all members of a faith, but you've got to admit...we have yet to see a single person coming in to this thread talking about how Vishnu hates fags, or how Allah will make the homos burn in Hell. It can be very difficult for a non-hetero to keep a positive view of a faith that produces creatures like these.

Just remember when you're talking about the people who have the imaginary friend in the sky, you ARE also talking about me, Bottle. ;)

Why is this front page news? Continue to read:

Teen failed for stand on gays
Darrell Giles
October 08, 2006 12:00am


A 13-YEAR-OLD student was failed after she refused to write an assignment on life in a gay community, because of her religious and moral beliefs.

Her outraged mother, Christian groups and the State Opposition want an investigation into the treatment of the Year 9 student at Windaroo Valley State High School, south of Brisbane.


"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the Government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney told The Sunday Mail yesterday.

The uproar came as Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop this week announced plans for Canberra to take control of school curriculums from the states, accusing "ideologues" of hijacking the education system .

The girl was among a class of 13 and 14-year-olds asked to imagine living as a heterosexual among a mostly homosexual colony on the moon as part of their health and physical education subject.

They had to answer 10 questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.

They said many of the students were uncomfortable with the subject matter or did not understand the questions.

The 13-year-old girl instantly refused to do the assignment on religious and moral grounds.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher, who responded by failing her.

After a series of discussions between the school and her mother, it was suggested the girl would be better off leaving the state education system and attending an independent school.

The girl's mother said yesterday she did not learn of the assignment until reading her daughter's report card several weeks later and discovered a first-ever fail mark for health and physical education.

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the mother, who asked to be identified only as Bronwyn.

She said she was shown the assignment. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' . . . I was shocked by the content," she said.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.

"She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

Bronwyn was concerned that her daughter was not given an alternative scenario.

She said the school claimed it was powerless to change the curriculum.

Bronwyn said the school seemed more concerned about how parents found out about the assignment.

"That's what concerns me most . . . the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," Bronwyn said.

Ms Bishop said the incident highlighted her concerns.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said yesterday.

"Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

The State Opposition and Australian Christian Lobby demanded an investigation.

Mr Seeney said Queensland needed common sense back in the classroom.

"The Beattie Labor Government has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said.

"It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs.

"It's not the job of our schools to politicise our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and maths."

Christian Lobby state director Peter Earle said the assignment was not about education, rather a teacher or school pushing their own agenda on young minds.

"The subject matter was totally inappropriate," he said.

After being approached by The Sunday Mail, an Education Queensland spokeswoman late yesterday said the school had decided to drop the assignment from its curriculum and would work with the girl and her family to achieve a "satisfactory resolution".

"The aim of the assignment was to encourage students to think about diversity, culture and belief systems," she said.

"Schools can offer alternative assessment topics in consultation with parents, if the school is aware of concerns about an assignment."

_________________________________________________________________

Because heaven forbid, she actually be confronted with how her viewpoints actually affect people. The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance, understanding and reading comprehension. The assignment didn't actually ask her to imagine she was gay, agree with the homosexual orientation, or even debate homosexuality. What it did was ask her to imagine what it would feel like to be in a minority.

And for fuck's sake, what did she expect for refusing to do the assignment? Why should I go to extra work for her just because she has offensive and bigoted views?


an bloody Canberra goes for a power trip by taking over ran of all schools thats going to help not

Noone's got anything else to say?

She should of been offered an alternate assignment. She has a right to bow out of things based on her religion.

Not really; in World History, everyone in my state needs to learn about Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Animism, etc.

Not really; in World History, everyone in my state needs to learn about Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Animism, etc.

yeah... That is true 'round her' too, methinks...

Its a shame, it sounded like a good assignment. If the girl had refused to write about living as a minority in a black community because she didnt like black people, there would be no debate. And there shouldnt be now.

My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.
She didn't believe in homosexuality? What, like it doesn't exist? Even the Bible says it exists.

So if we're morally opposed to something, we don't have to do any assignments that relate to it? Great. I'll just be a pacifist. That should make my 20th Century World History class pretty easy. I find war to be highly immoral, and I shouldn't have to write assignments that relate to war.

can someone please explain to me what the assignment had dto do with health/P.E.????:confused:

Perhaps because sexuality is contained under the aegis of health and physical education?

She didn't believe in homosexuality? What, like it doesn't exist? Even the Bible says it exists.

So if we're morally opposed to something, we don't have to do any assignments that relate to it? Great. I'll just be a pacifist. That should make my 20th Century World History class pretty easy. I find war to be highly immoral, and I shouldn't have to write assignments that relate to war.

personally, I would claim to be Slackiist. The law of Slackiism is to do not, but rather to slack, be slack, and, eventually, become The Slack. :D

What we got here folks, is your garden-variety liberal hate monger. its oh so bad when the queers and the Muslims get insulted, but what about Christians? You could care less! Have you ever thought about how YOUR viewpoints ever affect anybody? probably not, because you, like most liberals, are self-rightous bastards. To hell with you.

And... warned for flaming.

Really, it's easy. Make your point without name calling.

I gotta admit, I am having a hard time understanding how it can be against her beliefs to picture herself as ............. HETROSEXUAL!

Because that is, after all, what the report requested.

She could have done a scathing piece condemning all the homosexuality surrounding her based upon her narrow-minded moral viewpoint of the world.

She could have expressed the true meaning of Christ's message - of love and tolerance even for those around you who sin, and expressed ways in which she would try and bring people to her beliefs.

But no.

Instead, she felt like she should be allowed to completely shut her mind from a scenario simply because she finds it disagreeable.

Sad that a child has been so completely ruined so young.....


Hey, I find mass murder morally disagreeable. Didn't stop me from having to write a paper on the Holocost....

*lol
What exactly do you think would physically change once you sign a piece of paper that says you're married? ;)

I don't know. The whole idea was incomphrensible to me at the time, as it pretty much still is today. I think it was the way that it was explained to me. I was told that it was between two married people, so it didn't occur to me that it could happen between people who weren't married.

Why? You have your own personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ, so why should you ever be ashamed to be a Christian because of anothers interpretation?

Because many of the people who trumpet themselves the loudest as Christians clearly do not love their neighbor, and scream about how intolerant others are at the same time they are showing their utter intolerance of other views.

They also conveniently forget the beam in their own eye whilst bitching about the mote in someone else's.

You should fail. Plain and simple.

This assignment wasn't offensive, and sounds like it was a scenerio wherein the students had to picture being in someone else's shoes. By simply flatout refusing to, this girl had demonstrated that not should she flunk that class, but life.

Not everything goes your wayl how often have you found yourself having to do something unpleasant? Many times I reckon...

Mine was a facetious answer, Kryozerkia; do remember that I am a teacher. ;)

She didn't believe in homosexuality? What, like it doesn't exist? Even the Bible says it exists.

Technically it doesn't. The word itself was only invented in 1892, so it's not a direct translation.

But that also means that attempts to use the Bible as justification for homophobia are more complicated than they look. The main references are in Leviticus (which almost no modern Christian follows in its entirety). The only reference in the New Testament is Paul. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all.

hmm, are the swastikas hanging in the streets of Amerika yet?

Nice assumption. The story took place in Australia. But feel free to continue to make silly comments.

an bloody Canberra goes for a power trip by taking over ran of all schools thats going to help not

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Let's look at these things, and the people's probable reaction to it.

Girl is forced to, refuses to do.../public reaction is...

Imagine she was a slave and her feelings on the matter/shock
Imagine she was a white person in a majority black community, and her feelings on this/shock
Imagine she was female in a majority male community/shock
Imagine she was a christian in a majority other religious community/shock
Imagine she was a hetro in a majority homosexual community/OMFG T3H STATEZORZ IS IMPOSING IT'S RADICALZZZ LEFT WINGZ AGENDAZ ON US! TO ARMS! TO ARMS!

Every Christian who was outraged over that phails at life.

That idiot girl fails at school too.

Even in North Carolina this wouldn't happen.

Both are reasons a person might decide not to do an assigment.

And, in both cases, said person should receive a failing grade for the assigment they refused to complete.

Why should someone be failed because they are against using animals in that way?

It's not like bigotry; it's not something we should be actively discouraging, and it doesn't harm anyone else.

The thing that astonishes me is that it took one assignment to fail a health class. That assignment shouldn't have been worth that much credit. Normally the assignments in health that are worth the most credit are about sex, drugs, mental health and health in general.

I'm still amused by the blatant double standard in this thread. I would be unsuprised if many of the people who are laughing it off became highly offended if a homosexual was failed for refusing an assignment that asked them to come to the conclusion that opressing a sexual minority because it was a threat was the proper action for a majority to take (Don't think that the opposite wasn't the intention of the assignment in the first place).

It would have been just fine if she had just been granted an alternative, but equally difficult question. She was not. Those of you who cackle about "bigots getting what they deserve" may need to remember that throwing stones is a bad idea, when one's domicile is made of glass.

Yes, she was wrong. Yes, I dissagree with her. That does not make it anything but hypocrisy to ignore the fact that children should not feel that their ideologies are going to be directly challenged when they enter the classroom (At least, not by a teacher or an assignment).

Why is this front page news? Continue to read:

The girl was among a class of 13 and 14-year-olds asked to imagine living as a heterosexual among a mostly homosexual colony on the moon as part of their health and physical education subject.

They had to answer 10 questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.



Simple answers:
I would feel very wired surrounded by fags.
Coping strategies: move; if not possible kill them all!!
Where do they come from? -> Who cares they will all go to hell.
(similer answers for the rest of them)

I'm still amused by the blatant double standard in this thread. I would be unsuprised if many of the people who are laughing it off became highly offended if a homosexual was failed for refusing an assignment that asked them to come to the conclusion that opressing a sexual minority because it was a threat was the proper action for a majority to take (Don't think that the opposite wasn't the intention of the assignment in the first place).

That would be the wrong conclusion, because it would be bigotry.

Opposing bigotry and oppression is not the wrong conclusion.

That would be the wrong conclusion, because it would be bigotry.

Opposing bigotry and oppression is not the wrong conclusion.

I'm glad, oh moral lord of the universe, that you are gifted with perfect knowledge of right and wrong. I should hope that we mere mortals who must scrabble for small peices of moral truth might someday reach your level of knowledge.

Absolutism is absolutely blind.

I'm still amused by the blatant double standard in this thread. I would be unsuprised if many of the people who are laughing it off became highly offended if a homosexual was failed for refusing an assignment that asked them to come to the conclusion that opressing a sexual minority because it was a threat was the proper action for a majority to take (Don't think that the opposite wasn't the intention of the assignment in the first place).

It would have been just fine if she had just been granted an alternative, but equally difficult question. She was not. Those of you who cackle about "bigots getting what they deserve" may need to remember that throwing stones is a bad idea, when one's domicile is made of glass.

Yes, she was wrong. Yes, I dissagree with her. That does not make it anything but hypocrisy to ignore the fact that children should not feel that their ideologies are going to be directly challenged when they enter the classroom (At least, not by a teacher or an assignment).

Her ideology wasn't challenged. She had every right to answer the question "I think teh gays are ebil and I wouldn't have anything to do with the sinners".
Instead, she refused to do it entirely. Once you do that, you have a problem.

I'm glad, oh moral lord of the universe, that you are gifted with perfect knowledge of right and wrong. I should hope that we mere mortals who must scrabble for small peices of moral truth might someday reach your level of knowledge.

Absolutism is absolutely blind.

I'm a moral relativist, actually.

But I still think we should strongly discourage bigotry in the public school system. It is wrong, and even if that's just my subjective opinion, I honestly don't care.

I'll give them free speech - but not one inch more.

I'm a moral relativist, actually.

But I still think we should strongly discourage bigotry in the public school system. It is wrong, and even if that's just my subjective opinion, I honestly don't care.

I'll give them free speech - but not one inch more.

That bigotry should not be taught is good (After all, it creates a hostile learning environment and harms the wellbeing of students). However, teaching acceptance is not the place of the public schools. The schools should not exist to teach people wrong or right. That duty falls on the community, and on parents.

Free speech is not the issue here. The issue is that the student was a captive audience, and that with captive audiences we must tread carefully. A better question might have been "How do you feel about the treatment of Homosexuals by society? Explain?" or "What affects does the treatment of society have upon minority groups? Explain?". This question does point towards answers, and those answers are subjective answers to a subjective question. It is abusive and unfair to place a student (especially one so young) in the position where their answer to a subjective question is contradicted by an authority figure.

Her ideology wasn't challenged. She had every right to answer the question "I think teh gays are ebil and I wouldn't have anything to do with the sinners".
Instead, she refused to do it entirely. Once you do that, you have a problem.

That is disengenuous. You know that as well as I do. For better or for worse, the question was a pointed one, and one that pointed toward the answer that "I would feel put upon and abused, therefore homosexuals must feel that way now and that is bad."

There are other answers, but the question itself was academically dishonest.

That is disengenuous. You know that as well as I do. For better or for worse, the question was a pointed one, and one that pointed toward the answer that "I would feel put upon and abused, therefore homosexuals must feel that way now and that is bad."

There are other answers, but the question itself was academically dishonest.

Two things:
1. She didn't ask for a replacement assignment, she just refused the one that was given.
2. Assignments like that ARE supposed to make you think, y'know.

That bigotry should not be taught is good (After all, it creates a hostile learning environment and harms the wellbeing of students). However, teaching acceptance is not the place of the public schools. The schools should not exist to teach people wrong or right. That duty falls on the community, and on parents.

What's the difference between giving it to the community and the parents, and giving it to the public schools?

And I'm not talking about promoting certain moral theories, just about discouraging bigotry.

Free speech is not the issue here. The issue is that the student was a captive audience, and that with captive audiences we must tread carefully. A better question might have been "How do you feel about the treatment of Homosexuals by society? Explain?" or "What affects does the treatment of society have upon minority groups? Explain?". This question does point towards answers, and those answers are subjective answers to a subjective question. It is abusive and unfair to place a student (especially one so young) in the position where their answer to a subjective question is contradicted by an authority figure.

So, by the same logic, would you tolerate a student arguing that Blacks should have remained slaves? Or that Jews should be sent to gas chambers?

Two things:
1. She didn't ask for a replacement assignment, she just refused the one that was given.
2. Assignments like that ARE supposed to make you think, y'know.

1. Yes and no. Her mother asks why she was not offered one. I do feel that she should have spoken to the teacher, but it was clear that the teacher was accepting no contradiction (Read the article: The teacher told them not to tell their parents).

2. Pointed questions are not acceptable. Open questions are acceptable for an older student, but a 13 year old should not be expected to confront such a complex and deep question as the role of sexuality and society, especially not with a question that points in one direction.

2. Pointed questions are not acceptable. Open questions are acceptable for an older student, but a 13 year old should not be expected to confront such a complex and deep question as the role of sexuality and society, especially not with a question that points in one direction.

How does, "How would you cope with being a minority in society" point in any one direction?

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.

ok the government in Canberra are trying to take all the power form all the states and territorys governments

ok the government in Canberra are trying to take all the power form all the states and territorys governments

So... the federal government is governing over the local government? Why do you see this as a problem?

What's the difference between giving it to the community and the parents, and giving it to the public schools?

The schools are the state. They are government. Government is where people bring their opinions on issues, not where people are given their opinions. It is not the government's place to demand morality, even the majority's morality, be taught to students. That is far too close to brainwashing opinions into people, and I call that totalitarian.

So, by the same logic, would you tolerate a student arguing that Blacks should have remained slaves? Or that Jews should be sent to gas chambers?

As a person? No, I would feel compelled to argue against them and offer counterpoint to their arguements. If I were a teacher? I would accept it and continue to teach the child as I would have otherwise. Teachers are professionals. Just like professionals they have to maintain a code of conduct, and because they deal with children, that code is a strict one. Teachers may dislike students until they are blue in the face, but they must not allow that dislike to affect their grading or their teaching. While a teacher is in the classroom, their right to an opinion is revoked. When they leave the classroom it may return, but it is unprofessional to be ideologically agressive with children.

Let me make something entirely and completely clear: I am a moral relativist who embraces the social contract as the sole acceptable arguement for the permission of the government. I beleive that I may make good guesses as to the nature of good and evil, but that I do not know. I may argue those positions in an intellectually honest format, so as to see how others respond to them, and so as to strengthen them, but I do not hold moral truth. I consider both the holocaust and slavery to have been evil and wrong. However, I acknowledge that I am not the final authority. I see it as my place to try and convince someone else of my opinion, if I feel it will prevent them from doing what appears to be wrong, but I may not dictate the terms of right and wrong in black and white colors. That means that I would tolerate it, I would lose respect, and if I was intellectually honest in doing so I would argue. A teacher would not be intellectually honest in doing so.

How does, "How would you cope with being a minority in society" point in any one direction?

Because that wasn't the question.

The question was "If you were a heterosexual in a homosexual world, how would you feel?"

If we are honest the question really means: "How must homosexuals feel, living in our world?"

that is a pointed question.

All of you who are defending the girl's right to refuse to do the assignment are missing the point a bit. Of course she has every right to refuse to do it. And rightfully, she will suffer the consequences of that refusal. If I refuse to write a paper, I expect to fail. That's the way consequences work.

Interestingly, I think the lesson in the long run may have been more valuable than her. If she had written an essay about the evils of homosexuality, she may have been challenged on that, but she probably wouldn't have failed. And I doubt she would have learned much about "the impacts of her beliefs." By contrast, this situation shows her quite clearly that her actions have repercussions, and that the world will not always support and reward her bigotry.

All of you who are defending the girl's right to refuse to do the assignment are missing the point a bit. Of course she has every right to refuse to do it. And rightfully, she will suffer the consequences of that refusal. If I refuse to write a paper, I expect to fail. That's the way consequences work.

Interestingly, I think the lesson in the long run may have been more valuable than her. If she had written an essay about the evils of homosexuality, she may have been challenged on that, but she probably wouldn't have failed. And I doubt she would have learned much about "the impacts of her beliefs." By contrast, this situation shows her quite clearly that her actions have repercussions, and that the world will not always support and reward her bigotry.

Her response was that the question itself was one that was dishonest and unfair. It is dishonest in all ways to ask a child of 13 to confront such a question. She should not be punished for her teacher's incompetance.

Her response was that the question itself was one that was dishonest and unfair. It is dishonest in all ways to ask a child of 13 to confront such a question. She should not be punished for her teacher's incompetance.

This is slightly different issue than the one that I was responding to, although they are connected.

In response to the question of "fairness"
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered children of 13 (or even younger, in some cases) are forced (not asked) to confront these issues on a day to day basis. For them it is not a matter of ideology. In a world that is largely heterosexist and also greatly homophobic, they have to deal with this "question" on the level of survival. Some of the most homophobic environments that I've encountered (in the developed world and outside of conservative christianity) are middle and high schools. What is unfair is not to educate thier peers. What is unfair is that 90% of US teens (I don't have statistics for Australia, or I would use them) hear homophobic remarks at school "on a regular basis." What is unfair is that GLBT teens make up roughly 7% of the teen population, and 30% of the teen suicides. The assignment may be controversial and maybe should have been worded better. But it's far from unfair.

"Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class."

To be asked to keep something from your parents is the sign of a guilty conscience to me.

And to those that said that the school doesn't announce all of its curriculum as special or whatever, it is not normal to be asked to hide it from your parents.

In any case, the teacher should have had the responsibility to either not give/take any points or give an alternative assignment.

To affirm what has already been said, the school has no place to teach morality. That is the parent's responsibility. School should be just teaching the basics: Math, English, Science, and History (Maybe P.E.). Of course all of those have more advanced branches, but essentially anything outside those spheres is outside of its responsibility.

The loathsome little urchin was rightly failed.

No different from refusing to write a paper about black or jews on the grounds of hating niggers or kikes.

The schools are the state. They are government. Government is where people bring their opinions on issues, not where people are given their opinions. It is not the government's place to demand morality, even the majority's morality, be taught to students. That is far too close to brainwashing opinions into people, and I call that totalitarian.

We are not required to be tolerant of intolerance. Everything else, yes - every non-bigoted political ideology should be tolerated - but bigotry does not contribute to a environment of free discourse; rather, it detracts from it.

As a person? No, I would feel compelled to argue against them and offer counterpoint to their arguements. If I were a teacher? I would accept it and continue to teach the child as I would have otherwise. Teachers are professionals. Just like professionals they have to maintain a code of conduct, and because they deal with children, that code is a strict one. Teachers may dislike students until they are blue in the face, but they must not allow that dislike to affect their grading or their teaching. While a teacher is in the classroom, their right to an opinion is revoked. When they leave the classroom it may return, but it is unprofessional to be ideologically agressive with children.

She didn't do the assignment. She was failed.

If she were failed on an assignment that had nothing to do with gays, I would object too.

Let me make something entirely and completely clear: I am a moral relativist who embraces the social contract as the sole acceptable arguement for the permission of the government.

The notion of a social contract is full of moral positions; do not pretend it is value-neutral.

I beleive that I may make good guesses as to the nature of good and evil, but that I do not know.

If you think objective moral truth exists, even if you don't think you know it, you are not a moral relativist.

I may argue those positions in an intellectually honest format, so as to see how others respond to them, and so as to strengthen them, but I do not hold moral truth. I consider both the holocaust and slavery to have been evil and wrong. However, I acknowledge that I am not the final authority. I see it as my place to try and convince someone else of my opinion, if I feel it will prevent them from doing what appears to be wrong, but I may not dictate the terms of right and wrong in black and white colors.

Why on Earth not?

If there's a good reason why slavery or the Holocaust should be seen as morally acceptable, fine - but there is not. It is not like animal rights or abortion, where there's room for argument; there is simply no way a decent moral theory could accept them as legitimate.

Bigotry is the same way.

That means that I would tolerate it, I would lose respect, and if I was intellectually honest in doing so I would argue. A teacher would not be intellectually honest in doing so.

The public education system has every right to discourage bigotry by appealing to empathy.

It does not have the right to force people into accepting its point of view - but that is not happening here. She was not failed for writing in a homophobic manner.

All of you who are defending the girl's right to refuse to do the assignment are missing the point a bit. Of course she has every right to refuse to do it. And rightfully, she will suffer the consequences of that refusal. If I refuse to write a paper, I expect to fail. That's the way consequences work.

Interestingly, I think the lesson in the long run may have been more valuable than her. If she had written an essay about the evils of homosexuality, she may have been challenged on that, but she probably wouldn't have failed. And I doubt she would have learned much about "the impacts of her beliefs." By contrast, this situation shows her quite clearly that her actions have repercussions, and that the world will not always support and reward her bigotry.

The school has no right to ask questions about morality in the first place. That is the main point. Refusing to answer a math problem is quite different. Refusing to write an essay on a book you just read is quite different. Religion is tolerated in this country, good or bad.

Also, she has been shown that her morality has rewarded her, or at least probably will. She definitely has massive support on the issue.

This is slightly different issue than the one that I was responding to, although they are connected.

In response to the question of "fairness"
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered children of 13 (or even younger, in some cases) are forced (not asked) to confront these issues on a day to day basis. For them it is not a matter of ideology. In a world that is largely heterosexist and also greatly homophobic, they have to deal with this "question" on the level of survival. Some of the most homophobic environments that I've encountered (in the developed world and outside of conservative christianity) are middle and high schools. What is unfair is not to educate thier peers. What is unfair is that 90% of US teens (I don't have statistics for Australia, or I would use them) hear homophobic remarks at school "on a regular basis." What is unfair is that GLBT teens make up roughly 7% of the teen population, and 30% of the teen suicides. The assignment may be controversial and maybe should have been worded better. But it's far from unfair.

I'm sorry, but a 13 year old can not reasonably make complicated descisions like that. They simply do not yet have the mental development needed for that. It is certainly wrong to try to force-feed them answers to the questions.

"Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class."

To be asked to keep something from your parents is the sign of a guilty conscience to me.


I srongly agree with this statement and believe that this was the teacher's biggest mistake. A teacher should never ask students to hide something from thier parents--this is manipulative and unconscionable.

Additionally, the conversations that could have occured at home with the families of those children that discussed the assignment at home could have been very benefical.

Moreover, I think this teacher's choice re-inforced the "taboo" nature of discussions of homosexuality, whihc I'm sure wasn't his/her intent.

I srongly agree with this statement and believe that this was the teacher's biggest mistake. A teacher should never ask students to hide something from thier parents--this is manipulative and unconscionable.

Additionally, the conversations that could have occured at home with the families of those children that discussed the assignment at home could have been very benefical.

Moreover, I think this teacher's choice re-inforced the "taboo" nature of discussions of homosexuality, whihc I'm sure wasn't his/her intent.

Exactly. If she really wanted intellectual honesty and debate, she would not ask her student to hide the assignment from her parents.

I'm sorry, but a 13 year old can not reasonably make complicated descisions like that. They simply do not yet have the mental development needed for that. It is certainly wrong to try to force-feed them answers to the questions.

Do you think a 13 year old could not judge on any moral issue (anything--racism, meat-eating, corporal punishment)? Or just not on issues of minority/majority position in a culture? Or just not on what it might feel like to be a sexual minority? This question is not intended to "trap" or lead you--I'm seriously attempting to clarify your position.

The public education system has every right to discourage bigotry by appealing to empathy.
[/QUOTE]

No, it DOES NOT. My God, what gives it the right to enforce one morality over another?

If it were school's responsibility to start "appealing to empathy", they'd be no different than a church with a different indoctrination.

Why couldn't the girl just have written an essay on what SHE thought about gays? The assignment wasn't "explain why homosexuality is acceptable" it was "explain what life would be like if you lived with a bunch of gays on the moon". You can take dozens of approaches to that.

We are not required to be tolerant of intolerance. Everything else, yes - every non-bigoted political ideology should be tolerated - but bigotry does not contribute to a environment of free discourse; rather, it detracts from it.

"All these opinions are fine, because they don't offend me, but god forbid opinions that offend me are discussed."

She didn't do the assignment. She was failed.

If she were failed on an assignment that had nothing to do with gays, I would object too.

disengenuous. It was not merely a case of refusing an assignment, it was a case of refusing an assignment that should never have been given.

The notion of a social contract is full of moral positions; do not pretend it is value-neutral.

The concept that people join a contract and agree to a contract based on the personal gain of protection and in exchange agree to the terms of that contract that exist to protect is a moral issue? Here I thought it was totally pragmatic. :rolleyes:

If you think objective moral truth exists, even if you don't think you know it, you are not a moral relativist.

Nihilism and Relativism are two wholy seperate things. There is a difference between "There are no rights and wrongs" and "Right and wrong are relative terms that we must come to terms with on our own, because there is no greater truth."

Why on Earth not?

If there's a good reason why slavery or the Holocaust should be seen as morally acceptable, fine - but there is not. It is not like animal rights or abortion, where there's room for argument; there is simply no way a decent moral theory could accept them as legitimate.

Bigotry is the same way.

Who is being the absolutist now?

"I think that these questions are obvious, therefore, there can be no dissent."

It ain't that simple.


The public education system has every right to discourage bigotry by appealing to empathy.

It does not have the right to force people into accepting its point of view - but that is not happening here. She was not failed for writing in a homophobic manner.

This is basically brainwashing. The question was pointed and pointing towards an opinion on a subjective question of personal beleif. That is the state influencing the political opinions of students. That absolutely reeks of totalitarianism.

I am absolutely disgusted that anyone would find it acceptable for a state institution to teach morals. We are not the slaves of the state.

Do you think a 13 year old could not judge on any moral issue (anything--racism, meat-eating, corporal punishment)? Or just not on issues of minority/majority position in a culture? Or just not on what it might feel like to be a sexual minority? This question is not intended to "trap" or lead you--I'm seriously attempting to clarify your position.

I am of the opinion that a 13 year old cannot be expected to rationally and independantly wrestle with complex moral questions. I consider racism, meat-eating, and corporal punishment to all be cases where a rational descision would be beyond the means of a child of that age. However, an especially active issue, like that of homosexual rights is one where students are double handicapped, because of the big rhetoric thrown around.

Why couldn't the girl just have written an essay on what SHE thought about gays? The assignment wasn't "explain why homosexuality is acceptable" it was "explain what life would be like if you lived with a bunch of gays on the moon". You can take dozens of approaches to that.

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.

I'm sorry, but a 13 year old can not reasonably make complicated descisions like that. They simply do not yet have the mental development needed for that. It is certainly wrong to try to force-feed them answers to the questions.

Hogwash.

You have 9 year olds that are heads of households in Africa.

Then again if they live the classic ignorant Christian life, then yes you are correct they can't deal with the world.

However, school is about learning new things to expand your horizon. She refused and received the grade she diserved.

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.

Unless you have a different opinion Like: "homosexuals deserve what they get."

(sorry for repeating a question)

I am of the opinion that a 13 year old cannot be expected to rationally and independantly wrestle with complex moral questions. I consider racism, meat-eating, and corporal punishment to all be cases where a rational descision would be beyond the means of a child of that age. However, an especially active issue, like that of homosexual rights is one where students are double handicapped, because of the big rhetoric thrown around.

Sure they can. You just don't give them credit.

The one throwing rhetoric seems to be you.

I am of the opinion that a 13 year old cannot be expected to rationally and independantly wrestle with complex moral questions. I consider racism, meat-eating, and corporal punishment to all be cases where a rational descision would be beyond the means of a child of that age. However, an especially active issue, like that of homosexual rights is one where students are double handicapped, because of the big rhetoric thrown around.

I became vegitarian at 14. (and I still can't spell the word)

Hogwash.

You have 9 year olds that are heads of households in Africa.

Then again if they live the classic ignorant Christian life, then yes you are correct they can't deal with the world.

However, school is about learning new things to expand your horizon. She refused and received the grade she diserved.

Hogwash yourself. There are descision making centers in the brain that simply don't begin to open until a child gets older. 13 year olds are still chidlren, no matter what they would have others beleive.

School is not about brainwashing or about confronting children with subjective opinions. That is called "reeducation" and when the Nazis and Soviets did it, we thought it was unnaceptablie. It should be the same in this case (and if it were in oposition to your opinion on the matter, I expect it would be).

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.

How is treating people that are different from you with kindness is a bad thing?

How is that political?

Considering when "Christians" run out for some fun "fagbashing;" yes they do deserve to be treated better.

If you guys left them alone, then there would be no need for assignments like this.

I became vegitarian at 14. (and I still can't spell the word)

What was the primary influence on your descision? Was it a role-model, friend, or teacher? Was it something you saw on TV? Was it something you read?

Hogwash yourself. There are descision making centers in the brain that simply don't begin to open until a child gets older. 13 year olds are still chidlren, no matter what they would have others beleive.

School is not about brainwashing or about confronting children with subjective opinions. That is called "reeducation" and when the Nazis and Soviets did it, we thought it was unnaceptablie. It should be the same in this case (and if it were in oposition to your opinion on the matter, I expect it would be).

Eww godwin.

By 13 they understand the concept of right and wrong.

Sorry but you are talking out your hat.

I am of the opinion that a 13 year old cannot be expected to rationally and independantly wrestle with complex moral questions. I consider racism, meat-eating, and corporal punishment to all be cases where a rational descision would be beyond the means of a child of that age. However, an especially active issue, like that of homosexual rights is one where students are double handicapped, because of the big rhetoric thrown around.

Interestingly enough, I think we agree to this point.
---
However, I think (and here we may disagree) that school have a responsability to confront issues like homophobia and racism, not because it is thier moral imperative, but because these "issues" are played out in real life in the schools. I do think that this teacher approached it wholly wrongly. with kids of this age, asking such an open-ended and personally provocative question is a mistake, as is doing it in isolation. I think a much more appropriate choice would have been a disscusion more along the lines of "how do we, as a diverse group of people with different and sometimes contradictory views, exist together in a school environment in a way that allows everyone to learn without feeling targeted or unsafe, with regards to sexuality (or race, or religious views, or whatever)." To the greatest extent possible, this should have been done with parental support.

How is treating people that are different from you with kindness is a bad thing?

How is that political?

Considering when "Christians" run out for some fun "fagbashing;" yes they do deserve to be treated better.

If you guys left them alone, then there would be no need for assignments like this.

If we guys? How nice... I dissagree with you on this issue, so I must be a Christian, Gay Hating Conservative, right?

I'm a Liberal agnostic who has no problem with any sexuality, so don't even presume that you know to what group I belong.

I just don't want the government brainwashing children to one opinion or another. I don't trust the state in that role, and I beleive that if this were an issue upon which you felt the teacher's direction had been wrong, you would be equally outraged.

"All these opinions are fine, because they don't offend me, but god forbid opinions that offend me are discussed."

Actually, no - it offends me to hear people justifying US imperialism and war-mongering, but I think it is a legitimate position.

Bigotry is not.

disengenuous. It was not merely a case of refusing an assignment, it was a case of refusing an assignment that should never have been given.

The assignment was fine. There should be more of them.

Making people reconsider their bigoted prejudices is perfectly acceptable.

The concept that people join a contract and agree to a contract based on the personal gain of protection and in exchange agree to the terms of that contract that exist to protect is a moral issue? Here I thought it was totally pragmatic. :rolleyes:

It is "pragmatic" to murder someone for personal gain if I won't get caught. Yet it violates the social contract.

If the "social contract" is a mere question of self-interest, then it is totally meaningless; I can do as I please. If I want to take the risk of getting caught, who are you to object? You might call me unwise, but you cannot say that I do wrong.

Similarly, if you wish to reduce everything to a calculation of self-interest, the teacher can do as she pleases, and you can do as you please to stop her. It is pointless to speak of what she can and cannot do under the terms of the social contract.

Nihilism and Relativism are two wholy seperate things. There is a difference between "There are no rights and wrongs" and "Right and wrong are relative terms that we must come to terms with on our own, because there is no greater truth."

That's why I said "objective moral truth."

Who is being the absolutist now?

Saying something is wrong is neither absolutist nor relativist, it is merely a moral judgment.

"I think that these questions are obvious, therefore, there can be no dissent."

It ain't that simple.

Why not? Certain views are pretty clearly wrong; others aren't. Do you want Intelligent Design taught in public school?

This is basically brainwashing. The question was pointed and pointing towards an opinion on a subjective question of personal beleif. That is the state influencing the political opinions of students. That absolutely reeks of totalitarianism.

I am absolutely disgusted that anyone would find it acceptable for a state institution to teach morals. We are not the slaves of the state.

Again, I have no problem tolerating a variety of views - as long as those views meet basic standards. Bigotry is out.

What was the primary influence on your descision? Was it a role-model, friend, or teacher? Was it something you saw on TV? Was it something you read?

I can't actually remember. A friend of the family was a vegetarian, she has a website where she sells yoga supplies and has a list of recipes. I tried a few of them out and ... never wanted to eat meat again. They were yummm.

If we guys? How nice... I dissagree with you on this issue, so I must be a Christian, Gay Hating Conservative, right?

I'm a Liberal agnostic who has no problem with any sexuality, so don't even presume that you know to what group I belong.

I just don't want the government brainwashing children to one opinion or another. I don't trust the state in that role, and I beleive that if this were an issue upon which you felt the teacher's direction had been wrong, you would be equally outraged.

Ahhh a liberterian. :rolleyes:

Sorry to spoil your tin hat theory but there is no plan by the goverment to brainwash the kiddies into being gay.

Ahhh a liberterian. :rolleyes:

Sorry to spoil your tin hat theory but there is no plan by the goverment to brainwash the kiddies into being gay.
I agree, the gov. has little to do with what is taught in 9th grade.

Eww godwin.

By 13 they understand the concept of right and wrong.

Sorry but you are talking out your hat.

Bullcrap, buddy.

A) I think the Godwin, while certainly a true Godwin, was justified, given that moral indoctrination was a Soviet and Nazi technique, and that this is, essentially, moral indoctriniation ala Brave New World's Hypnopaedia.

B) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504350_3

Ahhh a liberterian. :rolleyes:

Sorry to spoil your tin hat theory but there is no plan by the goverment to brainwash the kiddies into being gay.

Did I say there was? No, I did not.

Please respond to the points I actually made, rather than throwing out broad (and incorrect) assumptions. They only serve to make you look like you have no answer.

A) I think the Godwin, while certainly a true Godwin, was justified, given that moral indoctrination was a Soviet and Nazi technique, and that this is, essentially, moral indoctriniation ala Brave New World's Hypnopaedia.

So is teaching your kid that gays are immoral.

Bullcrap, buddy.

A) I think the Godwin, while certainly a true Godwin, was justified, given that moral indoctrination was a Soviet and Nazi technique, and that this is, essentially, moral indoctriniation ala Brave New World's Hypnopaedia.

B) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504350_3

The Godwin comment was sarcasm.

Again there is no brainwashing. You need a little more tin foil for your hat.

The link requires a login......

I'm sorry, but a 13 year old can not reasonably make complicated descisions like that. They simply do not yet have the mental development needed for that. It is certainly wrong to try to force-feed them answers to the questions.

You have a fairly low opinion of the abilities of 13 year olds, and still see "How would you cope in this situation" as "OMG!!!!!! LOVE THE GAYS!"

Did I say there was? No, I did not.

Please respond to the points I actually made, rather than throwing out broad (and incorrect) assumptions. They only serve to make you look like you have no answer.

It's called probes boyo. It tossed out to see where you are comming from.

So you are not of the Liberterian ilk.

You have to prove the conspiracy of brainwashing let alone this claim that a 13 year old can't make decessions.

It's hogwash pure and simple.

Kids are involved in wars. Kids rise to take over their parents place in aids decimated Africa.

Sorry you are wrong.

You have a fairly low opinion of the abilities of 13 year olds, and still see "How would you cope in this situation" as "OMG!!!!!! LOVE THE GAYS!"

Now now. You are part of the conspiracy to brainwash the kids!

How many gays did you make today? ;)

Actually, no - it offends me to hear people justifying US imperialism and war-mongering, but I think it is a legitimate position.

Bigotry is not.

You are oversimplifying the subject. The question of the wrongs and rights of bigotry is not so simple as a three word summary can answer. It has taken thousands of years of philosophical truth to reach that understanding, and to paint it as a black-white issue is to misrepresent it wholly.

The assignment was fine. There should be more of them.

Making people reconsider their bigoted prejudices is perfectly acceptable.

So you beleive it is Ok for the state to teach, say, racism because it makes people reconsider their bigoted prejudices against it? That is totally disengenuous. You would be up in arms if it was drawing a conclusion you didn't like.

It is "pragmatic" to murder someone for personal gain if I won't get caught. Yet it violates the social contract.

Under the social contract, you don't kill because you want the contracts defense. So it is pragmatic.

Similarly, if you wish to reduce everything to a calculation of self-interest, the teacher can do as she pleases, and you can do as you please to stop her. It is pointless to speak of what she can and cannot do under the terms of the social contract.

That shows a basic misunderstanding of Locke's philosophy. The Social Contract banished anarchy, saying that we gave up some rights to gain others.


Why not? Certain views are pretty clearly wrong; others aren't. Do you want Intelligent Design taught in public school?

Slightly different. There is an objective scientific truth to Evolution. Such is not the case in moral questions.

Again, I have no problem tolerating a variety of views - as long as those views meet basic standards. Bigotry is out.

Basically, as long as it doesn't offend you too much it is fine. :rolleyes:

Now now. You are part of the conspiracy to brainwash the kids!

How many gays did you make today? ;)

I wish I was gay. Gay is special.

Kids are involved in wars. Kids rise to take over their parents place in aids decimated Africa.



These situations are not ideal.
Just because a kid can be forced to bear increadible responsability (and even more increadible, can survive under it), does not mean that they are developmentally prepared to do so.

You have a fairly low opinion of the abilities of 13 year olds, and still see "How would you cope in this situation" as "OMG!!!!!! LOVE THE GAYS!"

I think that there is a difference between what was asked, and where the question led. It is completely disshonest not to acknowledge the direction given in the question, and it's clear intent. However, the question itself is phrased in a way that isn't so obvious.

You're an English teacher, no? You should know the difference between what people say and what they mean.

Has anyone noticed that it only took one assignment to fail a class, a health class? Either this kid was seriously slacking off or this teacher wasn't giving enough assignments to the class. Missing one paper should not make you fail health. Health is supposed to be easy.

I wish I was gay. Gay is special.

Silly. Don't you know you can "choose" to be gay? ;)
Go ahead. Cease your chance!

The Godwin comment was sarcasm.

Again there is no brainwashing. You need a little more tin foil for your hat.

The link requires a login......

Weird.. I got it on google...

it says The final portion of the brain to mature is the front of the brain, largely dominated by the prefrontal cortex. This section of the brain, termed the "area of sober second thought," is responsible for rational, executive brain functions (Wallis, 2004, p. 61). Such skills as organizing thoughts, weighing consequences, assuming responsibility, and interpreting emotions are developed during the growth, pruning, and myelinization of the front part of the brain. This is the last area of the brain to mature and is thought to develop well into the 20s.

search: Development of decision making sections of the brain on google, and go to the fifth option.

These situations are not ideal.
Just because a kid can be forced to bear increadible responsability (and even more increadible, can survive under it), does not mean that they are developmentally prepared to do so.

Developmentally prepared would be nice but that's not reality. Many many kids may not be ready to confront such things. But they do. Which is the point he refuses to accept.

We are rather amazing adaptable creatures.

These situations are not ideal.
Just because a kid can be forced to bear increadible responsability (and even more increadible, can survive under it), does not mean that they are developmentally prepared to do so.

I have friends that have been through hard times and they've become better, stonger people because of it. This is how we learn and grow.

So is teaching your kid that gays are immoral.

Parents aren't the state. Parents are concerned (for the most part) with the wellbeing of the child, and not with the preservation of power. The same is not true of the political world.

Yes, brainwashing is wrong, and a responsible parent offers their child every side of the story, and lets them make their own descision. That doesn't give the state the right to decide what morals people should have.

Developmentally prepared would be nice but that's not reality. Many many kids may not be ready to confront such things. But they do. Which is the point he refuses to accept.

We are rather amazing adaptable creatures.

Just because we do do something, doesn't mean we should do something or that it is optimal to do so.

I could drive 100 MPH in a school zone. That doesn't mean I should.

Has anyone noticed that it only took one assignment to fail a class, a health class? Either this kid was seriously slacking off or this teacher wasn't giving enough assignments to the class. Missing one paper should not make you fail health. Health is supposed to be easy.

Depends ont he course. I have had some where a paper was weighed rather heavy. But you are right there are details missing especially since the "spin" seems to be about a poor christian being oppressed again.

Developmentally prepared would be nice but that's not reality. Many many kids may not be ready to confront such things. But they do. Which is the point he refuses to accept.

We are rather amazing adaptable creatures.

I agree 100%.
And I think it's relevant to this disscusion to note that (thought obviosly to a lesser extent, than, say, AIDS ophans) children from oppresed groups are forced to confront and deal with these issues much sooner than thier priveledged peers.
AND I think it's important for us to be concious of the ways in which we delibrately exposed children to complex moral issues, what the good we expect to gain from it is, what can be reasonably be expected, and what the potential costs may be.

You are oversimplifying the subject. The question of the wrongs and rights of bigotry is not so simple as a three word summary can answer. It has taken thousands of years of philosophical truth to reach that understanding, and to paint it as a black-white issue is to misrepresent it wholly.

Yeah! Maybe the Nazis had a point when they said that the dirty Jews should all have been exterminated... we really should grant their point of view serious consideration. And the KKK may well have been right about black people... perhaps we should re-enslave them?

So you beleive it is Ok for the state to teach, say, racism because it makes people reconsider their bigoted prejudices against it? That is totally disengenuous. You would be up in arms if it was drawing a conclusion you didn't like.

Teaching bigotry and teaching tolerance are opposites, you know.

Under the social contract, you don't kill because you want the contracts defense. So it is pragmatic.

I will get the contract's defense anyway; after all, no one will know that I killed the person. Why should I care?

That shows a basic misunderstanding of Locke's philosophy.

And Locke, of course, was the only contract theorist. :rolleyes:

The Social Contract banished anarchy, saying that we gave up some rights to gain others.

If the theory were truly value-neutral, there would be no talk of "rights" preceding the Social Contract.

Locke was concerned with the moral justification for property and government - not with constructing a value-neutral framework. God plays a big part in his moral theory; he was no relativist.

If anyone, you are thinking of Hobbes.

Slightly different. There is an objective scientific truth to Evolution. Such is not the case in moral questions.

True, but why is that relevant? In both cases, you are imposing a point of view on people; if you are object to one, you should object to the other.

Basically, as long as it doesn't offend you too much it is fine. :rolleyes:

No, just as long as it isn't bigotry.

Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.

I think any teacher that tells their students not to share something they talk about in class with their parents is out of line. They need to remember that parents, not school teachers, are the care givers and cheif educators of their children. They are just there to help, not usurp the role parents are supposed to fill.

The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance

Don't you see that refusing to tolerate their intolerance is being just as intolerant as they are?

Depends ont he course. I have had some where a paper was weighed rather heavy. But you are right there are details missing especially since the "spin" seems to be about a poor christian being oppressed again.

It's just that, its a health course, you're not supposed to have papers in health courses. Its supposed to be the the easiest course in the school. When I took health in middle school, I skipped about a third of the homework and still got a B.

Don't you see that refusing to tolerate their intolerance is being just as intolerant as they are?

Well if you were the first one to be intolerent, then you shouldn't be surprised when people are intolerrent to you. Thats karma dude.

gah, I'm stuck between feeling mildly relieved that we aren't the only ones this screwed up and depressed that we aren't the only ones this screwed up. :(

Yeah! Maybe the Nazis had a point when they said that the dirty Jews should all have been exterminated... we really should grant their point of view serious consideration. And the KKK may well have been right about black people... perhaps we should re-enslave them?

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Teaching bigotry and teaching tolerance are opposites, you know.

And because you just know that one of them is right, you must be the moral authority!

I will get the contract's defense anyway; after all, no one will know that I killed the person. Why should I care?

You certainly don't have to. At all. However, you run the risk of being captured and losing your liberty.

And Locke, of course, was the only contract theorist. :rolleyes:

If the theory were truly value-neutral, there would be no talk of "rights" preceding the Social Contract.

Locke was concerned with the moral justification for property and government - not with constructing a value-neutral framework. God plays a big part in his moral theory; he was no relativist.

If anyone, you are thinking of Hobbes.

My bad. You are correct.


True, but why is that relevant? In both cases, you are imposing a point of view on people; if you are object to one, you should object to the other.

Because subjective things, like morals, and objective things, like science, are two very seperate things. Objective facts are wrong or right. Subjective ones are Right, or Right.

Who was it that said "There are two kinds of truth in the world. The opposite of a little truth is a lie, but the opposite of a big Truth is another Truth."?

No, just as long as it isn't bigotry.

That is completely irrational.

Well if you were the first one to be intolerent, then you shouldn't be surprised when people are intolerrent to you. Thats karma dude.

"But mommy! He started it!"

Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how hard we try to make them seem that way. Be the more mature person and shrug and say "I despise, that which you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say and think it."

And yes, I know Voltaire didn't say that, but it is correct no matter who said it.

Who was it that said "There are two kinds of truth in the world. The opposite of a little truth is a lie, but the opposite of a big Truth is another Truth."?
.

Niels Bohr. And what he said was "There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." But you got the idea.

This was simply an exercise in thinking from another person's perspective. It is something I do all the time. I think about why people believe that being gay is wrong, why abortions are wrong and such. While I maintain that I disagree with these opinions I still try to understand why people feel this way.

"But mommy! He started it!"

Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how hard we try to make them seem that way. Be the more mature person and shrug and say "I despise, that which you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say and think it."

And yes, I know Voltaire didn't say that, but it is correct no matter who said it.

I agree with you. Do you agree with you? If you do then we have an agreement.

I dont see why the school had this in at all, dont go saying that since I think the school was at fault im some sorta anti gay bigot or something, that is what people who are closed minded to people disagreing say. Im very libral socialist and of all the people all my aunts and uncles married, the one i like the most, is my aunts wife, she is cool

If someone objects to something morally, and it is something that is strongly political it shouldnt be in the school, I also dont think that christian functions should be held at schools. want to teach diversity, forcing it wont work. What this school is going to teach is homophobic anti gay retorict, by forcing people who may be just slightly anti gay, and be able to live with it to be something else, they will be repulsed and become much more anti gay. Forcing tolorence is like shooting people to keep them safe. It never works

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Neither my life nor my moral beliefs are "unexamined," quite the opposite.

And because you just know that one of them is right, you must be the moral authority!

All morality is autocratic.

You certainly don't have to. At all. However, you run the risk of being captured and losing your liberty.

Murder is wrong whatever the pragmatic considerations. The "social contract" is irrelevant.

Because subjective things, like morals, and objective things, like science, are two very seperate things. Objective facts are wrong or right. Subjective ones are Right, or Right.

No, they are right or wrong, but not objectively true or false.

That is completely irrational.

Discouraging bigotry is not irrational.

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.
I am not sure what makes you think the question is pointed.

All the question has done is ask you to put yourself in someone elses shoes. ie display empathy. It does not dictate the moral response to being placed in that situation. And in fact does not suggest any particular moral or ethical result from you doing so.

Would you object to a question asking a small child to write about what it would be like to be an astronaut? Would it be a problem because it might make them think it would not be as easy as they imagined? Some children would just write about all the cool stuff you would get to do.. others would realise the amount of work involved. One answer isn't right or wrong.

Role play is an important part of education. Asking people to imagine what it would be like to be something you are not is in no way dictating a totalitarian set of morals in order for the government to control our minds.. I really think that suggestion is taking things way too far.

The student was asked to roleplay a situation. And in fact one that really didn't even suggest that the role she would have to play would be any different from herself. She wasn't asked to pretend she was gay... just that was in a odd situation.

Would it have been abhorent for her to write an essay such as. "Imagine you are living in a colony on the moon where everyone is twice as tall as you" Would that be a leading thing to do. Would you be immediately expected to feel that short people have a rough life? The question in no way dictated that you find that it would be tough to be short.. that would be a conclusion drawn on your own personal set of experiences and morals.

Which I imagine was the point of the essay.

Why is the question she was given any different?

If she could argue based on her own personal set of morals and ethics that this imaginary situation would be easy for her to deal with then that would have been fine provided she gave a good explanation of why that was so.

To not answer the qestion at all is just lazy... not morally strong as the article suggests.

Homosexuality is a growing occurence, and yes, it should be touched upon.

But making a school assignment about it? Absurd!

I'm still amused by the blatant double standard in this thread. I would be unsuprised if many of the people who are laughing it off became highly offended if a homosexual was failed for refusing an assignment that asked them to come to the conclusion that opressing a sexual minority because it was a threat was the proper action for a majority to take (Don't think that the opposite wasn't the intention of the assignment in the first place). The two aren't opposites. Unless there's some secret gay conspiracy to oppress Christians.

It would have been just fine if she had just been granted an alternative, but equally difficult question. She was not. Those of you who cackle about "bigots getting what they deserve" may need to remember that throwing stones is a bad idea, when one's domicile is made of glass.She didn't ask for one. She refused to do it pointblank.

And that seems a lot more definate than the vague reference to "sources" that the idea that they were asked to keep it from their parents was based on.

Yes, she was wrong. Yes, I dissagree with her. That does not make it anything but hypocrisy to ignore the fact that children should not feel that their ideologies are going to be directly challenged when they enter the classroom (At least, not by a teacher or an assignment).
What? If a classroom isn't the place to teach critical thinking, where is?

if a muslim was forced to write a paper about what it would be like to be a christian what and if they said no, and were failed for doing it. would you say that muslim bigiot got just waht was coming to them

if a muslim was forced to write a paper about what it would be like to be a christian what and if they said no, and were failed for doing it. would you say that muslim bigiot got just waht was coming to them

She wasn't asked to pretend to be gay...

If you're asking if I think setting an assignment where a Muslim is asked to imagine what it's like to be the minority religious group in a society, hypothetically that's valid. It'd just be a bit pointless to set it in a western school, for obvious reasons.

if a muslim was forced to write a paper about what it would be like to be a christian what and if they said no, and were failed for doing it. would you say that muslim bigiot got just waht was coming to them

Yes.

What? If a classroom isn't the place to teach critical thinking, where is?
So, so, so very true. A classroom doesn't do you any good unless it challenges you to examine and justify your beliefs and preconceptions.

She wasn't asked to pretend to be gay...

If you're asking if I think setting an assignment where a Muslim is asked to imagine what it's like to be the minority religious group in a society, hypothetically that's valid. It'd just be a bit pointless to set it in a western school, for obvious reasons.

she was asked to write about what it would be like, If muslims cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be christian, she cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be gay. Its a double standerd and hypocritic and wrong. If you said yes to this, as some did, then you are not a hypocrit. well unles you said the girl failing should have been, then you are for a diffrent reason :D

she was asked to write about what it would be like, If muslims cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be christian, she cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be gay. Its a double standerd and hypocritic and wrong. If you said yes to this, as some did, then you are not a hypocrit. well unles you said the girl failing should have been, then you are for a diffrent reason :D
SHE WASN'T BEING ASKED TO WRITE ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE GAY. She was asked to write about what it would be like if she were A HETERO in a predominantly homosexual society (by the way, I read a good book recently that included a similar scenario).

if a muslim was forced to write a paper about what it would be like to be a christian what and if they said no, and were failed for doing it. would you say that muslim bigiot got just waht was coming to them

I don't think that is really a similar annalogy.

Perhaps if you were talking about say an assignment set in iran asking the student to write an assignment assuming they ( amuslim studnet) lived in a predominately christian society (say australia or the US), and how they would feel, and the muslim student refused to answer the essay because they said they didn't believe in the christians and so got failed... perhaps that would be a more appropriate annalogy.

And no I would have no problem with that.. clearly the student would be just trying to get out of doing some work because its pretty clear that christians and australia and the US do exist..

Supporting her decission not to answer would be like Iranian parents complaining about the assignment because it might make people become christians...or at least believe in christians...

she was asked to write about what it would be like, If muslims cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be christian, she cant be forced to write about what it would be like to be gay. Its a double standerd and hypocritic and wrong. If you said yes to this, as some did, then you are not a hypocrit. well unles you said the girl failing should have been, then you are for a diffrent reason :D

You really need to read news stories properly before you comment on them.

i have no idea what your comment on the US means with anything i said. And It is relevent. People bash christianity cause it is bigger, that is bigoty and racism.

i have no idea what your comment on the US means with anything i said. And It is relevent. People bash christianity cause it is bigger, that is bigoty and racism.

The teacher wasn't bashing Christianity. (And you have a point on bigotry I think. But Christians aren't a race, so it isn't racism).

i have no idea what your comment on the US means with anything i said. And It is relevent. People bash christianity cause it is bigger, that is bigoty and racism.
Trust me, people bash EVERYTHING. There are at least as many anti-Muslim threads on this forum as there are anti-Christian threads (and there are twice as many Christians out there as Muslims). Granted, there isn't much Jew-bashing, because that quickly descends into Godwin's Law.

But for now, don't comment on a thread if you're too ignorant to understand what people are saying (and they stated it quite clearly, too).

SHE WASN'T BEING ASKED TO WRITE ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE GAY. She was asked to write about what it would be like if she were A HETERO in a predominantly homosexual society (by the way, I read a good book recently that included a similar scenario).

Finally! I've been getting pissed off by how many people haven't read it correctly.

if a muslim was forced to write a paper about what it would be like to be a christian what and if they said no, and were failed for doing it. would you say that muslim bigiot got just waht was coming to them

If he refused to do the assignment then he deserves a failing grade.

I'm still amused by the blatant double standard in this thread. I would be unsuprised if many of the people who are laughing it off became highly offended if a homosexual was failed for refusing an assignment that asked them to come to the conclusion that opressing a sexual minority because it was a threat was the proper action for a majority to take (Don't think that the opposite wasn't the intention of the assignment in the first place).

It would have been just fine if she had just been granted an alternative, but equally difficult question. She was not. Those of you who cackle about "bigots getting what they deserve" may need to remember that throwing stones is a bad idea, when one's domicile is made of glass.

Yes, she was wrong. Yes, I dissagree with her. That does not make it anything but hypocrisy to ignore the fact that children should not feel that their ideologies are going to be directly challenged when they enter the classroom (At least, not by a teacher or an assignment).


Again, not the point.
She wasn't asked to come to any conclusions but her own, she was not asked to outline why her own ideas were wrong. She was simply asked to describe how she would feel in a situation were she is part of a minority due to her sexual orientation.
There were no right or wrong answers.

And I'm not even saying that not doing this assignment was wrong. But I'm saying it was right to fail her for not doing the work. Simple.

Because that wasn't the question.

The question was "If you were a heterosexual in a homosexual world, how would you feel?"

If we are honest the question really means: "How must homosexuals feel, living in our world?"

that is a pointed question.

And making children think about how others must feel is wrong because ...?

Her response was that the question itself was one that was dishonest and unfair. It is dishonest in all ways to ask a child of 13 to confront such a question. She should not be punished for her teacher's incompetance.

We've been through that one earlier on, I think.
Why should a child of 13 not be asked to consider the treatment of minorities in society?

I'm sorry, but a 13 year old can not reasonably make complicated descisions like that. They simply do not yet have the mental development needed for that. It is certainly wrong to try to force-feed them answers to the questions.

What decision are you talking about? Being gay? That's not a decision, hon, and many kids know about their orientation well before the age of 13.
And how were there any answers force-fed in this assignment? It asked to describe feelings, it didn't say what those feelings would have to be.

I am of the opinion that a 13 year old cannot be expected to rationally and independantly wrestle with complex moral questions. I consider racism, meat-eating, and corporal punishment to all be cases where a rational descision would be beyond the means of a child of that age. However, an especially active issue, like that of homosexual rights is one where students are double handicapped, because of the big rhetoric thrown around.

Have you never been 13 yourself? Or have you just completely forgotten about that time?
Of course kids that age can deal with complex moral questions. We used to discuss death penalty, women's right, abortions, genocide, environmental issues, wars, racism and labour laws at school when I was 13. Our teachers regarded it as their jobs to provide as much information from both sides as they possibly could, but would themselves remain neutral in any discussions.

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.


NONE of this is implied in the question.
She could simply have replied that it would indeed make her feel like an outsider, but that her faith would keep her strong in the face of adversity. That she would take comfort in the knowledge that her orientation was the right one because it says so in the bible, and that all discrimination she would suffer would bring her reward in the next life.

Simple, isn't it?

Hogwash yourself. There are descision making centers in the brain that simply don't begin to open until a child gets older. 13 year olds are still chidlren, no matter what they would have others beleive.

School is not about brainwashing or about confronting children with subjective opinions. That is called "reeducation" and when the Nazis and Soviets did it, we thought it was unnaceptablie. It should be the same in this case (and if it were in oposition to your opinion on the matter, I expect it would be).

Are you honestly saying that children under the age of 16 aren't able to make complex decisions?
I decided that my life would be better if I stayed with my mother when my parents split up... and guess what? I was right.
I decided on a lot of my moral values when I was around 13, and at age 32 I still hold most of them.

perhaps a lot of kids know about their orientation before they are 13, but what about those who are uncomfortable dealing with the subject? I agree that the assignment should not have been given to such a young group. perhaps 15 would have been better.

What comes to mind when you think of a gay community? you first think of it in a sexual reference. And yet, movies are rated PG-13 for sexual references and strong violence, and strong language.

I am straight and a christian. But if a 15 yr old were given the assignment and refused to do it, I'd say fail her, if she claims religious grounds. She could easily have expounded on the wrongs of homosexuality and how it was biblically wrong and how they'd go to hell, if she wanted.

I think the main problem here was the age group and also keeping it a secret from their parents. Children MUST be allowed to confide anything to their parents. Especially if it makes them feel uncomfortable. The school cannot have first rule over children.

I notice that the side of the debate that supports this action by the girl's family keeps avoiding this question. So once more. Would you support the right of a student who's racist to refuse to do any assignments mentioning black people.

Because it's a part of their religious belief. Say that they're members of Christian Identity.

Yes or no. It seems a simple enough question so it's odd that you're all evading it.

Yes.
Next question?

I don't think Christians should be racist! No, I would not support her family if she refused to do an assignment concerning blacks. Unless it was something that was demeaning to herself as a human being. Like, imagine if she was raped by a black or something.

Imagine the mental trauma or something. That would be dumb of the school. Because being raped by anybody is traumatic. Just as a 13 yr old imagining the sexual orientation of those around her and describing that feeling is an inappropriate.

I don't think Christians should be racist! No, I would not support her family if she refused to do an assignment concerning blacks. Unless it was something that was demeaning to herself as a human being. Like, imagine if she was raped by a black or something.

Imagine the mental trauma or something. That would be dumb of the school. Because being raped by anybody is traumatic. Just as a 13 yr old imagining the sexual orientation of those around her and describing that feeling is an inappropriate.

And yet, our judgement on most issues in life rests on the thought "How would we feel if that was us"?
What makes that question inappropriate? She wasn't asked to imagine being something that she is not. She was just asked how she would feel if she was part of a minority based on her sexual orientation.

I don't think Christians should be racist! No, I would not support her family if she refused to do an assignment concerning blacks. Unless it was something that was demeaning to herself as a human being. Like, imagine if she was raped by a black or something.

Imagine the mental trauma or something. That would be dumb of the school. Because being raped by anybody is traumatic. Just as a 13 yr old imagining the sexual orientation of those around her and describing that feeling is an inappropriate.

Being raped is equivilant to being surrounded by gay people?

Being raped is equivilant to being surrounded by gay people?

no but it's more the equivalent of being around christians...

However, teaching acceptance is not the place of the public schools.

*cough* INTEGRATION! *cough*

I've already adressed that question. It is disengenuous at best.

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.

Well, there is a whole buncha stuff about tolerance in schools, what with the remnants of racism and all...

Stuff applies to gays. (Yes, it is against the rules to gay-bash at school (the one in my area, anyway)).

Have you never been 13 yourself? Or have you just completely forgotten about that time?
Of course kids that age can deal with complex moral questions. We used to discuss death penalty, women's right, abortions, genocide, environmental issues, wars, racism and labour laws at school when I was 13. Our teachers regarded it as their jobs to provide as much information from both sides as they possibly could, but would themselves remain neutral in any discussions.
Indeed. It's amazing how many people really seem to want us to infantilize teenagers.

People, there are 13 year olds who HAVE SEX. There are 13 year olds getting PREGNANT. Most 13 year olds are already starting puberty. Most people have their first "sexual" feelings by 13, and many people long before that.

13 year olds watch TV, listen to the radio, and talk to other human beings. THEY KNOW ABOUT SEX. They know. They know that there's this thing called "fucking" and that everybody is totally wigging out about it.

If it bothers people that teens know about sex, that's just too damn bad. They know. They know about homosexuality. They're discussing it already. Many of them are experiencing it first hand.

You do not have the choice of magically keeping 13 year olds isolated from this issue. You choice is, do you want them to learn from responsible and respectable adults in a safe and constructive environment, or do you want all their "education" to come from TV and what they hear in the lockerroom? Do you want kids to learn about sex from reputable educators using peer-reviewed and accurate material, or do you want them to learn about it from trial-and-error field studies of their own?

The terms of the question are: "What would it be like to be a heterosexual living in a homosexual community."

Which, of course, really reffers to: "What would it be like to be a homosexual living in a heterosexual community?"

Which is meant to lead to: "Pretty damn shitty."

And we come back to the point the question points to: "Homosexuals should be treated better."

That statement is a political opinion, and not one the state should be teaching either side on.
Hold on a moment there.

If the line of questions works the way you suggest, and if there really is only ONE reasonable conclusion (as you appear to be suggesting), then that would be what is referred to as a "fact." If there is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this exercise, then this whole issue really has nothing to do with "opinions," any more than 2+2=4 is a matter of opinion.

Teaching facts is what school is for.

On the other hand, if it is possible to hold a different opinion of the situation (as most people around here seem to be asserting), then it would have been quite possible for the girl to do the assignment while maintaining her beliefs.

That's what really cheeses me off about this. NOBODY WAS FORCING HER TO CHANGE HER BELIEFS. All she was asked to do was examine her beliefs and then write about it.

If it is impossible for somebody to maintain homophobia while also imagining what it would be like to be on the receiving end of bigotry, then I think you just made a great case for why this kind of assignment should be mandatory in every school in America. Have you ever heard the expression, "Be prepared to take what you dish out"?

That bigotry should not be taught is good (After all, it creates a hostile learning environment and harms the wellbeing of students). However, teaching acceptance is not the place of the public schools. The schools should not exist to teach people wrong or right. That duty falls on the community, and on parents.What? Since when are schools not part of the community? Not only are they part of the community, they're also one of the parts where you're pretty much guaranteed to have to interact with other people, making it perfect for training acceptance of others.

But if you prefer to learn tolerance and acceptance and social behavior through books...

What? Since when are schools not part of the community? Not only are they part of the community, they're also one of the parts where you're pretty much guaranteed to have to interact with other people, making it perfect for training acceptance of others.

But if you prefer to learn tolerance and acceptance and social behavior through books...

"Not being a Racist For Dummies"

*cough* INTEGRATION! *cough*
This got me thinking:

People are viewing the whole "tolerance" issue as a political and philosophical topic, when it could just as easily be viewed as pure pragmatism.

There are gay students in school. Whether or not you agree with it, that's just how it is. Gay kids are in schools, and your kids are going to have to deal with it.

Schools have to maintain order and a productive learning environment. If kids are routinely insulting or harassing one another, this makes the environment less productive. For instance, if there are a bunch of white kids and black kids clashing over racial problems, that's going to take time and energy away from learning. It's going to occupy resources and detract from the school environment.

So we need kids to BEHAVE respectfully and appropriately toward one another, even if they don't like each other.

Now, it hardly seems fair to expect kids to be able to perform a given task if they've never been shown how it's done, particularly if a whole lot of grown-ups can't even manage that task. So it seems reasonable to suggest that we need to give kids some instruction on how to behave respectfully and appropriately.

It is possible to simply force people to act a certain way, even if they hate it. However, it's much easier to get people to behave themselves if you help them see why they might WANT to behave themselves. Instead of using rules and punishments to force kids to be nice, it's often much easier to simply show them why being nice is...well, nice. Why they might want to choose to be nice for their own reasons. Then they are motivated by their own feelings, so you don't have to police them 24/7.

It is quite possible for a person to understand why it is good to be nice even to those you do not like. I am often nice to people I don't like. I am often nice to people who I do not agree with. I am often nice to people who make choices that I find lousy. I do this, in large part, because of my sense of empathy for others. I know how I would like to be treated, and how I would not like to be treated, and I try to make my behavior fit with my own wishes.

Teaching kids to be respectful of those they don't agree with is, pragmatically, important for schooling. It's an important skill for any member of society to have. One of the most efficient and productive ways of achieving this is to teach people why behaving respectfully is good for THEM. Then they are more likely to choose to behave appropriately even when nobody's looking.

What decision are you talking about? Being gay? That's not a decision, hon, and many kids know about their orientation well before the age of 13.
And how were there any answers force-fed in this assignment? It asked to describe feelings, it didn't say what those feelings would have to be.

I meant the complex philosophical and personal descision of "How should we treat X group, knowing what we know."

I know that at age 13, we may have thought ourselves Gods (we probably did at 16 as well, when we drove our car over the side-railing of the road), but we were, in fact, not all that wise. There are descision making skills that are not present in the minds of 13 year-olds, and it abuses them both to ask them to use them, and to give them pre-packaged beleifs before they are too young to analyze them.

I meant the complex philosophical and personal descision of "How should we treat X group, knowing what we know."

I know that at age 13, we may have thought ourselves Gods (we probably did at 16 as well, when we drove our car over the side-railing of the road), but we were, in fact, not all that wise. There are descision making skills that are not present in the minds of 13 year-olds, and it abuses them both to ask them to use them, and to give them pre-packaged beleifs before they are too young to analyze them.

How is asking them to imagine themselves as the ones in the minority giving them 'pre-packaged beliefs'. If anything it's asking them to question the beliefs they already have.

NONE of this is implied in the question.
She could simply have replied that it would indeed make her feel like an outsider, but that her faith would keep her strong in the face of adversity. That she would take comfort in the knowledge that her orientation was the right one because it says so in the bible, and that all discrimination she would suffer would bring her reward in the next life.

Simple, isn't it?

No, and that is a totally intellectually dishonest way of looking at the question. The text of what it says is very different from the way the question is pointed and implied. You may choose to pretend that it was a bland, academic question, but the nature of the question was one that was not open ended to reply, but rather specifically pointed to conclusion.

What? Since when are schools not part of the community? Not only are they part of the community, they're also one of the parts where you're pretty much guaranteed to have to interact with other people, making it perfect for training acceptance of others.

But if you prefer to learn tolerance and acceptance and social behavior through books...

Schools are a represenetative of the government. The government is not a "part of the community" it is a broader, more authoritative entity. It should never tell people what to beleive on a subjective question.

I meant the complex philosophical and personal descision of "How should we treat X group, knowing what we know."

Dude, the Golden Rule is a concept I was introduced to in preschool. Teenagers are MORE than capable of grasping it.


I know that at age 13, we may have thought ourselves Gods (we probably did at 16 as well, when we drove our car over the side-railing of the road), but we were, in fact, not all that wise. There are descision making skills that are not present in the minds of 13 year-olds, and it abuses them both to ask them to use them, and to give them pre-packaged beleifs before they are too young to analyze them.
Most of us never thought we were gods, we just figured we were teenage human beings who were capable of understanding the concept of "It's shitty to treat other people like shit."

I don't know where you live, but kids where I live are not morons. They deal with racism, homophobia, sexism, and all manner of bigotry, and they've got a lot of very intelligent things to say about all of it. They're perceptive and aware of their world to an extent that would probably shock you. If you baby them, you'll just be encouraging them to act like babies. They can do much better.

No, and that is a totally intellectually dishonest way of looking at the question. The text of what it says is very different from the way the question is pointed and implied. You may choose to pretend that it was a bland, academic question, but the nature of the question was one that was not open ended to reply, but rather specifically pointed to conclusion.It is indeed pointed and implied, because it is more relevant to the social context that the students grow up in. It's not a simple "We all agree that you shouldn't discriminate according to skin color" theme. It actually makes the students think.

No, and that is a totally intellectually dishonest way of looking at the question. The text of what it says is very different from the way the question is pointed and implied. You may choose to pretend that it was a bland, academic question, but the nature of the question was one that was not open ended to reply, but rather specifically pointed to conclusion.

So that fact that I do think about what she, coming from her religious background, might have felt aobut the subject is intellectually dishonest??

And what percisely in the text tells you that? There is no indicatin that the teacher was actively trying to get the children to consider homosexuals vicitms. He asked them how they would feel if roles were reveserd. Simple.

Why is this front page news? Continue to read:

Teen failed for stand on gays
Darrell Giles
October 08, 2006 12:00am


A 13-YEAR-OLD student was failed after she refused to write an assignment on life in a gay community, because of her religious and moral beliefs.

Her outraged mother, Christian groups and the State Opposition want an investigation into the treatment of the Year 9 student at Windaroo Valley State High School, south of Brisbane.


"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the Government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney told The Sunday Mail yesterday.

The uproar came as Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop this week announced plans for Canberra to take control of school curriculums from the states, accusing "ideologues" of hijacking the education system .

The girl was among a class of 13 and 14-year-olds asked to imagine living as a heterosexual among a mostly homosexual colony on the moon as part of their health and physical education subject.

They had to answer 10 questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.

They said many of the students were uncomfortable with the subject matter or did not understand the questions.

The 13-year-old girl instantly refused to do the assignment on religious and moral grounds.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher, who responded by failing her.

After a series of discussions between the school and her mother, it was suggested the girl would be better off leaving the state education system and attending an independent school.

The girl's mother said yesterday she did not learn of the assignment until reading her daughter's report card several weeks later and discovered a first-ever fail mark for health and physical education.

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the mother, who asked to be identified only as Bronwyn.

She said she was shown the assignment. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' . . . I was shocked by the content," she said.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.

"She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

Bronwyn was concerned that her daughter was not given an alternative scenario.

She said the school claimed it was powerless to change the curriculum.

Bronwyn said the school seemed more concerned about how parents found out about the assignment.

"That's what concerns me most . . . the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," Bronwyn said.

Ms Bishop said the incident highlighted her concerns.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said yesterday.

"Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

The State Opposition and Australian Christian Lobby demanded an investigation.

Mr Seeney said Queensland needed common sense back in the classroom.

"The Beattie Labor Government has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said.

"It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs.

"It's not the job of our schools to politicise our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and maths."

Christian Lobby state director Peter Earle said the assignment was not about education, rather a teacher or school pushing their own agenda on young minds.

"The subject matter was totally inappropriate," he said.

After being approached by The Sunday Mail, an Education Queensland spokeswoman late yesterday said the school had decided to drop the assignment from its curriculum and would work with the girl and her family to achieve a "satisfactory resolution".

"The aim of the assignment was to encourage students to think about diversity, culture and belief systems," she said.

"Schools can offer alternative assessment topics in consultation with parents, if the school is aware of concerns about an assignment."

_________________________________________________________________

Because heaven forbid, she actually be confronted with how her viewpoints actually affect people. The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance, understanding and reading comprehension. The assignment didn't actually ask her to imagine she was gay, agree with the homosexual orientation, or even debate homosexuality. What it did was ask her to imagine what it would feel like to be in a minority.

And for fuck's sake, what did she expect for refusing to do the assignment? Why should I go to extra work for her just because she has offensive and bigoted views?


Way I see it, she should've done it regardless. You don't like gay people? Too bad. Nobody cares if you don't, especially not your teacher. Part of an education is learning to see things through another perspective, and thats part of it. She should be failed, and they should tell her mother that.

Just my opinion...

Schools are a represenetative of the government. The government is not a "part of the community" it is a broader, more authoritative entity. It should never tell people what to beleive on a subjective question.Yes, but they are not a representative of the government to the degree that a congressman is. Teachers are part of the community. Other students are part of the community. It would be ludicrous to write of the social obligation schools have simply because "they are representatives of the government".

This got me thinking:

People are viewing the whole "tolerance" issue as a political and philosophical topic, when it could just as easily be viewed as pure pragmatism.

There are gay students in school. Whether or not you agree with it, that's just how it is. Gay kids are in schools, and your kids are going to have to deal with it.

Schools have to maintain order and a productive learning environment. If kids are routinely insulting or harassing one another, this makes the environment less productive. For instance, if there are a bunch of white kids and black kids clashing over racial problems, that's going to take time and energy away from learning. It's going to occupy resources and detract from the school environment.

So we need kids to BEHAVE respectfully and appropriately toward one another, even if they don't like each other.

Now, it hardly seems fair to expect kids to be able to perform a given task if they've never been shown how it's done, particularly if a whole lot of grown-ups can't even manage that task. So it seems reasonable to suggest that we need to give kids some instruction on how to behave respectfully and appropriately.

It is possible to simply force people to act a certain way, even if they hate it. However, it's much easier to get people to behave themselves if you help them see why they might WANT to behave themselves. Instead of using rules and punishments to force kids to be nice, it's often much easier to simply show them why being nice is...well, nice. Why they might want to choose to be nice for their own reasons. Then they are motivated by their own feelings, so you don't have to police them 24/7.

It is quite possible for a person to understand why it is good to be nice even to those you do not like. I am often nice to people I don't like. I am often nice to people who I do not agree with. I am often nice to people who make choices that I find lousy. I do this, in large part, because of my sense of empathy for others. I know how I would like to be treated, and how I would not like to be treated, and I try to make my behavior fit with my own wishes.

Teaching kids to be respectful of those they don't agree with is, pragmatically, important for schooling. It's an important skill for any member of society to have. One of the most efficient and productive ways of achieving this is to teach people why behaving respectfully is good for THEM. Then they are more likely to choose to behave appropriately even when nobody's looking.

It was beneficial towards the behavior of Adolphus Huxley's "Brave New World", that everyone learn to beleive the same things. Why was that wrong, if this is so right?

The schools have rules so that students feel safe and secure coming to school, not so that people learn to act a certain way. If we wanted everyone to act the same, it would be easy enough to brainwash them into doing so.

Schools are a represenetative of the government. The government is not a "part of the community" it is a broader, more authoritative entity. It should never tell people what to beleive on a subjective question.

Schools aren't representative of the government.

It is indeed pointed and implied, because it is more relevant to the social context that the students grow up in. It's not a simple "We all agree that you shouldn't discriminate according to skin color" theme. It actually makes the students think.
That really seems to be the main source of objections. Nobody is bitching about the idea that kids be taught to be respectful of other races, because we all agree that racism is BS. But there's "debate" about whether or not hating fags is ok, so let's not teach children about it!

30 years ago this assignment could have been about imagining you are a racial minority, and it would have gotten the same outcry from people who were shocked (shocked!) that children would be brainwashed to support multiculturalism. Does that mean that those racists were right back then? Should the Civil Rights Movement have waited until the racists were more comfortable with the idea of not lynching blacks?

It was beneficial towards the behavior of Adolphus Huxley's "Brave New World", that everyone learn to beleive the same things. Why was that wrong, if this is so right?

Because the slippery-slope falacy is just that: a falacy. ;)


The schools have rules so that students feel safe and secure coming to school, not so that people learn to act a certain way.

The schools have rules which require that people act a certain way. It is stupid to expect that kids will magically know rules without ever having been taught them.


If we wanted everyone to act the same, it would be easy enough to brainwash them into doing so.
Actually, human history has shown that it's damn near impossible to do that. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you never fool all of the people all of the time. :D

Dude, the Golden Rule is a concept I was introduced to in preschool. Teenagers are MORE than capable of grasping it.

As a moral authority, yes. As a moral question? I challenge you to find any 13 year old who can trule grasp the basic nature of the Golden Rule and show you a logical proof that it should be followed, rather than simply "Survival of the fittest."

Most of us never thought we were gods, we just figured we were teenage human beings who were capable of understanding the concept of "It's shitty to treat other people like shit."

I don't know where you live, but kids where I live are not morons. They deal with racism, homophobia, sexism, and all manner of bigotry, and they've got a lot of very intelligent things to say about all of it. They're perceptive and aware of their world to an extent that would probably shock you. If you baby them, you'll just be encouraging them to act like babies. They can do much better.

I don't know where you live, but where I live, a large majority of 13 year olds are more obsessed with skateboarding, the school basketball team, and their girl/boyfriend of the week. They have none of the descision making capacitys (I posted a link earlier, accept that it is true that the critical ability to weigh two options does not emerge until the late teens, at earliest) that are necessary to make a real, rational choice.

This isn't a matter of what I think, it is a matter of psychological fact. Deal with it honestly, please.

Schools aren't representative of the government.Depends. In Germany, for instance, teachers in public schoolse are officially employed by the state, in some cases at the same status that civil servants and police officers have.

Schools aren't representative of the government.

Um... Bullcrap?

- The Government sets educational standards
- the Government pays for the schools
- The Government hires the teachers
- The Government sets the ground-rules
- The Government created the schools

As a moral authority, yes. As a moral question? I challenge you to find any 13 year old who can trule grasp the basic nature of the Golden Rule and show you a logical proof that it should be followed, rather than simply "Survival of the fittest."And the capacity for discerning and logically proving the Golden Rule over the Survival of the Fittest doctrine was given to you on your 21st birthday, or did you develop it over time?

Um... Bullcrap?

- The Government sets educational standards
- the Government pays for the schools
- The Government hires the teachers
- The Government sets the ground-rules
- The Government created the schools

That doesn't spell representative of the government to me. Schools in Ireland are no more representatives of the government than Aer Lingus* used to be.

*Recently privatised state air fleet.

That really seems to be the main source of objections. Nobody is bitching about the idea that kids be taught to be respectful of other races, because we all agree that racism is BS. But there's "debate" about whether or not hating fags is ok, so let's not teach children about it!

30 years ago this assignment could have been about imagining you are a racial minority, and it would have gotten the same outcry from people who were shocked (shocked!) that children would be brainwashed to support multiculturalism. Does that mean that those racists were right back then? Should the Civil Rights Movement have waited until the racists were more comfortable with the idea of not lynching blacks?

:rolleyes:

You're being a demagogue. I'm saying that children need to be treated like children, and respected in the sanctity of their opinion, and their right to not be asked unfair questions until they are old enough to deal with them?

Do you think a 13 year old would have had the backbone to stand up to questions like the ones thrown at me, because I appear to be the sole dissenting voice on this thread? No! They'd break down quickly, and give up (not that I'm not that close, it's impossible to manage 5 different people at once and still keep a coherant debate going).

And on that note, I'm gonna have to stop posting, because I have class to get to. I'm sure there'll be another 25 to 30 posts coming back telling me how I'm at fault for the lynchings of the south.

As a moral authority, yes. As a moral question? I challenge you to find any 13 year old who can trule grasp the basic nature of the Golden Rule and show you a logical proof that it should be followed, rather than simply "Survival of the fittest."

I don't know where you live, but where I live, a large majority of 13 year olds are more obsessed with skateboarding, the school basketball team, and their girl/boyfriend of the week. They have none of the descision making capacitys (I posted a link earlier, accept that it is true that the critical ability to weigh two options does not emerge until the late teens, at earliest) that are necessary to make a real, rational choice.

This isn't a matter of what I think, it is a matter of psychological fact. Deal with it honestly, please.

Ok, from that statement alone I suspect you don't have much to do with teenagers on a regular basis, do you?

The capacity to imagine themselves in another person's position can be observed in toddlers, even apes are capable of that. They weren't asked to rationalise that ability, they were simply asked to use it.

The fact that 13 year olds have hobbies other than philosophical debatte and writing letters to the local newspaper is no proof in the least that they are incapable of independent thought and empathic behaviour. And that's all that this assignment asked for.

As a moral authority, yes. As a moral question? I challenge you to find any 13 year old who can trule grasp the basic nature of the Golden Rule and show you a logical proof that it should be followed, rather than simply "Survival of the fittest."

Any kid in my Junior High could have done that. Any kid in my brother's school could do that. Hell, my kid brother can do that, and he's mentally 9 years old.


I don't know where you live, but where I live, a large majority of 13 year olds are more obsessed with skateboarding, the school basketball team, and their girl/boyfriend of the week.

Just like most adults are more obsessed with their new car, going to the pub, and their girlfriend/boyfriend. So?

Most people don't "obsess" over the Golden Rule, because we internalized it back in kindergarten. We don't need to "obsess" over behaving respectfully, because we learned how to do so while we were in grade school and it comes pretty naturally to us.


They have none of the descision making capacitys (I posted a link earlier, accept that it is true that the critical ability to weigh two options does not emerge until the late teens, at earliest) that are necessary to make a real, rational choice.

BS. Kids can make real, rational choices long before 13. Sure, they don't have full adult reasoning capabilities, but they've got more than enough for empathy and the Golden Rule.


This isn't a matter of what I think, it is a matter of psychological fact. Deal with it honestly, please.
My mother, a PhD therapist who has been working with children for almost 30 years, is laughing her ass off at this. She just got done working on a court case where a 7 year old and a 9 year old testified in court about how they wanted to make sure their abusive daddy went to jail so that he couldn't hurt other kids. They were not coached to say this, they simply knew that they didn't want other people to be treated the way they were treated because it sucked. They knew empathy. They knew the Golden Rule. I guess your "psychological fact" just didn't happen to apply to these two magic kids, huh?

I'm at fault for the lynchings of the south.

I knew it! Get him! :p

And the capacity for discerning and logically proving the Golden Rule over the Survival of the Fittest doctrine was given to you on your 21st birthday, or did you develop it over time?

Over time, obviously, but it begins developing in your 20's, according to my link, which (although I accessed it just fine from google), is being stupid and requiring loggin when I post it on NSG.

That doesn't spell representative of the government to me. Schools in Ireland are no more representatives of the government than Aer Lingus* used to be.

*Recently privatised state air fleet.

Oh no.. Receiving rules, money, and employment from something definately doesn't make you, say, a part of it. No, no, no...

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You're being a demagogue. I'm saying that children need to be treated like children, and respected in the sanctity of their opinion, and their right to not be asked unfair questions until they are old enough to deal with them?

Do you think a 13 year old would have had the backbone to stand up to questions like the ones thrown at me, because I appear to be the sole dissenting voice on this thread? No! They'd break down quickly, and give up (not that I'm not that close, it's impossible to manage 5 different people at once and still keep a coherant debate going).

And on that note, I'm gonna have to stop posting, because I have class to get to. I'm sure there'll be another 25 to 30 posts coming back telling me how I'm at fault for the lynchings of the south.


I can tell you from experience that this kind of question is exactly what kids of that age would ask you themselves

I somewhat agree with KSP in that 13 year olds are usually very immature and don't care about worldly events or even how they affect other people.

That being said, they'll act a certain way until they reach full maturity. What's wrong with that 'certain way' being a facsimile of understanding, maturity, and tolerance, even when it's just a facsimile? They might not fully understand everything they agree with because they've been told to agree with it, but that's what happens regardless. This girl doesn't know WHY she doesn't like homosexuals other than the fact that her mom says it's against their religion, and she's not even old enough to completely comprehend her own religion - she probably hasn't even read the bible and most likely never will! I just think it'd be better for them to at least try to think like a responsible, compassionate adult every now and then, as opposed to an ignorant, hateful, oppressive zealot.

Over time, obviously, but it begins developing in your 20's, according to my link, which (although I accessed it just fine from google), is being stupid and requiring loggin when I post it on NSG.Most of my convictions on how to treat people date from well before my twenties. Well before my teens, even.

:rolleyes:

You're being a demagogue. I'm saying that children need to be treated like children, and respected in the sanctity of their opinion, and their right to not be asked unfair questions until they are old enough to deal with them?

Wait, first you tell us that 13 year olds aren't capable of real, rational decisions, but now you ask that we "respect the sanctity" of their opinions? They can't make real or rational choices, yet we should respect their irrational, unreal opinions?

Which is it? Should we help them to learn and grow by teaching them to be more rational and more grounded in reality, or are they already so grounded in reality that we should trust that their 13-year-old opinions are as sound as anything we could teach them?


Do you think a 13 year old would have had the backbone to stand up to questions like the ones thrown at me, because I appear to be the sole dissenting voice on this thread? No! They'd break down quickly, and give up (not that I'm not that close, it's impossible to manage 5 different people at once and still keep a coherant debate going).

I've seen 13 year olds do that on this very forum. Try again.


And on that note, I'm gonna have to stop posting, because I have class to get to. I'm sure there'll be another 25 to 30 posts coming back telling me how I'm at fault for the lynchings of the south.
Quit being such a martyr, nobody accused you of that.

Over time, obviously, but it begins developing in your 20's, according to my link, which (although I accessed it just fine from google), is being stupid and requiring loggin when I post it on NSG.

In your 20s. Right. So maybe we should simply wait with all education until the kids are in their 20s, then. Godforbid they learned something they aren't physically capable of dealing with before they reach the age of 30...

Ok, from that statement alone I suspect you don't have much to do with teenagers on a regular basis, do you?

The capacity to imagine themselves in another person's position can be observed in toddlers, even apes are capable of that. They weren't asked to rationalise that ability, they were simply asked to use it.

The fact that 13 year olds have hobbies other than philosophical debatte and writing letters to the local newspaper is no proof in the least that they are incapable of independent thought and empathic behaviour. And that's all that this assignment asked for.

Can we cut the crap, please? I'm giving you psychological facts taken from pediatrics websites regarding the empirical process of the development of the brain. I'm not giving you subjective assumptions.

I assure you that my connection to being a teenager is stronger than yours is, seeing as how I still am one (albeit, an older one), and I can quite well remember my 13th year.

Can we cut the crap, please? I'm giving you psychological facts taken from pediatrics websites regarding the empirical process of the development of the brain. I'm not giving you subjective assumptions.

Please provide citations, in that case. Let's see the research showing that 13 year old human beings are incapable of empathy, rational judgment, or critical thinking. Let's see the scientific foundation for the assertion that 13 year olds cannot understand the Golden Rule.

Can we cut the crap, please? I'm giving you psychological facts taken from pediatrics websites regarding the empirical process of the development of the brain. I'm not giving you subjective assumptions.

I assure you that my connection to being a teenager is stronger than yours is, seeing as how I still am one (albeit, an older one), and I can quite well remember my 13th year.

And I've been involved in youth groups and work with teenagers for a decade now. I got asked questions like that by 11 year olds. Just goes to show, eh?

Wait, first you tell us that 13 year olds aren't capable of real, rational decisions, but now you ask that we "respect the sanctity" of their opinions? They can't make real or rational choices, yet we should respect their irrational, unreal opinions?

Which is it? Should we help them to learn and grow by teaching them to be more rational and more grounded in reality, or are they already so grounded in reality that we should trust that their 13-year-old opinions are as sound as anything we could teach them?

The sanctity of their right to form their own opinions. I misspoke in my rush to get to the next post.

I've seen 13 year olds do that on this very forum. Try again.

I've seen 13 year olds post on this forum. They were mostly unable to use complex ideas, and they would dissapear after 100 posts.

Quit being such a martyr, nobody accused you of that.

Pot, meet kettle.

Please provide citations, in that case. Let's see the research showing that 13 year old human beings are incapable of empathy, rational judgment, or critical thinking. Let's see the scientific foundation for the assertion that 13 year olds cannot understand the Golden Rule.

The assingment didn't even require an understanding of that rule, merely its application to a fictional scenario. As I said, even apes are capable to imagine themselves in other apes' (and people's) situations.

And I've been involved in youth groups and work with teenagers for a decade now. I got asked questions like that by 11 year olds. Just goes to show, eh?

Ooooh... Not "In my experienc"!!

There's no answer to that statement because we know that isolated occurances in the experience of a biased debator constitute better proof than medical fact!!


:rolleyes:

In your 20s. Right. So maybe we should simply wait with all education until the kids are in their 20s, then. Godforbid they learned something they aren't physically capable of dealing with before they reach the age of 30...
That's just a frightening suggestion...people can't grasp empathy until they're in their 20s?! They can't have rational discussions about homophobia, racism, or sexism until they're in their 20s?! Then how the hell did I have mature, reasonable discussions about these topics when I was in grade school?!?!

I'm an alien replicon!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!

Ooooh... Not "In my experienc"!!

There's no answer to that statement because we know that isolated occurances in the experience of a biased debator constitute better proof than medical fact!!


:rolleyes:
You made a blanket statement that kids were not capable of this behavior. All it takes to prove you wrong is one case. Them's the breaks.

The assingment didn't even require an understanding of that rule, merely its application to a fictional scenario. As I said, even apes are capable to imagine themselves in other apes' (and people's) situations.
I think I will hold my breath until we're provided by citations. Or wait...perhaps that would be a bad idea.

The sanctity of their right to form their own opinions. I misspoke in my rush to get to the next post.

I've seen 13 year olds post on this forum. They were mostly unable to use complex ideas, and they would dissapear after 100 posts.

Pot, meet kettle.

I've met some who were quite capable of that, and were generally very interested in current issues.

And the sanctity of their right to form their opinion demands that they are being presented with all possible points of view, and to have their opinions challenged. Otherwise the kids are in danger of blindly adapting the first opinion presented to them.

I think I will hold my breath until we're provided by citations. Or wait...perhaps that would be a bad idea.

You're an alien replicon remember, you don't need to breathe.

Please provide citations, in that case. Let's see the research showing that 13 year old human beings are incapable of empathy, rational judgment, or critical thinking. Let's see the scientific foundation for the assertion that 13 year olds cannot understand the Golden Rule.

Fuck it... I'm not gonna bother. I gave you a link 3 pages ago (by my browser, which may mean it's anywhere from 15 to 20 pages back for everyone else, since I have large page sizes). If you need to understand, go to Google and search: Development of decision making sections of the brain and go down to the fifth provided link.

It has nothing to do with "Empathy" and everything to do with rational logic. Empathy be damned; it alone is only a part of the descision making process.

You made a blanket statement that kids were not capable of this behavior. All it takes to prove you wrong is one case. Them's the breaks.

No, I made statements that hold true in general. There's a difference. I also cited them.

Ooooh... Not "In my experienc"!!

There's no answer to that statement because we know that isolated occurances in the experience of a biased debator constitute better proof than medical fact!!


:rolleyes:

I'll second Cabras viewpoint then. So it's not so isolated for you. How about when my ex-girlfriend and I broke up last year and my 2 nephews and my neice all showed real and genuine concern about how i was feeling.

They are 3,5 and 8 by the way.

The sanctity of their right to form their own opinions. I misspoke in my rush to get to the next post.

I've seen 13 year olds post on this forum. They were mostly unable to use complex ideas, and they would dissapear after 100 posts.

Yes, there are 13 year olds who do that. There are also 30 year olds who do that. What's your point?


Pot, meet kettle.
Judges? Yup, that was a Montoya Foul. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Fuck it... I'm not gonna bother. I gave you a link 3 pages ago (by my browser, which may mean it's anywhere from 15 to 20 pages back for everyone else, since I have large page sizes). If you need to understand, go to Google and search: Development of decision making sections of the brain and go down to the fifth provided link.

It has nothing to do with "Empathy" and everything to do with rational logic. Empathy be damned; it alone is only a part of the descision making process.

A link that demanded registration, if I recall correctly.

You make the statement, you provide the proof.

That's just a frightening suggestion...people can't grasp empathy until they're in their 20s?! They can't have rational discussions about homophobia, racism, or sexism until they're in their 20s?! Then how the hell did I have mature, reasonable discussions about these topics when I was in grade school?!?!

I'm an alien replicon!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!

:rolleyes:

There's a difference between holding debates and seeking for answers and making rational descisions. A fifteen year old can decide that they are an anarchist, and go around beleiving that they are one. That doesn't mean that said fifteen year old has made a mature or reasonable descision.

Christ almighty, it isn't fucking complicated!

A link that demanded registration, if I recall correctly.

You make the statement, you provide the proof.

Not if you go to it through Google. I never registered for it.

I'll second Cabras viewpoint then. So it's not so isolated for you. How about when my ex-girlfriend and I broke up last year and my 2 nephews and my neice all showed real and genuine concern about how i was feeling.

They are 3,5 and 8 by the way.

Real concern is the capability of any human. We form those early, as those are a defense mechanism.

They have nothing to do with reason or descision making, just with the presence of emotion.

Fuck it... I'm not gonna bother. I gave you a link 3 pages ago (by my browser, which may mean it's anywhere from 15 to 20 pages back for everyone else, since I have large page sizes). If you need to understand, go to Google and search: Development of decision making sections of the brain and go down to the fifth provided link.

It has nothing to do with "Empathy" and everything to do with rational logic. Empathy be damned; it alone is only a part of the descision making process.
I visited your link, and it provides no support for your claim that 13 year olds would be unable to grasp the exercise that was assigned in this case. If you feel that it provides supports, please describe them (specifically).

Just to warn you, I'm working on my PhD in neuroscience. ;)

Real concern is the capability of any human. We form those early, as those are a defense mechanism.

They have nothing to do with reason or descision making, just with the presence of emotion.

And yet just before you were talking about empathy. Ever heard the term "moving the goalposts"?

Judges? Yup, that was a Montoya Foul. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Is it bad that this whole sentence went straight over my head?

And yet just before you were talking about empathy. Ever heard the term "moving the goalposts"?

No, I didn't. I have talked about rational descision making the whole time. Empathy is only a small part of that. I am not moving the goalposts.

Edit: Now I really am leaving for the day, so I won't be responding more. Have fun.

A link that demanded registration, if I recall correctly.

You make the statement, you provide the proof.
Here's the link I believe he is referencing:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504350_3
It does seem to require registration if you go to it directly, but you can get at it without registering by Googling "Development of decision making sections of the brain" and clicking the 5th link, "The Teen Brain: Implications for Pediatric Nurses."

I think his support is a statement from that link which says, "The final portion of the brain to mature is the front of the brain, largely dominated by the prefrontal cortex. This section of the brain, termed the "area of sober second thought," is responsible for rational, executive brain functions (Wallis, 2004, p. 61). Such skills as organizing thoughts, weighing consequences, assuming responsibility, and interpreting emotions are developed during the growth, pruning, and myelinization of the front part of the brain. This is the last area of the brain to mature and is thought to develop well into the 20s."

His mistake is assuming that the continuing development of this area means that it's non-functional until the 20s. Which is simply untrue. Human toddlers show rational executive brain functions, albeit of a different caliber than the average human adult. Normal human children are quite able to organize thoughts, weigh consequences, assume responsibility, and interpret their emotions, though their ability to do so will mature as they mature. The assignment that is the subject of this thread is appropriate for the level of thinking that adolescents are capable of.

By way of comparison, the taste receptors present on your tongue will actually change over the course of your life. Your sensitivity to certain flavors, and your subjective pleasure at particular flavors, will change as you get older and your "taste circuits" are pruned and refined. Your enjoyment of sweet flavors will change based on the changing configuration of your taste receptors on the tongue, and will also change based on your individual experiences and environment as you grow. Your taste experience of chocolate will be different at age 25 than it was at age 5. Does this mean you cannot taste "sweet" at age 5? Or that you cannot tell the difference between chocolate and caramel until you are 25? Of course not.

Furthermore, his own link says that ""Neo-Piagetian" theorists contend that about one-half of adolescents remain in concrete operational thinking or in a transitional phase..." That would mean that about one-half of adolescents do NOT remain in concrete operational thinking. His own link contradicts his assertion that no teens could be capable of the kind of reasoning required for the assignment in question, because even the most generous estimate still grants that about half of students will be capable of this kind of reasoning.

The next stage after concrete operational thinking is formal operational thinking. According to the Encyclopedia of Education Terminology, this is what's up with formal operational thinking:

"After roughly 11 years old, students have the ability to consider many possibilities for a given condition. They are able to deal with propositions that explain concrete facts. They have the ability to use planning to think ahead.

Most importantly, students at Piaget’s final stage of cognitive development increase their ability to think abstractly. They can solve complex and hypothetical problems involving abstract operations.

Formal operational thinkers can recognize and identify a problem. They can state several alternative hypotheses, execute procedures to collect information about the problems to be studied, and test the hypotheses. "

No, I didn't. I have talked about rational descision making the whole time. Empathy is only a small part of that. I am not moving the goalposts.

Edit: Now I really am leaving for the day, so I won't be responding more. Have fun.

Define what you mean by "rational decision making'. Unless we have incredibly different views on what counts as a rational decision i see 13 year olds making rational decisions all the time.

"The Labor Government has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think"

Very true.
Exactly what we are trained to do in our religious schools.
I supposed my dear Imam friend and other muezzins from protestants or Synagogues branches agree with us.

Religious schools are not submitted by government ways of cleansing the so lovely black heads of these dear devils.
We hope for our kids a good education in the way our fathers were taught.

Why that ever concern about homosexual people, a minority?
Come in our nice country and you would never learn like a blond christian man! You never will be ashamed of what you are.
Role playing at school in diminishing the kid. We prefer to take real things in hands.

Enough for today class... tomorrow we'll learn how to manipulate a hand grenade in the middle of a market.

I'm ashamed this kind of thing happend in my city.

It just goes to show that sometimes all sides of an argument can be wrong.

The school for failing the child for standing up for what she believes in and trying to keep the cirriculum from parents
And the girl's family and community for creating such a narrow minded and intolerant girl within 13 years of life.

The school could have handled things a lot better and understood it may be a fairly touchy subject. But its scary to think that these homophobic fundies exist here in sunny Queensland. I expect this from the southern states of the USA.

Its up to the parents what views they rais their children with, whether religiosly motivated or not. The school didnt have any choice but the fail her. A system of gradings knowledge and inteligence cant work on a personalise question basis. All children should get the same question. I hate all religions, the idea of such a thing offends me, but yet i had to write essays on christian views for my GCSE's (UK school). If i had refused then i would have been failed just as the girl was. The question was asking oppinions and beliefs, so she really had grounds to refuse to do the question. She could have simply answered the question her own way, much as everyone in the class would have.

You have been just as narrow minded as that little, believing that this sort of thing is for a southern states. Also you have stated the obvious, all the time all sides of the arguement are wrong, its compleatly dependant on ones point of view.

She should have done the question. period. No-one failed but her.