NationStates Jolt Archive

selective empathy. These "thinking" exercises are not balanced, epecially when one reaches the university level. Public Schools and Colleges are like a liberal recruiting ground. The professors serve as missionaries for their ideology.

imagine an exercise where you had to take the role of an unborn fetus in the second trimester who can hear his mother talking about getting an abortion...

now that would be a provocative excercise, but dear god the inhumanity of it all! conservative agenda! pro-life indoctrination! help! thought police!

I think that would be an intresting assingment to do actualy

But in the end we need empathy for groups like homosexuals cause whatever we are doing is still failing

You know how young I was the first time I was hospitalized for being bi-sexual

15

Two years ago I was stabed in the back on my way out of a bar as well, that put me in the hospital (I was 21)

I was even on one of thoes "Liberaly infused campuses" for the stabbing by other students.

These biggoted idiots need to get a clue that it is not alright to pick on people because they are a minority. Personaly I would have given a choice between a few options if I was giving the assingment rather then just sexuality

But in the end I think the trust of the asingment was nothing but good

selective empathy. These "thinking" exercises are not balanced, epecially when one reaches the university level. Public Schools and Colleges are like a liberal recruiting ground. The professors serve as missionaries for their ideology.

imagine an exercise where you had to take the role of an unborn fetus in the second trimester who can hear his mother talking about getting an abortion...

now that would be a provocative excercise, but dear god the inhumanity of it all! conservative agenda! pro-life indoctrination! help! thought police!

Oh how nice we've got the everpresent biased christian in the thread, now. :p

Oh how nice we've got the everpresent biased christian in the thread, now. :p
It was a decent point. How many of the people in this thread would be defending the exercise if it had been 'imagine you're a foetus about to be aborted'.

I can really see everyone saying "it's just a creative thought exercise with no political motives" then. :rolleyes:

It was a decent point. How many of the people in this thread would be defending the exercise if it had been 'imagine you're a foetus about to be aborted'.

I can really see everyone saying "it's just a creative thought exercise with no political motives" then. :rolleyes:

Yeah but the point being fetuses aren't intelligent enough to know they're being aborted. Here it is being argued that 13 year olds aren't mature enough to be faced with the situation of someone else being oppressed for who they are, and talk about being immature, imagining what a FETUS - a FETUS, not even a baby - would "think" (use the term loosely, they don't do much of it, if any at all) about being aborted.

Come on now.

It was a decent point. How many of the people in this thread would be defending the exercise if it had been 'imagine you're a foetus about to be aborted'.

I can really see everyone saying "it's just a creative thought exercise with no political motives" then. :rolleyes:

And I said I would find it an intresting assingment (at least for me)

And if a student had failed to do it they should get a bad grade they deserved.

(though the example seems to be less relevent pretending you are an unthinking lump of flesh ... maybe something like pretend you are a christian in a muslim country or something like that)

Yeah but the point being fetuses aren't intelligent enough to know they're being aborted. Here it is being argued that 13 year olds aren't mature enough to be faced with the situation of someone else being oppressed for who they are, and talk about being immature, imagining what a FETUS - a FETUS, not even a baby - would "think" (use the term loosely, they don't do much of it, if any at all) about being aborted.

Come on now.

:) That proves my point nicely, thank you.

And, if the first example was too much, how about "imagine you're a creationist in an evolutionists world". Again, I very much expect that there would be something of an outcry.

Yeah but the point being fetuses aren't intelligent enough to know they're being aborted. Here it is being argued that 13 year olds aren't mature enough to be faced with the situation of someone else being oppressed for who they are, and talk about being immature, imagining what a FETUS - a FETUS, not even a baby - would "think" (use the term loosely, they don't do much of it, if any at all) about being aborted.

Come on now.
But as we are repeatedly told - the arguement against this girl is because she refused to do a homework because of personal beliefs, not because of what this homework is about. So the subject matter should not be an issue.

:) That proves my point nicely, thank you.

And, if the first example was too much, how about "imagine you're a creationist in an evolutionists world". Again, I very much expect that there would be something of an outcry.

No, it proves nothing. The fetus wouldn't have an opinion because it doesn't think. What would the essay look like? "fjsdfhskl;jbjsdfhv.bhdf....." for two pages?

:) That proves my point nicely, thank you.

Not really ... his point was more the fact that it seems silly to have an empathy asingment to something that ... has no real ability to think or comprehend

I would think a "think you are a tree" assingment would be full of silly personification as well

But as we are repeatedly told - the arguement against this girl is because she refused to do a homework because of personal beliefs, not because of what this homework is about. So the subject matter should not be an issue.

It wouldn't be, if you don't mind the essay being nonsensical and from the mind of an unthinking unborn unfinished baby.

Oh how nice we've got the everpresent biased christian in the thread, now. :p

Oh, how nice, we've got the Ad Hominem throwing, not adding anything to the debate, guy in the thread now. =P.

He makes a great point. I tried to point this out earlier, but it's all about "selective empathy", which is why schools shouldn't bother teaching it in the first place. Teachers enforce their morality by the way they ask the questions to whether or not they ask them at all. That is why schools shouldn't be "teaching empathy" (morality in reality) at all.

No, it proves nothing. The fetus wouldn't have an opinion because it doesn't think. What would the essay look like? "fjsdfhskl;jbjsdfhv.bhdf....." for two pages?
So, essentially, you are saying that "she couldn't write an essay about that politically charged topic because I believe it doesn't exist, but she can write an essay about the first politically charged topic because I believe that her beliefs are irrelevant".

Fair and balanced, that.

:) That proves my point nicely, thank you.

And, if the first example was too much, how about "imagine you're a creationist in an evolutionists world". Again, I very much expect that there would be something of an outcry.

Not really. Though again, that topic doesn't make sense. Being a creationist and evolutionist are CHOICES, as opposed to being gay or being straight or being black or being white. It's damn near impossible for me to pretend to be an ID-ist because I know all about it and disagree with it on the most basic of levels with every level of logic.

So, essentially, you are saying that "she couldn't write an essay about that politically charged topic because I believe it doesn't exist, but she can write an essay about the first politically charged topic because I believe that her beliefs are irrelevant".

Fair and balanced, that.

... You're clearly not listening.

I'm "essentially" saying that "she couldn't write an essay about that politically charged topic because IT'S FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A FETUS." End of story.

Oh, how nice, we've got the Ad Hominem throwing, not adding anything to the debate, guy in the thread now. =P.

He makes a great point. I tried to point this out earlier, but it's all about "selective empathy", which is why schools shouldn't bother teaching it in the first place. Teachers enforce their morality by the way they ask the questions to whether or not they ask them at all. That is why schools shouldn't be "teaching empathy" (morality in reality) at all.

He makes no point whatsoever, and I'll have you know I've been in this topic since the beginning.

Not really. Though again, that topic doesn't make sense. Being a creationist and evolutionist are CHOICES, as opposed to being gay or being straight or being black or being white. It's damn near impossible for me to pretend to be an ID-ist because I know all about it and disagree with it on the most basic of levels with every level of logic.

Again, that proves my point. When faced with a topic you don't like, you say that it shouldn't be included in school's at all. When faced with a topic someone else doesn't like, it's just a 'creative thought process' with no political motives at all.

As I said originally in this thread, school's are not a place for political indoctrination, no matter how much you believe what the teachers are trying to say.

Again, that proves my point. When faced with a topic you don't like, you say that it shouldn't be included in school's at all. When faced with a topic someone else doesn't like, it's just a 'creative thought process' with no political motives at all.

As I said originally in this thread, school's are not a place for political indoctrination, no matter how much you believe what the teachers are trying to say.

Oh dear god why can't you comprehend what I'm saying. I'm fine with the TOPIC itself - perfectly fine. Absolutely fine. Couldn't be finer. I'd LOVE more topics like this. But not from the perspective of something that DOESN'T HAVE A PERSPECTIVE. From the perspective of the woman having the abortion, great - from the perspective of a husband of a woman having an abortion, great - from the perspective of the doctor giving the abortion, great - from the perspective of a child whose parents had at one point considered abortion, wonderful - but you simply CAN NOT have a perspective essay from the nonexistant perspective of a FETUS.

Extreme examples of appealing to different empathys:

"Do you think Homosexuals should be institutionalized for their abnormal behavior?"

"Do you think that the Nazis were right in revolting against their Jewish opressors?"

Anywho, you get the idea. Those are extreme examples, but it's essentially the same thing, only more subtle.

Edit: These are questions that should never get asked in the first place at a school with impressionable children.

Oh dear god why can't you comprehend what I'm saying. I'm fine with the TOPIC itself - perfectly fine. Absolutely fine. Couldn't be finer. I'd LOVE more topics like this. But not from the perspective of something that DOESN'T HAVE A PERSPECTIVE. From the perspective of the woman having the abortion, great - from the perspective of a husband of a woman having an abortion, great - from the perspective of the doctor giving the abortion, great - from the perspective of a child whose parents had at one point considered abortion, wonderful - but you simply CAN NOT have a perspective essay from the nonexistant perspective of a FETUS.

Only in your politically controversial opinion that the fetus is 'nonexistant'.

He makes no point whatsoever, and I'll have you know I've been in this topic since the beginning.

Oh, ok, well I guess he wrote nothing then. :rolleyes:

Also, don't forget that you just attacked his personality instead of actually defending your ideas.

Only in your politically controversial opinion that the fetus is 'nonexistant'.

JESUS CHRIST ON A MARTYRSTICK.

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FETUSES EXIST. I KNOW THEY DO.

I ALSO KNOW THAT AT THAT STAGE IN 'LIFE', A FETUS DOES NOT HAVE THE BRAIN POWER TO COMPREHEND ANYTHING, MUCH LESS FORM AN OPINION.


WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME!?

Only in your politically controversial opinion that the fetus is 'nonexistant'.

Where did he say a fetus is non existant. His point that it does not have the capacity to have an opinion ...

Where did he say a fetus is non existant. His point that it does not have the capacity to have an opinion ...

Thank you!

God, sometimes I think I'm the only one and then a magical and wonderful person like you comes along and happens to have his mind turned on as well.

selective empathy. These "thinking" exercises are not balanced, epecially when one reaches the university level. Public Schools and Colleges are like a liberal recruiting ground. The professors serve as missionaries for their ideology.

imagine an exercise where you had to take the role of an unborn fetus in the second trimester who can hear his mother talking about getting an abortion...

now that would be a provocative excercise, but dear god the inhumanity of it all! conservative agenda! pro-life indoctrination! help! thought police!

Oh please! :rolleyes:

First of all, we did have a similar assignment when I was in 5th grade (10 years old in Germany), we were asked to write a diary of a foetus that realised it was going to be aborted. It was a bloddy stupid thing, in hindsight, for the simple biological fact that the foetus is not capable of thought. Even its ability to feel is not established. But we did it. If I had agreed with abortion at that age as I do now, I probably would have written something about how my crack-addict mom keeps getting beaten up by my drunk dad and how I wish they'd just end it all. And I would have received fair grades on it.

You claim this girl is being indoctrinated by being asked how she would feel in that situation. I think it's a fair question to ask anyone at any time, no matter what their age, conviction, religion, orientation or sex.

... You're clearly not listening.

I'm "essentially" saying that "she couldn't write an essay about that politically charged topic because IT'S FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A FETUS." End of story.

I once had to do a piece of creative writing in science (like 10 years old) about the life of a water molecule from the water molecules perspective.

Should I have been allowed to refuse on the basis that water molecules can't think?

I also had to write about a fictional monster my classmate drew (he had to write about the monster I drew) (8 years old - English class) - should I have been allwed to refuse that on the basis monsters don't exist?

"Imagine you're oliver twist - write about your daily life as a pickpocket" ZOMGZ Oliver Twist is not real! I can't write about imagining being him.

Thank you!

God, sometimes I think I'm the only one and then a magical and wonderful person like you comes along and happens to have his mind turned on as well.

Like I said before I would find an "imagine you are a tree" question equaly silly

Anyways these little things are petty on both sides my point was that I dont have a problem with an "imagine you are a christian" or any other pro right wing imagine excercizes really

I just find that promoting empathy for minorities that get beat every day in this country to be rather an important one

OFirst of all, we did have a similar assignment when I was in 5th grade (10 years old in Germany), we were asked to write a diary of a foetus that realised it was going to be aborted. It was a bloddy stupid thing

And here was me thinking creative writing was to be encouraged in schools.

I once had to do a piece of creative writing in science (like 10 years old) about the life of a water molecule from the water molecules perspective.

Should I have been allowed to refuse on the basis that water molecules can't think?

I also had to write about a fictional monster my classmate drew (he had to write about the monster I drew) (8 years old - English class) - should I have been allwed to refuse that on the basis monsters don't exist?

"Imagine you're oliver twist - write about your daily life as a pickpocket" ZOMGZ Oliver Twist is not real! I can't write about imagining being him.

You can imagine being an orphan pickpocket because they have enough braincells to form a thought.

You shouldn't be allowed to refuse the project entirely, but you should realize that while you're doing it, the assignment makes DICK in the realm of sense.

I once had to do a piece of creative writing in science (like 10 years old) about the life of a water molecule from the water molecules perspective.

Should I have been allowed to refuse on the basis that water molecules can't think?

I also had to write about a fictional monster my classmate drew (he had to write about the monster I drew) (8 years old - English class) - should I have been allwed to refuse that on the basis monsters don't exist?

"Imagine you're oliver twist - write about your daily life as a pickpocket" ZOMGZ Oliver Twist is not real! I can't write about imagining being him.

Thats not what we said ... you should have still had to do the asingment to get the grade ... that does not mean I do not think it is a silly assingment

Like I said before I would find an "imagine you are a tree" question equaly silly

Anyways these little things are petty on both sides my point was that I dont have a problem with an "imagine you are a christian" or any other pro right wing imagine excercizes really

I just find that promoting empathy for minorities that get beat every day in this country to be rather an important one

I agree completely and in a sense of overwhelming exhaustion from not being around enough people like you in threads like these, I give you a Szanth Token, redeemable at any brothel or 7-11.

"Imagine you're oliver twist - write about your daily life as a pickpocket" ZOMGZ Oliver Twist is not real! I can't write about imagining being him.

I guess in this case you'd probably have some people here screaming that they don't believe in social injustice and poverty, and that by asking you to imagine Oliver Twist your teacher is trying to force his communist views onto you as well as seriously overloading your 13-year-old brain, that is physically unable to decide if poverty is a good or a bad thing...

And here was me thinking creative writing was to be encouraged in schools.

Did I say it wasn't?

Thats not what we said ... you should have still had to do the asingment to get the grade ... that does not mean I do not think it is a silly assingment

I'm not saying they're sensible assignments from an adult perspective, although they're not too bad for kids.

But I have a feeling the foetus example would have quite a few people protesting about that being allowed in say a creative writing class.

IMHO, she had every right to refuse to do such an assignment. The schools have no business trying to teach a political agenda. If the assignment had been to discuss discrimination against gays, or against any out-group for that matter, and she refused to do it, then I could understand her being failed. But this assignment went a bit far.

I guess in this case you'd probably have some people here screaming that they don't believe in social injustice and poverty, and that by asking you to imagine Oliver Twist your teacher is trying to force his communist views onto you as well as seriously overloading your 13-year-old brain, that is physically unable to decide if poverty is a good or a bad thing...

Nice :) hehehe after that silly "you cant decide in real life so you should not be asked a hypothetical question" seemed silly to me

I should have used that on multipul choice tests as an excuse "I dont think I have the decision making ability to decide these pressing questions about economics, so you are a bully"

I'm not saying they're sensible assignments from an adult perspective, although they're not too bad for kids.

But I have a feeling the foetus example would have quite a few people protesting about that being allowed in say a creative writing class.

I disagree, though I think I'd protest is just because it's a dumbass perspective. I would instead do a report from the perspective of one of the other examples I gave (from the woman, the doctor, the husband, or the child) and turn it in, not expected to get credit, but simply to push the point forward that the assignment was fucking stupid and I found a better one while maintaining the theme of the assignment.

Again, I wouldn't expect to get credit for it, but I'd still do it. I wouldn't claim it was against my political beliefs, either, because it can't possibly be - the situation allows for both political sides to express their feelings on the subject.

IMHO, she had every right to refuse to do such an assignment. The schools have no business trying to teach a political agenda. If the assignment had been to discuss discrimination against gays, or against any out-group for that matter, and she refused to do it, then I could understand her being failed. But this assignment went a bit far.

How did it go to far? she did not even have to pretend to be gay it was a question how would you feel as a minority HETROSEXUAL in a majority homosexual envryonment.

What the school was trying to teach (hopefully) was empathy not a political adgenda

IMHO, she had every right to refuse to do such an assignment. The schools have no business trying to teach a political agenda. If the assignment had been to discuss discrimination against gays, or against any out-group for that matter, and she refused to do it, then I could understand her being failed. But this assignment went a bit far.

Jesus Christ, Eutrusca, can you stop being such a stereotypical political zealot for just ONE thread?

There was no agenda.

How did it go to far? she did not even have to pretend to be gay it was a question how would you feel as a minority HETROSEXUAL in a majority homosexual envryonment.

What the school was trying to teach (hopefully) was empathy not a political adgenda

I understand that, and have no problem with any school trying to teach tolerance toward any out-group, but the point of the matter is that she was failed for not acting against her religious principles. Hopefully there is still freedom of religion as well as freedom of association.

I understand that, and have no problem with any school trying to teach tolerance toward any out-group, but the point of the matter is that she was failed for not acting against her religious principles. Hopefully there is still freedom of religion as well as freedom of association.

Eutrusca, you as a Christian, please explain to us poor unenlightened souls here how imagining to be a heterosexual in a predominantly homosexual society goes against anything in Christian faith?
I would have understood it if she had been asked to imagine being a homosexual, but she wasn't.
In essence, she was asked how she would cope with living in a world full of what she perceives as sin, right? Isn't that how Christians see the world anyway?
I'm honestly trying to understand how her believes could be affected by this assignment.

I understand that, and have no problem with any school trying to teach tolerance toward any out-group, but the point of the matter is that she was failed for not acting against her religious principles. Hopefully there is still freedom of religion as well as freedom of association.

... You didn't even read the damned article you liar.

Had you read it, you would've seen the article said she didn't have to do anything in terms of ACCEPTING homosexuals, but what she would do if they outnumbered her as heterosexuals outnumber them in society today.

Where in the bible does it say you can't even THINK about homosexuals?

I understand that, and have no problem with any school trying to teach tolerance toward any out-group, but the point of the matter is that she was failed for not acting against her religious principles. Hopefully there is still freedom of religion as well as freedom of association.

How did the ASSINGMENT offend any of her christian morals?

She was not requred to like homosexuals
As for the posted guidelines she was free to take a severly homophobic stand and still fufill the guidelines of the asingment

Yet she did not do that

The teacher did not tell her what she had to say about the hypothetical situation just to answer within the construct

I see in no way that this actualy compromised any religous principals other then the fact that they had to concider a world with thoes icky sinfull homoseuxals (and the fact that they were outnumbered by them)

... You didn't even read the damned article you liar.
He made his point politely; you don't have to flame him like that.

Eutrusca, you as a Christian, please explain to us poor unenlightened souls here how imagining to be a heterosexual in a predominantly homosexual society goes against anything in Christian faith?
I would have understood it if she had been asked to imagine being a homosexual, but she wasn't.
In essence, she was asked how she would cope with living in a world full of what she perceives as sin, right? Isn't that how Christians see the world anyway?
I'm honestly trying to understand how her believes could be affected by this assignment.

Quoted for truth ... hell if this was unfair to anyone it was the homosexuals that had to pretend to be strait (though I dont honestly think even they were disparaged by this asingment)

He made his point politely; you don't have to flame him like that.

Yes I did. I'm tired of people entering the thread without a hint of an idea of what the thread is actually about, claiming they know what's going on, giving a completely wrong opinion and then acting like they didn't just fuck up. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so bastardly about it in the first place, just admit you were wrong and didn't read the damn article and we can forgive you and move on.

EDIT: Forgive me if I'm bitchier than usual, but after the Pyschotik guy and then all this fetus bullshit, I'm way on the defensive.

Quoted for truth ... hell if this was unfair to anyone it was the homosexuals that had to pretend to be strait (though I dont honestly think even they were disparaged by this asingment)

Not the slightest. It was beneficial for both parties.

Yes I did. I'm tired of people entering the thread without a hint of an idea of what the thread is actually about, claiming they know what's going on, giving a completely wrong opinion and then acting like they didn't just fuck up. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so bastardly about it in the first place, just admit you were wrong and didn't read the damn article and we can forgive you and move on.

Well, here's a newsflash for you: you don't 'own' this thread, and people are entitled to come and go in it as they please.

I'm tired of people flaming other posters. It's not that hard to disagree with someone and still have a polite discussion about things.

Well, here's a newsflash for you: you don't 'own' this thread, and people are entitled to come and go in it as they please.

I'm tired of people flaming other posters. It's not that hard to disagree with someone and still have a polite discussion about things.

Not here, apparently. When I flame someone, they tend to listen to what I'm saying, opposed to "you must think fetuses don't exist ololawl proved you wrong didn't I" - I never said I 'owned' the thread, but I am part of it and I'm trying to get it set on course, just a little bit, so that everytime someone new comes in we don't have to go through this entire "it wasn't about an agenda" explanation over and over again.

Not here, apparently. When I flame someone, they tend to listen to what I'm saying, opposed to "you must think fetuses don't exist ololawl proved you wrong didn't I" - I never said I 'owned' the thread, but I am part of it and I'm trying to get it set on course, just a little bit, so that everytime someone new comes in we don't have to go through this entire "it wasn't about an agenda" explanation over and over again.

Then you're not a very experienced debater. If you're having to go over and over it again it is because people disagree with your reasoning; not because they're somehow idiotic and incapable of reading the OP.

I still believe that this was a stupid thing to do by the school that was inevitably going to end like this. You're 'reasoning' is not convincing at all; don't think you've 'won' the argument and that you're now explaining to a new bunch of 'idiots' how enlightened you are.

Then you're not a very experienced debater. If you're having to go over and over it again it is because people disagree with your reasoning; not because they're somehow idiotic and incapable of reading the OP.

I still believe that this was a stupid thing to do by the school that was inevitably going to end like this. You're 'reasoning' is not convincing at all; don't think you've 'won' the argument and that you're now explaining to a new bunch of 'idiots' how enlightened you are.

Listen, what is the faulty reasoning of this sentence:

Fetuses can't think.

Hm? They can't. Now, try to prove to me that from that sentence, this sentence can logically be assumed:

You don't believe in fetuses.

? Where the hell can that logically come from? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. How is that in any way my fault?

Listen, what is the faulty reasoning of this sentence:

Fetuses can't think.

Hm? They can't. Now, try to prove to me that from that sentence, this sentence can logically be assumed:

You don't believe in fetuses.

? Where the hell can that logically come from? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. How is that in any way my fault?

The argument is, was, and remains that had this topic been reversed, and the 'creative thinking' project was one that was politically charged in another way, many people who were defending it would suddenly be opposed to it and cry 'indoctrination'! Rather than address that point, you've just gone on and on about how a 'fetus can't think so you couldn't write that anyway'.

Many of us who have been saying that the school shouldn't have done this, including myself, have no problem with homosexuality and homosexuals but still think it was a stupid thing to do. Whether or not you 'agree' with homosexuality, it is quite clear that this essay subject was always going to be taken as politically leading, and always going to lead to trouble.

Politics in school is fine; leading questions are not. If the teachers had wanted to change public opinion on the subject, then attempting to go behind parents backs to do so was always something that was going to end in tears.

Oh please! :rolleyes:

First of all, we did have a similar assignment when I was in 5th grade (10 years old in Germany), we were asked to write a diary of a foetus that realised it was going to be aborted. It was a bloddy stupid thing, in hindsight, for the simple biological fact that the foetus is not capable of thought. Even its ability to feel is not established. But we did it. If I had agreed with abortion at that age as I do now, I probably would have written something about how my crack-addict mom keeps getting beaten up by my drunk dad and how I wish they'd just end it all. And I would have received fair grades on it.

You claim this girl is being indoctrinated by being asked how she would feel in that situation. I think it's a fair question to ask anyone at any time, no matter what their age, conviction, religion, orientation or sex.

oh god. yeah so the Fetus can not think, Big Deal. It is supposed to be a "thinking exercise" remember? it certainly gets you to think. and an exercise like that is no more "stupid" than taking the perspective of a member from the gay community. you just personally feel one has more legitimacy than other. that is your own personal bias. A bias that is echoed in public schools and Universities everywhere. And I am speaking primarily for America, I am not sure how things are in Germany, besides the fact that candidates can get elected by running on an Anti-American platform.

There are just certain perspectives a "teacher" will never give to a student or that will never be deemed acceptable. One of the posters in this very thread said it perfect...why leave the students under the sole influence of their "racist" parents? Hail the State!

Only in your politically controversial opinion that the fetus is 'nonexistant'.
Dude, seriously, read more carefully. You are completely missing what Szanth is saying.

If you want me to "empathize" with a pre-viable fetus and write an essay from its perspective, then you'll get the same essay as if you ask me to write from the perspective of an epithelial cell:

-I would have no sensory capabilities, seeing as how my sensory organs and related brain areas would not be functional. I would not feel, see, or hear anything, since I would not have the required structures for receiving or processing sensory information.
-I would not be able to perceive or evaluate the world around me, lacking the structures required for these activities.
-I would not have opinions, feelings, or beliefs of any kind, as I would not have the capability to produce any of these.

Now, if you want to make the assignment into one of those "write an essay from the perspective of a penny" things, that's a different kind of exercise. Those aren't intended to make kids empathize with pennies, they are meant to be a kind of creative-thinking experiment.

Personally, I think it really says all that needs to be said when somebody proposes that kids try to empathize with a FETUS as the way of understanding the abortion debate. As if there weren't any actual fully-grown human involved in the situation who might be deserving of a little attention.

Asking kids to empathize with an aborted fetus is like asking kids to empathize with a kid who died because he couldn't get a kidney transplant. What does it accomplish? We can all generally grasp that most people prefer to live rather than die, right? Do any of us really need to do a writing exercise to grasp this? Do you honestly think your kids need to be taught this? A more interesting experiment is to empathize with the person who is asked to donate their kidney, which will risk their own life and will have profound health consequences even if all goes well. That's a subject with teeth to it. That's one that makes you think for a minute or two.

I wouldn't object to the "pretend you're a fetus" essay on the grounds of "indoctrination," I'd object because it's a lame assignment. I expect more from our schools. Although maybe it COULD be a good assignment after all, because it would provide an opportunity to introduce kids to all the many reasons why "would you have liked to be aborted?!" is a pathetic argument that's been over-used for decades.

Asking kids to empathize with an aborted fetus is like asking kids to empathize with a kid who died because he couldn't get a kidney transplant. What does it accomplish? We can all generally grasp that most people prefer to live rather than die, right?
And we can all generally grasp that most homosexuals prefer to be homosexual to heterosexual, so what does teaching something like this in a school accomplish other than to piss people off and further divide people over the issue?

Dude, seriously, read more carefully. You are completely missing what Szanth is saying.

If you want me to "empathize" with a pre-viable fetus and write an essay from its perspective, then you'll get the same essay as if you ask me to write from the perspective of an epithelial cell:

-I would have no sensory capabilities, seeing as how my sensory organs and related brain areas would not be functional. I would not feel, see, or hear anything, since I would not have the required structures for receiving or processing sensory information.
-I would not be able to perceive or evaluate the world around me, lacking the structures required for these activities.
-I would not have opinions, feelings, or beliefs of any kind, as I would not have the capability to produce any of these.

Now, if you want to make the assignment into one of those "write an essay from the perspective of a penny" things, that's a different kind of exercise. Those aren't intended to make kids empathize with pennies, they are meant to be a kind of creative-thinking experiment.

Personally, I think it really says all that needs to be said when somebody proposes that kids try to empathize with a FETUS as the way of understanding the abortion debate. As if there weren't any actual fully-grown human involved in the situation who might be deserving of a little attention.

Asking kids to empathize with an aborted fetus is like asking kids to empathize with a kid who died because he couldn't get a kidney transplant. What does it accomplish? We can all generally grasp that most people prefer to live rather than die, right? Do any of us really need to do a writing exercise to grasp this? Do you honestly think your kids need to be taught this? A more interesting experiment is to empathize with the person who is asked to donate their kidney, which will risk their own life and will have profound health consequences even if all goes well. That's a subject with teeth to it. That's one that makes you think for a minute or two.

Thank you, Bottle. Szanth Token for you, redeemable at any 7-11 or brothel.

And we can all generally grasp that most homosexuals prefer to be homosexual to heterosexual, so what does teaching something like this in a school accomplish other than to piss people off and further divide people over the issue?
You really just haven't read the article at all, have you?

The point of the assignment was NOT to imagine what it is like to be homosexual.

It was NOT to imagine whether being gay is better than being straight.

It was NOT to imagine whether or not homosexuals "like" being gay.

Read the article again, then read your post, and see if you can revise it to reflect the actual topic.

And we can all generally grasp that most homosexuals prefer to be homosexual to heterosexual, so what does teaching something like this in a school accomplish other than to piss people off and further divide people over the issue?

The point is not to teach children what homosexuals prefer as per sex - it's how to deal with being the oppressed minority. Opressed in ways of religion, tradition, and the simple fact that people just find you icky and think you're contagious.

"Stay away from him, I don't wanna catch the 'straight'." try hitting on a woman, get punched in the face because she takes offense to 'people like you', her girlfriend beating you all to hell afterwards all while she exclaims how her religious leader says people like you burn in hell for all eternity.

Y'know, that kind of thing.

You really just haven't read the article at all, have you?

The point of the assignment was NOT to imagine what it is like to be homosexual.

It was NOT to imagine whether being gay is better than being straight.

It was NOT to imagine whether or not homosexuals "like" being gay.

Read the article again, then read your post, and see if you can revise it to reflect the actual topic.
And you've not read any of the posts at all, have you?

If you can't accept that it's fine for children to be asked leading questions when they are against the things you believe, then stop saying that there is nothing wrong with leading questions to children when it's against something they believe.

The fact that you are so blinded by political motivations as to why this was obviously going to be seen as indoctrination doesn't change the fact that it was.

Oh how nice we've got the everpresent biased christian in the thread, now. :p

You do realize I could just call you the everpresent biased humanist, right?

I have no idea why you labeled me the way you did but if my viewpoints in any way resemble Christian morals, keep in mind that Christians are not the only ones who share these morals. And being Christian makes someone no more biased than being gay. There are over a billion Chrisitans in the world and ideologies vary significantly.

And I am speaking primarily for America, I am not sure how things are in Germany, besides the fact that candidates can get elected by running on an Anti-American platform.
You dont even know that one correct... :rolleyes:
But, hey, ignorance is bliss.

The point is not to teach children what homosexuals prefer as per sex - it's how to deal with being the oppressed minority. Opressed in ways of religion, tradition, and the simple fact that people just find you icky and think you're contagious.

Which brings us full circle back to the original point. When schools try to take on the job of dealing with political disputes or 'oppressed minorities' by going behind parent's backs, all it will do is further entrench the views of said parents and alienate them to the opposite perspective.

Coming between a parent and their kids is never a good way to get things done.

And you've not read any of the posts at all, have you?

If you can't accept that it's fine for children to be asked leading questions when they are against the things you believe, then stop saying that there is nothing wrong with leading questions to children when it's against something they believe.

The fact that you are so blinded by political motivations as to why this was obviously going to be seen as indoctrination doesn't change the fact that it was.

I honestly feel sorry for you. I really, honestly and truly do. I mean nothing mocking, I don't want you to feel bad, but I really do feel like you're, at some level, mentally disabled. Again, I don't want you to feel bad or angry or think I'm trying to disrespect you, but it's the simple truth of what I feel, and there's no cynicism in it whatsoever.

You do realize I could just call you the everpresent biased humanist, right?

I have no idea why you labeled me the way you did but if my viewpoints in any way resemble Christian morals, keep in mind that Christians are not the only ones who share these morals. And being Christian makes someone no more biased than being gay. There are over a billion Chrisitans in the world and ideologies vary significantly.

Dear god no, not the HUMANISTS. They'll treat people equally! Quickly, get the torches!

I honestly feel sorry for you. I really, honestly and truly do. I mean nothing mocking, I don't want you to feel bad, but I really do feel like you're, at some level, mentally disabled. Again, I don't want you to feel bad or angry or think I'm trying to disrespect you, but it's the simple truth of what I feel, and there's no cynicism in it whatsoever.
I refuse to dignify that with an answer.

Which brings us full circle back to the original point. When schools try to take on the job of dealing with political disputes or 'oppressed minorities' by going behind parent's backs, all it will do is further entrench the views of said parents and alienate them to the opposite perspective.

Coming between a parent and their kids is never a good way to get things done.

This is not just a political standpoint ... people in our schools are geting BEAT because some kids do not seem able to show a little empathy this is not some dirty liberal trick it is the fact that these kids need to LEARN to be able to understand something from someone elses point of view

You do realize I could just call you the everpresent biased humanist, right?

I have no idea why you labeled me the way you did but if my viewpoints in any way resemble Christian morals, keep in mind that Christians are not the only ones who share these morals. And being Christian makes someone no more biased than being gay. There are over a billion Chrisitans in the world and ideologies vary significantly.

And how does the opinion that being gay is a sin conflict in ANY way with this asingment?

:) That proves my point nicely, thank you.

And, if the first example was too much, how about "imagine you're a creationist in an evolutionists world". Again, I very much expect that there would be something of an outcry.

That wouldn't fit the tone of the assignment. Although, "Imagine you were a proponent of evolutionary theory in a world where the majority of people were Christian Creationists," would be an interesting scenario.

And how does the opinion that being gay is a sin conflict in ANY way with this asingment?

Yeah, all the people with that statement never seem to answer this question.

You dont even know that one correct... :rolleyes:
But, hey, ignorance is bliss.


It is incredible how the ignorant often refer to "ignorance" the most. That is what happens when you lack true rationality and knowledge.

Gerhard Schroeder constantly railed against America during his campaigning, usually in an attempt to distract the impoverished East German population from his economic failures as a Chancellor. He relished and encouraged anti-American sentiment in the street all in an attempt to get him elected. He linked Bush with Hitler and tried this crap again until Angela Merkel pointed out it was all a distraction from the real issues and defeated him. The German street and especially the academics were so quick to believe this anti-americanism they fell for Schroeder's ploy.

This same anti-American sentiment was also present in the 1960s with vietnam and in the 1980s with the nuclear freeze but back then it was countered by anti-communist sentiment and the reliance on America for protection.

what is ya...ig-na-rent er sum'in?

That wouldn't fit the tone of the assignment. Although, "Imagine you were a proponent of evolutionary theory in a world where the majority of people were Christian Creationists," would be an interesting scenario.

"But I'm from an alternate reality and timeline - I'm an ape-like creature, and the power of this reality's sun has given me the ability to speak english! I've come to tell you that you're all wrong! I'm the common ancestor between you and the other ape-like creatures from a million years ago! AGH, STOP THROWING ROCKS AT ME!"

That wouldn't fit the tone of the assignment. Although, "Imagine you were a proponent of evolutionary theory in a world where the majority of people were Christian Creationists," would be an interesting scenario.

LOL, are you joking? you completey reversed the question to it takes a "liberal" perspective. yeah, i guess when it is from that perspective, it does fit the tone of the original assignment.

you were joking though, right?

LOL, are you joking? you completey reversed the question to it takes a "liberal" perspective. yeah, i guess when it is from that perspective, it does fit the tone of the original assignment.

you were joking though, right?

You could pretend you're a creationist in a society of evolutionists. But wait... >P That'd be pointless if you actually are one. We're trying to give the impression of someone -else's- shoes.

And, if the first example was too much, how about "imagine you're a creationist in an evolutionists world". Again, I very much expect that there would be something of an outcry.

If she refused to do an assignment in which she was supposed to discuss what she would do if she lived in a society in which the majority of people believed in ID, she would deserve a zero just as much as she currently does.

Yeah, that's a big outcry. :rolleyes:

I can't fathom what grade other than a zero people think a student should be given for doing no work. Contrary to what many whiny 14-year-olds I have met seem to believe, you don't get grades because you "deserve" them, you get grades because you earned them. If you do not turn in the assignment, you get a zero.

So, essentially, you are saying that "she couldn't write an essay about that politically charged topic because I believe it doesn't exist, but she can write an essay about the first politically charged topic because I believe that her beliefs are irrelevant".

Fair and balanced, that.

No, and you know better. You are intentionally misrepresenting the words of others.

If the teens were asked to do a project related to abortion, that would be fine, but it has to be a project that makes some sort of sense. Asking someone to imagine being a 2nd trimester fetus that comprehends its mother's intentions is equivalent to asking someone to imagine being a tree that is about to be cut down - it really doesn't make much sense. Now, if they were asked to write from the perspective of a child who finds out that his mother wanted to have an abortion, or, better yet, from the point of view of a mother faced with an unplanned pregnancy and deciding how to deal with it, that could be very appropriate. And, just like this assignment, it would allow for the entire spectrum of the debate. One student might write that abortion would be the immediate choice. One might write that abortion would be absolutely out of the question and would plan for adoption. And so on....

Yeah, that's a big outcry. :rolleyes:

I can't fathom what grade other than a zero people think a student should be given for doing no work. Contrary to what many whiny 14-year-olds I have met seem to believe, you don't get grades because you "deserve" them, you get grades because you earned them. If you do not turn in the assignment, you get a zero.

Fuck you! Nobody understands me! That teacher's a bitch! I'm gonna go listen to Linkin Park and write in my journal!

And how does the opinion that being gay is a sin conflict in ANY way with this asingment?

for the same reason that certain christians would not wish to do an assignment about being a member of a wiccan community that casts spells and tells fortunes.

EDIT>

oh and this needs to be cleared up, from the original post:

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.

On life in the gay community. Exactly where does it specificy that she is to take the role of a hetero-sexual in the gay community? All it says is "on life in the gay community". The wording of this sentence leads me, as it would many if not most others, to write a paper as a member of the gay community - being gay.

The article does not seem to specify in the OP that the student was to transport herself into a gay community and describe what she thinks or sees, yet many of you are so certain this was the intent of the assignment.

In order to truly understand life in the gay community, you must assume the role of an active participant in that community, a gay person.

No, and you know better. You are intentionally misrepresenting the words of others.

If the teens were asked to do a project related to abortion, that would be fine, but it has to be a project that makes some sort of sense. Asking someone to imagine being a 2nd trimester fetus that comprehends its mother's intentions is equivalent to asking someone to imagine being a tree that is about to be cut down - it really doesn't make much sense. Now, if they were asked to write from the perspective of a child who finds out that his mother wanted to have an abortion, or, better yet, from the point of view of a mother faced with an unplanned pregnancy and deciding how to deal with it, that could be very appropriate. And, just like this assignment, it would allow for the entire spectrum of the debate. One student might write that abortion would be the immediate choice. One might write that abortion would be absolutely out of the question and would plan for adoption. And so on....

That's pretty much, ver batum, what I said a while back. Of course, I agree with you. :p Lol

for the same reason that certain christians would not wish to do an assignment about being a member of a wiccan community that casts spells and tells fortunes.

Jesus Christ, you can't read. You simply can't read.

In your dumbass example, you say the christians are WICCANS... which are obivously not CHRISTIANS.

In the REAL example, the assignment was to be whatever you are in reality, but SURROUNDED in society by people of a different nature!

Im' just... fucking STUNNED. That's the only word for it. Just, stunned, at how amazingly stupid you must be to just ignore people's words so things in your mind will make sense.

It is incredible how the ignorant often refer to "ignorance" the most. That is what happens when you lack true rationality and knowledge.

Gerhard Schroeder constantly railed against America during his campaigning, usually in an attempt to distract the impoverished East German population from his economic failures as a Chancellor. He relished and encouraged anti-American sentiment in the street all in an attempt to get him elected. He linked Bush with Hitler and tried this crap again until Angela Merkel pointed out it was all a distraction from the real issues and defeated him. The German street and especially the academics were so quick to believe this anti-americanism they fell for Schroeder's ploy.

This same anti-American sentiment was also present in the 1960s with vietnam and in the 1980s with the nuclear freeze but back then it was countered by anti-communist sentiment and the reliance on America for protection.

what is ya...ig-na-rent er sum'in?

Err, what are you talking about?

Thats not what we said ... you should have still had to do the asingment to get the grade ... that does not mean I do not think it is a silly assingment

Precisely.


IMHO, she had every right to refuse to do such an assignment. The schools have no business trying to teach a political agenda. If the assignment had been to discuss discrimination against gays, or against any out-group for that matter, and she refused to do it, then I could understand her being failed. But this assignment went a bit far.

How so?

This assignment was actually much less political than the one you propose. It could be completed equally well by a homophobe as by a child whose parents are homosexual. All it asked is for the child to imagine being a heterosexual who was in the minority in a given society and how they would deal with the issues they saw coming up.

LOL, are you joking? you completey reversed the question to it takes a "liberal" perspective. yeah, i guess when it is from that perspective, it does fit the tone of the original assignment.

you were joking though, right?

Okay, you're going to need to explain this. The assignment format was "Imagine you're a member of Group A in a society where the majority of the population are members of Group B." When Group A was "heterosexuals" and Group B was "homosexuals," you argued that this assignment had a pro-homosexual (Group B) agenda. Keeping the assignment in the exact same format, when Group A is "evolutionists" and Group B is "creationists," you now seem to believe that the assignment has a pro-evolutionist (Group A) agenda.

Either your critical reading skills need a little work, or you've just acknowledged that the "agenda" you thought you saw was based solely on your own political beliefs, and was not inherent in the assignment.

Okay, you're going to need to explain this. The assignment format was "Imagine you're a member of Group A in a society where the majority of the population are members of Group B." When Group A was "heterosexuals" and Group B was "homosexuals," you argued that this assignment had a pro-homosexual (Group B) agenda. Keeping the assignment in the exact same format, when Group A is "evolutionists" and Group B is "creationists," you now seem to believe that the assignment has a pro-evolutionist (Group A) agenda.

Either your critical reading skills need a little work, or you've just acknowledged that the "agenda" you thought you saw was based solely on your own political beliefs, and was not inherent in the assignment.

No, definitely a reading comprehension problem.

I understand that, and have no problem with any school trying to teach tolerance toward any out-group, but the point of the matter is that she was failed for not acting against her religious principles. Hopefully there is still freedom of religion as well as freedom of association.

What "religious principle" tells you that you cannot even think about sexuality? And, if even thinking about sexuality truly is against her religious principles, shouldn't she have left the class completely when they had that discussion?

If my religion tells me that it is bad to think about chemistry, should I get some sort of special treatment and not fail chemistry?

If my preacher tells me that the Holocaust didn't happen, should I not fail if I refuse to do a report on the Holocaust?

[qoute=Philosopy]Then you're not a very experienced debater. If you're having to go over and over it again it is because people disagree with your reasoning; not because they're somehow idiotic and incapable of reading the OP.[/quote]

....says the person who continually intentionally misrepresents the words of others. That's cute, my dear.

You could pretend you're a creationist in a society of evolutionists. But wait... >P That'd be pointless if you actually are one. We're trying to give the impression of someone -else's- shoes.

and so am I and so was Philosophy. The point is, not everyone's shoes are represented when it comes to these assignments in schools. You seem to feel uneasy in some of the scenarios we mentioned.

here's a real doozy for you, put yourself in my shoes, a Creationist and one who accepts Evolutionary Theory. I see the two beliefs not as contradicting one another, but complimenting one another.

Sheer and complete Disengenuousity.
Oh?

It was not "merely" asking for her opinion. It was asking for her opinion in a pointed manner. If the question had been "How do you feel about homosexuality?" or "How do you feel about the treatment of homosexuals.", it would have been a reasonable question.
It was asked her how'd she feel in a society with many homosexuals, can you explain to me how this is unreasonable?


[/quote]What it was, was bullying the student. She has no defense against a teacher's shots at her values. How are we to teach her that attack the morals of one who has no defense against you is wrong, if you we attack her morals while she has no defense?[/QUOTE]

Shots at her values? She was asked to think about her opinion, that is not attacking her morals in any way, shape or form. It has been said by, pretty much everyone but now I'll say it again: she could have discussed her hate and intolerance or gays/bis, whatever and recieved an okay grade (as far as we know) but she made the choice to close her mind. Fair enough, her right and now she can recieve the consequences for doing that just like I am about to recieve the consquences for not drawing a map in Italy for Social Studies. "But I don't believe in Italy! It insults my values!" Will I be excused from the assignment now?

For a 13 year old? Fuck no! That's a question for a 17 year old, or a 19 year old, but not for a 13 year old.
At 13 you know who you are attracted to that is... what grade 7? Thats when the dating scene really starts and is 1-2 years the kids will start coming out. I knew a kid that came out in grade 7, this is when they are going to start having to deal with sexuality. There own and and others so now is when they need to start learning about. If you don't believe they are ready, too bad they don't have a choice.

But its scary to think that these homophobic fundies exist here in sunny Queensland.


Hahah Queensland, hehha hhooo hahehah shhheet. Say I'm not the only one to find that funny am I?!?

imagine an exercise where you had to take the role of an unborn fetus in the second trimester who can hear his mother talking about getting an abortion...


Isn't just the first trimester in which case I would discuss the lack of brain that a child at this stage of developement has and possibly the life it would have if it was born I think that second trimester is for those specail cases when they have a disease or it is a danger to the mother health. Again, under developed brain then a discussion of what could be wrong with them of what they could suffer. The mother's position in all this how it would effect her life. That should take up a few pages, answer the questions, include ressources, get my mark.

Okay, you're going to need to explain this. The assignment format was "Imagine you're a member of Group A in a society where the majority of the population are members of Group B." When Group A was "heterosexuals" and Group B was "homosexuals," you argued that this assignment had a pro-homosexual (Group B) agenda. Keeping the assignment in the exact same format, when Group A is "evolutionists" and Group B is "creationists," you now seem to believe that the assignment has a pro-evolutionist (Group A) agenda.

Either your critical reading skills need a little work, or you've just acknowledged that the "agenda" you thought you saw was based solely on your own political beliefs, and was not inherent in the assignment.

Settle down there, you're overanalyzing things and about to blow a fuse.

Philosophy suggested an assignment where the student take the perspective of a creationist in a world of evolutionary theorists.

dempublicants said taking the perspective of an evolutionary theorist in a world of creationists would be the more interesting assignment.

he reversed the question and found it to be more interesting. why? because taking the role of an evolutionary theorist rather than a creationist is more appealing to him, conciously or sub-conciously.

just as describing life in the gay community is a more comfortable assignment for most of you in this thread as opposed to, say, describing life as an unborn fetus about to be aborted, a creationist surrounded by darwinists or a CEO surrounded by trial lawyers.

The "thinking" exercises are one sided.

it is really quite simple and you would not have to try and overcomplicate things if you just took them at face value.


and Szanth, grow up. you are either insulting people, or parroting the arguments of others.

and so am I and so was Philosophy. The point is, not everyone's shoes are represented when it comes to these assignments in schools. You seem to feel uneasy in some of the scenarios we mentioned.

here's a real doozy for you, put yourself in my shoes, a Creationist and one who accepts Evolutionary Theory. I see the two beliefs not as contradicting one another, but complimenting one another.

You really don't understand the assignment. There's no opposition for someone like you. Nobody's calling you a fag or a ****** because of who you are. There's barely anyone saying you're going to burn in hell because you accept evolution.

You're really not in desparate need of someone to be in your shoes. Nobody beats on you because they thought you were looking at them weird and they happen to be homophobic.

Point is, it makes sense for someone a teacher to introduce this situation into the classroom because if empathy is created then less hate crimes will be committed. Keep in mind, that doesn't mean there was only ONE way to answer this assignment - far from it. As said before, you could thrust forth your christian beliefs and say you would shun or try to convert everyone in the community, and you would've gotten credit, so there was no forced agenda. She simply did NOT do the assignment, one way or another, and recieved a zero because of it.

LOL, are you joking? you completey reversed the question to it takes a "liberal" perspective. yeah, i guess when it is from that perspective, it does fit the tone of the original assignment.

you were joking though, right?

No, I've made the question along the same lines as the original - reversing roles, as it were. Christian Creationists are currently in the minority, just as homosexuals are currently in the minority. To take the exercise into a discussion of biology, you would have to put proponents of evolutionary theory in the minority, just as the original assignment put heterosexuals in the minority.

If you wanted something closer to the "conservative" prospective, you must find something that conservatives are currently in the majority on, and then do a role reversal and put them in the minority instead. For instance, (for American students, anyways, I'm not as familiar with Australian politics) you might ask students to imagine being an advocate for the death penalty in a society where most people are opposed.

Of course, in the end, the whole discussion of "conservative" vs. "liberal" ignores the fact that the assignment under question could have been easily completed by someone with a "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint. A student who is morally opposed to homosexuality would have no more problems completing this assignment than one who has homosexual loved ones and sees nothing wrong with it. A person of *either* viewpoint could imagine themselves in such a society and could think about how they, personally, would deal with it.

settle down there, you're overanalyzing things and about to blow a fuse.

philosophy suggested an assignment where the student take the perspective of a creationist in a world of evolutionary theorists.

dempublicants said taking the theory of an evolutionary theorist in a world of creationist would be the more interesting assignment.

he reversed the question and it found it more interesting. why? because taking the role of an evolutionary theorist rather than a creationist is more appealing to him, conciously or sub-conciously.

just as describing life in the gay community is a more comfortable assignment for most of you in this thread as opposed to say describing life as an unborn fetus about to be aborted, a creationist surrounded by darwinists or a CEO surrounded by trial lawyers.

The "thinking" exercises are one sided.

it is really quite simple and if you would not have to try and overcomplicate things if you just took them at face value.


and Szanth, grow up. you are either insulting people, or parroting the arguments of others.

I insult those that attempt to twist my words, and it seems like others have been parroting me moreso than the other way around. Regardless, it doesn't matter - an opinion is an opinion, and is nondependant upon how many people have it.

Again, that proves my point. When faced with a topic you don't like, you say that it shouldn't be included in school's at all. When faced with a topic someone else doesn't like, it's just a 'creative thought process' with no political motives at all.

As I said originally in this thread, school's are not a place for political indoctrination, no matter how much you believe what the teachers are trying to say.


Her arguement against the abortion topic is that the subject matter cannot have developed thought and therefor such an assignment would be pointless. She is being asked to identify with something without an identity. The girl who refused to do the homosexual assignemtn was being asked to maintain her identity.

Jesus Christ, you can't read. You simply can't read.

In your dumbass example, you say the christians are WICCANS... which are obivously not CHRISTIANS.

In the REAL example, the assignment was to be whatever you are in reality, but SURROUNDED in society by people of a different nature!

Im' just... fucking STUNNED. That's the only word for it. Just, stunned, at how amazingly stupid you must be to just ignore people's words so things in your mind will make sense.

Settle Down!

It is offensive for her to, as she saw it, take the perspective of a gay community member just as it would be offensive for some Christians to take the perspective of a member of the Wiccan or spellcaster community (think the Harry Potter controversy).

Now wipe the foam off your quivering mouth, calm down and accept that there are people who do not agree with you. slowly read what i said and it wil make sense. if it still does not, then sound each letter out while reading out loud, it may help.

for the same reason that certain christians would not wish to do an assignment about being a member of a wiccan community that casts spells and tells fortunes.

But if a Christian was asked to imagine being a Christian in a majority Wiccan community, what would the problem be?

oh and this needs to be cleared up, from the original post:

Here's something from the original post for you:

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.

On life in the gay community. Exactly where does it specificy that she is to take the role of a hetero-sexual in the gay community?

See above.

Reading is hard.

Settle down there, you're overanalyzing things and about to blow a fuse.

Philosophy suggested an assignment where the student take the perspective of a creationist in a world of evolutionary theorists.

dempublicants said taking the perspective of an evolutionary theorist in a world of creationists would be the more interesting assignment.

I said no such thing. I said that it would be a proper analogy to the assignment we are currently discussing. I didn't say anything about what would be more "interesting."

The assignment involved role-reversal. It involved making the current majority the minority and vice versa. It wouldn't make much sense to create a question in which those who oppose evolutionary theory were the minority and consider it an analogy. They already are the minority.

just as describing life in the gay community is a more comfortable assignment for most of you in this thread as opposed to,

There was no assignment asking someone to describe life in the gay community. The girl was clearly asked to imagine being heterosexual, simply being in the minority, rather than the majority.

say, describing life as an unborn fetus about to be aborted,

This has nothing to do with comfort and everything to do with feasibility. People have been very clear on what you could write from the "point-of-view" of a fetus about to be aborted. It's basically, "JSDGHUEHUWKHuhedjtgkrwhue;wjgnbvhdsurod;qjtjio4phti3qo."

The "thinking" exercises are one sided.

The thinking exercises have to make you think. Asking you to imagine the world just as it is doesn't make you think. You have to actually change something.

And asking someone to imagine that they are different, rather than the world being different, is pretty useless. The idea is to change the world around the person in question, and then ask how things might be different.

Settle Down!

It is offensive for her to, as she saw it, take the perspective of a gay community member just as it would be offensive for some Christians to take the perspective of a member of the Wiccan or spellcaster community (think the Harry Potter controversy).

Now wipe the foam off your quivering mouth, calm down and accept that there are people who do not agree with you. slowly read what i said and it wil make sense. if it still does not, then sound each letter out while reading out loud, it may help.

... You're still not listening! She WOULD NOT have been pretending to be gay. If she feels icky pretending she's in a society with a bunch of gays, then too fucking bad, that's not religious and that's no reason to not do the assignment and expect anything but a zero. End of story.

Settle Down!

It is offensive for her to, as she saw it, take the perspective of a gay community member just as it would be offensive for some Christians to take the perspective of a member of the Wiccan or spellcaster community (think the Harry Potter controversy).

How many times do you have to be reminded that she wasn't being asked to take the perspective of a gay anything. She was being asked to imagine being in a society where the majority of people were homosexual, not where she was, herself, homosexual. In fact, the assignment specifically dictated that she would be wrting from the perspective of a heterosexual person.

The religious equivalent to this would be, "Imagine you are a Christian living in a majority Wiccan community."

Once again, from the article:

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.

One more time for good measure:

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.

Sort of the same here. I didn't understand that it was physically possible for people who weren't married to have relations like that until around that time...although I still don't really understand why people like each other, whether they're of different or same genders.

Wow, I was like 9 when I found out about homosexuality, shortly after I found out about heterosexual sex. Incidentally, the insult of the year at that time was 'Gay-Lord'. Kinda what you'd expect from a bunch of 9-10 year olds.

No, I've made the question along the same lines as the original - reversing roles, as it were. Christian Creationists are currently in the minority, just as homosexuals are currently in the minority. To take the exercise into a discussion of biology, you would have to put proponents of evolutionary theory in the minority, just as the original assignment put heterosexuals in the minority.

If you wanted something closer to the "conservative" prospective, you must find something that conservatives are currently in the majority on, and then do a role reversal and put them in the minority instead. For instance, (for American students, anyways, I'm not as familiar with Australian politics) you might ask students to imagine being an advocate for the death penalty in a society where most people are opposed.

Of course, in the end, the whole discussion of "conservative" vs. "liberal" ignores the fact that the assignment under question could have been easily completed by someone with a "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint. A student who is morally opposed to homosexuality would have no more problems completing this assignment than one who has homosexual loved ones and sees nothing wrong with it. A person of *either* viewpoint could imagine themselves in such a society and could think about how they, personally, would deal with it.

Reasonable response, except I do not agree that most people are Creationists, at least not to the point where they reject evolution. I live in New England and can not speak for other parts of the country however.

I personally do not have a problem with the exercise offered, my main issue is that these types of exercises are slanted or biased whether it is to the knowledge of the teacher or not.

Earlier I brought up to you an exercise I was given by a professor where I had to assume the role of a Native American whose family was brutally butchered by Americans and then a Christian missionary comes along and tries to convert me to the same "moral" religion as these men. This was obviously a slanted assignment but I did it anyways and did it well. This professor never would have offered the flip side where a Frontier boy watched his family get murdered and scalped by "Indians". That would be deemed a racist assignment by most faculty members and those in the administration.

My issue is the lack of diversity of ideas and thoughts in the public school system and the universities.

Reasonable response, except I do not agree that most people are Creationists, at least not to the point where they reject evolution. I live in New England and can not speak for other parts of the country however.

I personally do not have a problem with the exercise offered, my main issue is that these types of exercises are slanted or biased whether it is to the knowledge of the teacher or not.

Earlier I brought up to you an exercise I was given by a professor where I had to assume the role of a Native American whose family was brutally butchered by Americans and then a Christian missionary comes along and tries to convert me to the same "moral" religion as these men. This was obviously a slanted assignment but I did it anyways and did it well. This professor never would have offered the flip side where a Frontier boy watched his family get murdered and scalped by "Indians". That would be deemed a racist assignment by most faculty members and those in the administration.

My issue is the lack of diversity of ideas and thoughts in the public school system and the universities.

I'm sorry, but that's not what we're debating here. Whether or not the ideas and thoughts of the public school system are diverse is irrelevant - we're talking about a girl who didn't want to do her work and put up a bullshit front in the form of religion. I'd think a christian like you would take offense to her blaspheming like that, considering the assignment is really -not- against christianity.

EDIT: Woot for new title.

Settle down there, you're overanalyzing things and about to blow a fuse.

Philosophy suggested an assignment where the student take the perspective of a creationist in a world of evolutionary theorists.

dempublicants said taking the perspective of an evolutionary theorist in a world of creationists would be the more interesting assignment.

he reversed the question and found it to be more interesting. why? because taking the role of an evolutionary theorist rather than a creationist is more appealing to him, conciously or sub-conciously.

just as describing life in the gay community is a more comfortable assignment for most of you in this thread as opposed to, say, describing life as an unborn fetus about to be aborted, a creationist surrounded by darwinists or a CEO surrounded by trial lawyers.

The "thinking" exercises are one sided.

it is really quite simple and you would not have to try and overcomplicate things if you just took them at face value.


...I'm about to blow a fuse? You seem to like reading things into arguments that aren't there. I am quite certain I never expressed anger in any way in that post, seeing as I'm not in any way angry. Why would I be? :confused:

Of course, you also seem not to have read my post or the article very carefully. The original assignment had students imagining they were heterosexual. Not gay. Perhaps you should try rereading both the article and my post without preconceived notions of what you think they're going to say; maybe they'll make more sense to you then.

How many times do you have to be reminded that she wasn't being asked to take the perspective of a gay anything. She was being asked to imagine being in a society where the majority of people were homosexual, not where she was, herself, homosexual. In fact, the assignment specifically dictated that she would be wrting from the perspective of a heterosexual person.

The religious equivalent to this would be, "Imagine you are a Christian living in a majority Wiccan community."

Once again, from the article:

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.

One more time for good measure:

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.

ahhh, it does specify heterosexual. i actually missed that in my first couple read throughs. my apologies.

but as i said, i do not have a problem with the assignment itself, but the girl obviously does. And the focus is still on a homosexual community. i mean, she's 13 years old, they don't need these sorts of "thinking" exercises and as I said many times before, these types of exercises are not balanced out in the school system.

ahhh, it does specify heterosexual. i actually missed that in my first couple read throughs. my apologies.

but as i said, i do not have a problem with the assignment itself, but the girl obviously does. And the focus is still on a homosexual community. i mean, she's 13 years old, they don't need these sorts of "thinking" exercises and as I said many times before, these types of exercises are not balanced out in the school system.

?

The focus is on her, and she happens to be in a homosexual community. If she knows whether or not she's gay, she's old enough to be asked these types of questions.

?

The focus is on her, and she happens to be in a homosexual community. If she knows whether or not she's gay, she's old enough to be asked these types of questions.


and I disagree. I do not think she needs to be thinking about a gay colony on the moon. No matter how fabulous it is. (just a little Queer eye for the Straight guy joke, no one get too offended)

this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

Reasonable response, except I do not agree that most people are Creationists, at least not to the point where they reject evolution. I live in New England and can not speak for other parts of the country however.

Ok, look, you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that the people who were Creationists opposed to evolutionary theory were the MINORITY, not the majority. Thus, imagining that they are the minority would be a useless exercise - it's already true. Now, imagining that they were the majority, and that you had to deal with such a society, that would be a thought exercise.

Earlier I brought up to you an exercise I was given by a professor where I had to assume the role of a Native American whose family was brutally butchered by Americans and then a Christian missionary comes along and tries to convert me to the same "moral" religion as these men. This was obviously a slanted assignment but I did it anyways and did it well. This professor never would have offered the flip side where a Frontier boy watched his family get murdered and scalped by "Indians". That would be deemed a racist assignment by most faculty members and those in the administration.

I see no reason that both assignments could not have been offered. However, I think they would be more difficult to do, as they ask you to imagine yourself being different. The assignment in question didn't ask the girl to alter herself or her outlook. She was simply supposed to imagine that the rest of the world was different.

My issue is the lack of diversity of ideas and thoughts in the public school system and the universities.

But you ignore the fact that this assignment could have been carried out equally well from the perspective of a homophobic person as it could from the perspective of one who embraces the gay community.

ahhh, it does specify heterosexual. i actually missed that in my first couple read throughs. my apologies.

NP

but as i said, i do not have a problem with the assignment itself, but the girl obviously does. And the focus is still on a homosexual community. i mean, she's 13 years old, they don't need these sorts of "thinking" exercises and as I said many times before, these types of exercises are not balanced out in the school system.

People keep saying this, as if 13-year olds are not already having to deal with issues of sexuality. Are you under the impression that puberty starts at a later age? Most 13-year olds are already going through puberty. They are already beginning to deal with these issues. Why is that age a bad time to bring them up in school?

And you have yet to show that these exercises are not "balanced". This girl didn't need to stop being homophobic to complete the exercise. The exercise itself can be completed no matter what the student's outlook is on sexuality.

Wow, I was like 9 when I found out about homosexuality, shortly after I found out about heterosexual sex. Incidentally, the insult of the year at that time was 'Gay-Lord'. Kinda what you'd expect from a bunch of 9-10 year olds.

See, I didn't find out about heterosexual sex until about fourth or fifth grade, and then only because I had read a book about squids that mentioned their mating habits, and so I asked my parents "How do people do that?" They told me that it was when two married people slept in the same bed naked. I never realized that it could happen when people weren't married. I think I knew that some people liked people of the same gender and some people liked people of the opposite gender, but it didn't really seem to affect me, except that one of my friends stopped being my friend because his other friends thought that he liked me or something.

And by the time I got to sex ed, they treat you like you should already know what sex is (which I didn't really) and don't tell you, but just tell you about your period in 5th grade, body parts and stuff like that in 6th grade, and then more body parts and contraceptive methods in 9th grade, although they never actually tell you what sex is. So I'm just left to assume that it's something gross, disgusting, icky, frightening, painful, and pointless if you don't want kids

I've never really understood why people feel inclined to feel things of a sexual nature for people anyway.

and I disagree. I do not think she needs to be thinking about a gay colony on the moon. No matter how fabulous it is. (just a little Queer eye for the Straight guy joke, no one get too offended)

this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

And while we disagree, there are children out there ridiculing other children for being different because there was nobody there to teach them to treat everyone equally, because someone like you felt they didn't have to at that age.

I can only assume that basic reading comprehension offends the religious sensibilities of most of those defending the girl. :rolleyes:

Wow, I was like 9 when I found out about homosexuality, shortly after I found out about heterosexual sex. Incidentally, the insult of the year at that time was 'Gay-Lord'. Kinda what you'd expect from a bunch of 9-10 year olds.

My seven year old brother knows about homosexuality, and has done for a while. I think that's because he shares a room with his older brother who has lesbian porn all over his bedroom walls. He only recently found out that there are homosexual men though, he was watching Friends and it came up so he asked me about it. I think it's strange when people don't know anything about sex until into their teens, don't their parents ever get fed up with their kids and stick them in front of a television?

:confused:

Ok, look, you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that the people who were Creationists opposed to evolutionary theory were the MINORITY, not the majority. Thus, imagining that they are the minority would be a useless exercise - it's already true. Now, imagining that they were the majority, and that you had to deal with such a society, that would be a thought exercise.

My reading comprehension skills are fine, except for that miss of the word heterosexual. We are just coming from different perspectives here. YES, Creationists who reject darwinism are in the minority but Philosophy and I were saying that taking the perspective of the Creationist would be controversial, no matter their status, would be controversial.

And as I said before I think health classes are too explicit. At least the more liberal or progressive the school system, the more explicit they get. I gave detailed examples and you responded to that post so you know what I am referring to. And I think homosexuality is an adult issue for ages 16 and up. not 13. That is my personal opinion. It doesn't matter when they start growing pubic hairs because of the hormones they put in our meats, 13 is still a kid.

My seven year old brother knows about homosexuality, and has done for a while. I think that's because he shares a room with his older brother who has lesbian porn all over his bedroom walls. He only recently found out that there are homosexual men though, he was watching Friends and it came up so he asked me about it. I think it's strange when people don't know anything about sex until into their teens, don't their parents ever get fed up with their kids and stick them in front of a television?

:confused:

I'm sixteen, and I still don't know much of anything about sex, except that other people are attracted to people somehow and what I learned in health class, which really doesn't explain what it is. I think they expected me to know already, but I didn't.

My reading comprehension skills are fine, except for that miss of the word heterosexual. We are just coming from different perspectives here. YES, Creationists who reject darwinism are in the minority but Philosophy and I were saying that taking the perspective of the Creationist would be controversial, no matter their status, would be controversial.

And as I said before I think health classes are too explicit. At least the more liberal or progressive the school system, the more explicit they get. I gave detailed examples and you responded to that post so you know what I am referring to. And I think homosexuality is an adult issue for ages 16 and up. not 13. That is my personal opinion. It doesn't matter when they start growing pubic hairs because of the hormones they put in our meats, 13 is still a kid.

The gay 13 year olds would disagree, and would plead to you that someone tell them that they're not the only ones who feel the way they do. They'd like to know why they're different, and they'd like to know why people pick on them for it. They'd like to know what a fag is so they can answer when someone yells it at them.

Honestly, are you just trying to shelter kids? JUST heterosexual kids? Because your system wouldn't have any benefits whatsoever for homosexuals or children who've already had sexual experiences before the age of 16. You really need to think things through.

It is incredible how the ignorant often refer to "ignorance" the most. That is what happens when you lack true rationality and knowledge.

Gerhard Schroeder constantly railed against America during his campaigning, usually in an attempt to distract the impoverished East German population from his economic failures as a Chancellor. He relished and encouraged anti-American sentiment in the street all in an attempt to get him elected. He linked Bush with Hitler and tried this crap again until Angela Merkel pointed out it was all a distraction from the real issues and defeated him. The German street and especially the academics were so quick to believe this anti-americanism they fell for Schroeder's ploy.

Obviously you know more about this, a german with voting rights and therefore the target of the rally calls you mentioned. No, Schröder did not constantly spread anti-americanism. We dont bear people who condemn whole populations as leaders in politics. He was vehemently against the US going into Iraq without a UN mandate, yes. And he was very clear about Germany not supporting or entering this war. Angela Merkel did win by a small margin four years later, when the whole topic you refer to was a non-issue and not mentioned in the election speeches at all. In fact, Chancellor Merkel is just as happy as anyone else we stayed out of the fubar mess that is Iraq. No, he did no link Bush with Hitler, that was Herta Däubler-Gmelin.
That academics, most being rather able to think and of sound education, "fall" for such an obvious ploy might teach you something. It isnt as clear-cut and easy as the filtered media reflection you might get. Of course Schröder and Bush never got along, since the are political opposites and Bush would be considered an extreme right wing here and Schröder a socialist in the US.

I'm sixteen, and I still don't know much of anything about sex, except that other people are attracted to people somehow and what I learned in health class, which really doesn't explain what it is. I think they expected me to know already, but I didn't.

That's quite sad to me.

You'd be screwed if you didn't have anyone to turn to to ask questions if you started having sexual urges.

And while we disagree, there are children out there ridiculing other children for being different because there was nobody there to teach them to treat everyone equally, because someone like you felt they didn't have to at that age.

oh God come on. Kids are taught since 5 to be kind to others and accept them for who they are. But the skinny kids are picked on. the fat kids are picked on. the short kids are picked on. the freakishly tall kids are picked on. the "slow" kids are picked on. The ethnic kids are picked on. The gay kids are picked on. The smelly kids are picked on. The effeminate straight kids are picked on. The goths are picked on. The meat heads are picked. I was picked on. You were picked on. Bill Clinton was picked on. The general problem of Bullying effects EVERY KID and even in the most progressive of environments there are bullies and there is certainly intolerance.

But no, it is all my fault, even though I come from one of the most progressive and liberal areas of the country, right up there with many parts of western europe.

hell, even Amsterdam and Denmark are seeing a resurgance in intolerant behavior.

That's quite sad to me.

You'd be screwed if you didn't have anyone to turn to to ask questions if you started having sexual urges.

But I don't have any urges, so it's fine know. I have a vague idea of what it is, but it seems really incomprehensible.

and I disagree. I do not think she needs to be thinking about a gay colony on the moon. No matter how fabulous it is. (just a little Queer eye for the Straight guy joke, no one get too offended)

this is where we will have to agree to disagree.
Why? Do you have any valid reason for saying she doesn't need to be thinking about it when given an assignment to do so?

The gay 13 year olds would disagree, and would plead to you that someone tell them that they're not the only ones who feel the way they do. They'd like to know why they're different, and they'd like to know why people pick on them for it. They'd like to know what a fag is so they can answer when someone yells it at them.

Honestly, are you just trying to shelter kids? JUST heterosexual kids? Because your system wouldn't have any benefits whatsoever for homosexuals or children who've already had sexual experiences before the age of 16. You really need to think things through.

*applauds*

Obviously you know more about this, a german with voting rights and therefore the target of the rally calls you mentioned. No, Schröder did not constantly spread anti-americanism. We dont bear people who condemn whole populations as leaders in politics. He was vehemently against the US going into Iraq without a UN mandate, yes. And he was very clear about Germany not supporting or entering this war. Angela Merkel did win by a small margin four years later, when the whole topic you refer to was a non-issue and not mentioned in the election speeches at all. In fact, Chancellor Merkel is just as happy as anyone else we stayed out of the fubar mess that is Iraq. No, he did no link Bush with Hitler, that was Herta Däubler-Gmelin.
That academics, most being rather able to think and of sound education, "fall" for such an obvious ploy might teach you something. It isnt as clear-cut and easy as the filtered media reflection you might get. Of course Schröder and Bush never got along, since the are political opposites and Bush would be considered an extreme right wing here and Schröder a socialist in the US.

filtered media? I get my European information from the CBC, BBC and Sky News. I do not watch American media outlets for news on whats going on internally at Europe, though when Gerhard was running for office, many of his quotes caught the American media's attention. So did the whole "mecca" cola craze Germany went through as they "boycotted" Coca-Cola.

and my sister lives in East Berlin and speaks fluent German she assimilated to the society real fast. She's another news source I go to.

oh God come on. Kids are taught since 5 to be kind to others and accept them for who they are. But the skinny kids are picked on. the fat kids are picked on. the short kids are picked on. the freakishly tall kids are picked on. the "slow" kids are picked on. The ethnic kids are picked on. The gay kids are picked on. The smelly kids are picked on. The effeminate straight kids are picked on. The goths are picked on. The meat heads are picked. I was picked on. You were picked on. Bill Clinton was picked on. The general problem of Bullying effects EVERY KID and even in the most progressive of environments there are bullies and there is certainly intolerance.

But no, it is all my fault, even though I come from one of the most progressive and liberal areas of the country, right up there with many parts of western europe.

hell, even Amsterdam and Denmark are seeing a resurgance in intolerant behavior.

True, all types of people are picked on. But they're not fucking beaten within an inch of their life because he glanced over at a homophobe. You think a little empathy exercises wouldn't HELP this situation? You sound like you just accept that kids will be treated unfairly regardless and you're just fine with that.

My reading comprehension skills are fine, except for that miss of the word heterosexual.

And the fact that you claimed I said that Creationists opposed to evolutionary theory were in the majority, when I actually said exactly the opposite.

We are just coming from different perspectives here. YES, Creationists who reject darwinism are in the minority but Philosophy and I were saying that taking the perspective of the Creationist would be controversial, no matter their status, would be controversial.

Asking students to actually take a particular perspective is going to be controversial no matter what it is. Asking them to try and understand it, not so much, but asking them to actually take on a different perspective would be controversial.

However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this assignment. The girl wasn't asked to take on any perspective but her own. She was simply asked to imagine that the world was different, and think about how she would fit into it if that were the case.

And as I said before I think health classes are too explicit. At least the more liberal or progressive the school system, the more explicit they get. I gave detailed examples and you responded to that post so you know what I am referring to. And I think homosexuality is an adult issue for ages 16 and up. not 13. That is my personal opinion. It doesn't matter when they start growing pubic hairs because of the hormones they put in our meats, 13 is still a kid.

How can sexuality be a strictly adult issue when 13 year olds are already dealing with feelings of sexuality? You seem to have this idea that 13 year olds aren't already looking around and realizing that they are attracted to others. For some of them, that attraction is to members of the same sex. For most of them, it will be to members of the opposite sex. But they are already dealing with these issues whether we bring them up or not. Failing to bring them up simply means that they are left in the dark, trying to feel their way around with no guidance from those who have already gone through it.

How can sexuality be a strictly adult issue when 13 year olds are already dealing with feelings of sexuality? You seem to have this idea that 13 year olds aren't already looking around and realizing that they are attracted to others. For some of them, that attraction is to members of the same sex. For most of them, it will be to members of the opposite sex. But they are already dealing with these issues whether we bring them up or not. Failing to bring them up simply means that they are left in the dark, trying to feel their way around with no guidance from those who have already gone through it.

QUOTE FOR FUCKING EMPHASIS.

Dae, read this paragraph. I'll keep posting it until you respond to it.

Obviously you know more about this, a german with voting rights and therefore the target of the rally calls you mentioned. No, Schröder did not constantly spread anti-americanism. We dont bear people who condemn whole populations as leaders in politics. He was vehemently against the US going into Iraq without a UN mandate, yes. And he was very clear about Germany not supporting or entering this war. Angela Merkel did win by a small margin four years later, when the whole topic you refer to was a non-issue and not mentioned in the election speeches at all. In fact, Chancellor Merkel is just as happy as anyone else we stayed out of the fubar mess that is Iraq. No, he did no link Bush with Hitler, that was Herta Däubler-Gmelin.
That academics, most being rather able to think and of sound education, "fall" for such an obvious ploy might teach you something. It isnt as clear-cut and easy as the filtered media reflection you might get. Of course Schröder and Bush never got along, since the are political opposites and Bush would be considered an extreme right wing here and Schröder a socialist in the US.

Quoted for truth.

The gay 13 year olds would disagree, and would plead to you that someone tell them that they're not the only ones who feel the way they do. They'd like to know why they're different, and they'd like to know why people pick on them for it. They'd like to know what a fag is so they can answer when someone yells it at them.

Honestly, are you just trying to shelter kids? JUST heterosexual kids? Because your system wouldn't have any benefits whatsoever for homosexuals or children who've already had sexual experiences before the age of 16. You really need to think things through.

they're called guidance counselors. I have thought things though and I know the more you talk about sex, the more likely a kid is to experiment.

you subscribe to the "they're going to have it anyway" philosophy, I disagree. The school going into such detail about sexuality and experimentation in front of a whole class gives it a sense of legitimacy.

If a student does have serious questions about sexuality and identity then a robust system of school counselors should be available and a discreet conversation can take place.

as far as Sex Ed goes, the parents should be always informed as to exactly what is going on in those classes. most parents will approve of whats going on. though some classes take it too far.

filtered media? I get my European information from the CBC, BBC and Sky News. I do not watch American media outlets for news on whats going on internally at Europe, though when Gerhard was running for office, many of his quotes caught the American media's attention. So did the whole "mecca" cola craze Germany went through as they "boycotted" Coca-Cola.

and my sister lives in East Berlin and speaks fluent German she assimilated to the society real fast. She's another news source I go to.

And how are a british, a canadian and a british media outlet of australian ownership not filtered media on german issues? Believe me, i was there, Schröder was not anti-american. There was, and still is, nearly no love for Bush and his policies, but that isnt the same as having a antipathy against the US or its citizens as such.
Mecca-Cola is a muslim thing, i've never seen a bottle of it in my life. Some 1/40th of Germanys population is muslim or of muslim heritage, so there might have been some spread of this product, but a nationwide boycott of Coke? Nope.

they're called guidance counselors. I have thought things though and I know the more you talk about sex, the more likely a kid is to experiment.

you subscribe to the "they're going to have it anyway" philosophy, I disagree. The school going into such detail about sexuality and experimentation in front of a whole class gives it a sense of legitimacy.

If a student does have serious questions about sexuality and identity then a robust system of school counselors should be available and a discreet conversation can take place.

as far as Sex Ed goes, the parents should be always informed as to exactly what is going on in those classes. most parents will approve of whats going on. though some classes take it too far.

You think kids give a shit whether or not you think it's got "legitimacy"?

You do realize that most schools give the opportunity for kids to skip sex-ed entirely if they get their parents to sign a paper, right? There's really no excuse. How many kids do you know that look up to guidence counselors enough to talk to them about such private things? Things they're not sure how they'll be judged by because nobody's talked to them about.

I don't even think it should be the school's job to educate the children about sex, that's the parents' job, but some parents are just bad at it and are too afraid of their own bodies to even mention the possibility of different preferences and sexualities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
How can sexuality be a strictly adult issue when 13 year olds are already dealing with feelings of sexuality? You seem to have this idea that 13 year olds aren't already looking around and realizing that they are attracted to others. For some of them, that attraction is to members of the same sex. For most of them, it will be to members of the opposite sex. But they are already dealing with these issues whether we bring them up or not. Failing to bring them up simply means that they are left in the dark, trying to feel their way around with no guidance from those who have already gone through it.


QUOTE FOR FUCKING EMPHASIS.

Dae, read this paragraph. I'll keep posting it until you respond to it.

filtered media? I get my European information from the CBC, BBC and Sky News. I do not watch American media outlets for news on whats going on internally at Europe, though when Gerhard was running for office, many of his quotes caught the American media's attention. So did the whole "mecca" cola craze Germany went through as they "boycotted" Coca-Cola.Which time? He's run for office three times now. And what the heck is "mecca" cola?

and my sister lives in East Berlin and speaks fluent German she assimilated to the society real fast. She's another news source I go to.[/QUOTE]

But I don't have any urges, so it's fine know. I have a vague idea of what it is, but it seems really incomprehensible.

Read the book 'Little birds' by Anaïs Nin, or 'Delta of Venus' by the same author. I read them both when I was eight.

How can sexuality be a strictly adult issue when 13 year olds are already dealing with feelings of sexuality? You seem to have this idea that 13 year olds aren't already looking around and realizing that they are attracted to others. For some of them, that attraction is to members of the same sex. For most of them, it will be to members of the opposite sex. But they are already dealing with these issues whether we bring them up or not. Failing to bring them up simply means that they are left in the dark, trying to feel their way around with no guidance from those who have already gone through it.

yeah they are dealing with these issues, discovering themselves, but they do not need explicit instructions on how to deal with these feelings until they are a little older. You may want to talk pre-pubescant kids about sex, but I think the mystery behind it should be kept a mystery without an adult standing before them as they laugh and giggle while the penis being inserted into the vagina and then ejaculating is discussed. And just the night before they were watching Nickelodeon.

They should learn about their bodies and about puberty but easy with everything else.

let me ask you something, do you support the handing out of gay literature such as "Heather has 2 mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" to 5 year olds, as they tried to in the NYC school system before a public outcry put a stop to it? Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?

I am just curious exactly how far you would take this.

Here is my humble opinion.....

This entire thing is a non-issue, I have refused to do assignments on moral grounds, and most of my teachers accept an explanation why. This is just a teacher being a jerk, and yet another example of liberals attempting to force their immoral and evil beliefs down the throats of innocent children

yeah they are dealing with these issues, discovering themselves, but they do not need explicit instructions on how to deal with these feelings until they are a little older. You may want to talk pre-pubescant kids about sex, but I think the mystery behind it should be kept a mystery without an adult standing before them as they laugh and giggle while the penis being inserted into the vagina and then ejaculating is discussed. And just the night before they were watching Nickelodeon.

They should learn about their bodies and about puberty but easy with everything else.

let me ask you something, do you support the handing out of gay literature such as "Heather has 2 mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" to 5 year olds, as they tried to in the NYC school system before a public outcry put a stop to it? Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?

I am just curious exactly how far you would take this.

You seem to be delusional. They aren't PRE-pubescant.. they're POST-pubescant. They're young adults, going through puberty, and they need answers.

Once you teach them something they're going to want to find out the next thing, and the next thing, and the next thing. You know how curious kids are. If they can't trust us to give them the right information, then they'll try to find out themselves, and that's when unexpected pregnancy can happen.

Here is my humble opinion.....

This entire thing is a non-issue, I have refused to do assignments on moral grounds, and most of my teachers accept an explanation why. This is just a teacher being a jerk, and yet another example of liberals attempting to force their immoral and evil beliefs down the throats of innocent children

Your teachers allow you to just refuse work and then give you credit for it?

yeah they are dealing with these issues, discovering themselves, but they do not need explicit instructions on how to deal with these feelings until they are a little older. You may want to talk pre-pubescant kids about sex, but I think the mystery behind it should be kept a mystery without an adult standing before them as they laugh and giggle while the penis being inserted into the vagina and then ejaculating is discussed. And just the night before they were watching Nickelodeon.

They should learn about their bodies and about puberty but easy with everything else.

let me ask you something, do you support the handing out of gay literature such as "Heather has 2 mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" to 5 year olds, as they tried to in the NYC school system before a public outcry put a stop to it? Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?

I am just curious exactly how far you would take this.

Yes because a 5 year old is the same as a 13 year old. :rolleyes:

Congratulations for missing the fucking point.

Instad of responding to the quote you just have to point out extremes.

Wait. I take it back. The only reasoning to the response to the quote was, "but I think".

Read the book 'Little birds' by Anaïs Nin, or 'Delta of Venus' by the same author. I read them both when I was eight.

Are they scary?

You seem to be delusional. They aren't PRE-pubescant.. they're POST-pubescant. They're young adults, going through puberty, and they need answers.

Once you teach them something they're going to want to find out the next thing, and the next thing, and the next thing. You know how curious kids are. If they can't trust us to give them the right information, then they'll try to find out themselves, and that's when unexpected pregnancy can happen.


Hey, little parrot, go fly away.

And take your words like "delusional" with you.

lol and the sentence in bold supports what is ay about the nature of kids. Once you teach them something...(they will experiment!)

i don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who are done with puberty. by 15 and especially 16 yes, but any younger and it should be abstinence only teaching.

Yes because a 5 year old is the same as a 13 year old. :rolleyes:

Congratulations for missing the fucking point.

Instad of responding to the quote you just have to point out extremes.

Wait. I take it back. The only reasoning to the response to the quote was, "but I think".

Nice use of vulgarity. You must be a true scholar.

and I was not apinting extremes, I said straight out I wanted to know exactly how far he goes on this issue, beyond 13 year olds. I want to know precisely where he is coming from.

go practice your 4 letter words, it makes you sound cool.

Hey, little parrot, go fly away.

And take your words like "delusional" with you.

lol and the sentence is bold supports what is ay about the nature of kids. Once you teach them something...(they will experiment!)

i don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who are done with puberty. by 15 and especially 16 yes, but any younger and it should be abstinence only teaching.

Jesus Christ you're ignorant.

You don't actually end puberty until about 18 or 19, sometimes 20.

Fine, let's say you teach them abstinence, and they fuck before they hit 16 and don't use protection because you didn't teach them how. What then?

Nice use of vulgarity. You must be a true scholar.

and I was not apinting extremes, I said straight out I wanted to know exactly how far he goes on this issue, beyond 13 year olds. I want to know precisely where he is coming from.

go practice your 4 letter words, it makes you sound cool.

It does, because he has a point. 13 year olds are old enough. 12 year olds, maybe. Personally I wouldn't go any younger than 11 or 12, but that's just me, and I'm flexible. Education is good, no matter what.

The complete lack of respect by many people on these boards is amazing. Yet these are the same people arguing for sensitivity and tolerance. Typical.

Nice use of vulgarity. You must be a true scholar.

and I was not apinting extremes, I said straight out I wanted to know exactly how far he goes on this issue, beyond 13 year olds. I want to know precisely where he is coming from.

go practice your 4 letter words, it makes you sound cool.

Ooh you're better than me because you dont swear. You must be retarded if you think I swear because I think it sounds cool.

The complete lack of respect by many people on these boards is amazing. Yet these are the same people arguing for sensitivity and tolerance. Typical.

We become frustrated while in the face of utter ignorance. Answer my question from the previous post.

So being a christian is an offensive view? Asshole

No, being homophobic is an offensive veiw. One can be a Christian without being a bigoted asshole.

im surprised yall liberals arent jumping on that "its her right not to do that report":p

It is. It's the schools right to fail her for NOT doing it. Freedom is the ability to say no, and then take the consiquences.

Jesus Christ you're ignorant.

You don't actually end puberty until about 18 or 19, sometimes 20.

Fine, let's say you teach them abstinence, and they fuck before they hit 16 and don't use protection because you didn't teach them how. What then?

I realize being from Virginia and all you are used to being called ignorant, but just remember I'm NOT the crazed mad man here.

I meant to say have begun puberty. I thought "begun" but typed "done".

now get off my back and go eat at a waffle house.

I realize being from Virginia and all you are used to being called ignorant, but just remember I'm the crazed mad man here.

I meant to say have begun puberty. I thought "begun" but typed "done".

now get off my back and go eat at a waffle house.

Good job dodging my actual question. Care to answer it?

Here is my humble opinion.....

This entire thing is a non-issue, I have refused to do assignments on moral grounds, and most of my teachers accept an explanation why. This is just a teacher being a jerk, and yet another example of liberals attempting to force their immoral and evil beliefs down the throats of innocent children

Out of interest, what do you find offensive about the assignment: the idea of a society where people like you are the minority or the implication that homosexuals are people too and might be hurt emotionally by bigotted behaviour?

You know, if this had been an assignment about living on the moon with another culture (like say the Chinese) the kid refusing to do it would be called racist. Instead, its an assignement about living on the moon with gays, and it's called obscene and the kid is a hero. The only difference is..well...there is no difference. It's a study of how people deal with different people, whether culturally different or with different sexual preference. Besides, its not like the kid had to write "I love gays" on the paper, it was about how she would react to the situation and how she felt about it. Intellectual development and opinion forming. Besides, the kid refused to do the assignment and failed, thats school.

As for the moral issue, although some things are flexible, there are some moral standards, tolerance and reasonable open-mindedness are among them.

And as for sex-education, I say it starts when kids start having sex, and kids start having sex at 13 and 14 these days (beleive me, I know, I'm a 15 year old). I think it's better to have slightly more of them doing it safely, then slightly fewer doing it and getting diseases or pregnant, so pro sex-ed for me.

Wait...

So, how about this -

Your child is told she has to do a project about the Bible.

Unlike the given asignment this is a masive violation of church and state.

Problem is, your child happens to be Atheist and staunchly anti-religion. She really doesn't want to study about something she has really put off doing her entire life, and tells the teacher front up that she really doesn't want to do it. So, the teacher fails her on the Project.

What do you do?

And don't say 'The teacher shouldn't be forcing students to study about the Bible.' because, quite frankly, a teacher shouldn't force a student to study about homosexuality. Religion is a way of life, so is homosexuality. We shouldn't be forced to do something which contradicts with our personal believe, infact it is unlawful to be punished because it goes against your own believe. Teachers are supposed to help find another subject, or a make up assignment.

Studdying homsexuality (which this asignment was not) is not a violation of the seperation of Church and state. Build another stawman, this one fell over too easy.

F on the assignment. I never once complained about the work I had to do on subjects I loathed in Catholic School...including controversial topics.

Her parents deserve a spanking for narrowing their kid's mind. How can any nation in the world solve the tough problems of the world if they aren't even allowed to discuss said problems?

I view folks who think like this in same way I view Holocaust deniers. With contempt.

Originally Posted by Pyschotika
Wait...

So, how about this -

Your child is told she has to do a project about the Bible.

*snip*


So? I'm Agnostic and I don't mind studying the Bible, I think it's good for schools to study religion, as it is a major factor in humanity and social interaction. A project on the bible is fine with me, I'd only have a problem if the school was teaching my kid to beleive in the bible. Merely studying it is like a Christian reading the Koran, it's simply understanding another religion and/or another culture.

We become frustrated while in the face of utter ignorance. Answer my question from the previous post.


No you are just a hypocrite. You speak of homophobia, yet you suffer yourself from dissent-phobia. You go crazy if someone disagrees with you and think that if you shout the loudest and swear the most, on top of hurling the most insults, you will be right.

you lack rationality, self restraint and tolerance.

And my guess is you are a complete coward as well and would never talk the way you do in a face to face encounter.

and as for kids having sex at such a young age, that is rare but is increasingly more common is 13 year olds performing oral sex on one another because they learn in their health classes that it cannot get them pregnant and is safe as long as a condom is used. But I'm sure you are ok with this sharp increase in oral sex among young children.

Unlike the given asignment this is a masive violation of church and state.



Studdying homsexuality (which this asignment was not) is not a violation of the seperation of Church and state. Build another stawman, this one fell over too easy.

But we study a few excerpts from the Bible as literature in 10th grade, just as we study the Koran, Greek and Roman mythology, and several other religions. We just study them as literature and so that we can see similarities and differences between different religions, and I think that's fine.

Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?


I hate to nitpick, but...
In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." This remark caused great controversy, especially among conservative Christian groups and right wing interests in the United States. Under great political pressure President Clinton asked for her resignation.

Taught in kindergarten, eh?
Sounds like taught to 13 year olds, which is what we were talking about anyway.

Complicate it as in give me a reason why you truely believe so.

Otherwise, that fact that she has a 0 so just has a 0 doesn't give you any standing position other than 'Look at me, I poke fun at others.'

The reason most of beleive so is because she failed to do a reasonable asignment and thus got the zero she deserved. Why is this dificult for you to understand?

F on the assignment. I never once complained about the work I had to do on subjects I loathed in Catholic School...including controversial topics.We covered this a while back. I'm pretty sure she got an E, it being an Australian school, after all... ;)

And my guess is you are a complete coward as well and would never talk the way you do in a face to face encounter.

Nobody would, because everyone here knows eventually someone would start shooting.

No you are just a hypocrite. You speak of homophobia, yet you suffer yourself from dissent-phobia. You go crazy if someone disagrees with you and think that if you shout the loudest and swear the most, on top of hurling the most insults, you will be right.

you lack rationality, self restraint and tolerance.

And my guess is you are a complete coward as well and would never talk the way you do in a face to face encounter.

I'm fine with people disagreeing, if it makes sense. You don't make sense. You have YET to answer my fucking question.

I'm far from a coward - I'm one of the people that can be proud to say they don't put up a false face online just because they can. I'd get just as pissed off at you face-to-face and at this point we'd probably need someone to keep us from fighting eachother.

[QUOTE=Dinaverg;11799147]Prove it. Then, sue the school for it. Until then, I figure it's bullshit.[/quote[

The fact that all public schools take a very anti-racist/sexist/sexualist stance on society?


Yes, this proves that they will expell you for taking such a stance.




:headbang: for the sarcasim impared.

oh god. yeah so the Fetus can not think, Big Deal. It is supposed to be a "thinking exercise" remember? it certainly gets you to think. and an exercise like that is no more "stupid" than taking the perspective of a member from the gay community. you just personally feel one has more legitimacy than other. that is your own personal bias. A bias that is echoed in public schools and Universities everywhere. And I am speaking primarily for America, I am not sure how things are in Germany, besides the fact that candidates can get elected by running on an Anti-American platform.

There are just certain perspectives a "teacher" will never give to a student or that will never be deemed acceptable. One of the posters in this very thread said it perfect...why leave the students under the sole influence of their "racist" parents? Hail the State!

It wasn't supposed to be a thinking exercise, and neither was the assignment in to OP. It was an assignment in empathy, and in tolerance.
I did the assignment then, and I would do this assignment now. The fact that some assignments are stupid doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. Teachers are humans, too, after all. Not every assignment can be an example of brilliance.

I don't think that the assignment in question here was pretty clever either, but the aim was to get the kids thinking and as such it fulfilled its purpose. The case in question happened in Australia, so neither the situation in Germany nor the one in America is fully applicable.

What do elections have to do with anything in this thread?

If the parents wanted to homeschool their child, I'm pretty sure they had this option. They didn't, therefore they must have seen something positive in public education, don't you think?

So? I'm Agnostic and I don't mind studying the Bible, I think it's good for schools to study religion, as it is a major factor in humanity and social interaction. A project on the bible is fine with me, I'd only have a problem if the school was teaching my kid to beleive in the bible. Merely studying it is like a Christian reading the Koran, it's simply understanding another religion and/or another culture.

I was taught about the koran and muslims briefly in a Social Studies class and i have to say it was one of the most fascinating and informative subjects of the class. A nice break from the constant western history lessons (which i also enjoyed).

It is incredible how the ignorant often refer to "ignorance" the most. That is what happens when you lack true rationality and knowledge.

Gerhard Schroeder constantly railed against America during his campaigning, usually in an attempt to distract the impoverished East German population from his economic failures as a Chancellor. He relished and encouraged anti-American sentiment in the street all in an attempt to get him elected. He linked Bush with Hitler and tried this crap again until Angela Merkel pointed out it was all a distraction from the real issues and defeated him. The German street and especially the academics were so quick to believe this anti-americanism they fell for Schroeder's ploy.

This same anti-American sentiment was also present in the 1960s with vietnam and in the 1980s with the nuclear freeze but back then it was countered by anti-communist sentiment and the reliance on America for protection.

what is ya...ig-na-rent er sum'in?

Again, what does this have to do with anything in this thread?
And yes, Schroeder won, but he didn't win against Angela Merkel. He won against Edmund Stoiber, and if you have one look at that guy, it's pretty obvious why.
Angela Merkel won the next election, being very pro-American in her approach to international politics.

What does that tell you? Maybe that a candidates opinion on America is a very, very small factor in German elections?

I'm fine with people disagreeing, if it makes sense. You don't make sense. You have YET to answer my fucking question.

I'm far from a coward - I'm one of the people that can be proud to say they don't put up a false face online just because they can. I'd get just as pissed off at you face-to-face and at this point we'd probably need someone to keep us from fighting eachother.

i addressed your question briefly and the admission that you would actually resort to physical assault on someone just because of a heated exchange proves your barbarity. I have had many exchanges with people, even with alcohol involved and i personally have never come to blows with anyone over politics. But then again, I can usually read people and tell if they have self control.

What it was, was bullying the student. She has no defense against a teacher's shots at her values. How are we to teach her that attack the morals of one who has no defense against you is wrong, if you we attack her morals while she has no defense?

Show me ONE SINGLE shot at her values in the asignment!

Again, what does this have to do with anything in this thread?
And yes, Schroeder won, but he didn't win against Angela Merkel. He won against Edmund Stoiber, and if you have one look at that guy, it's pretty obvious why.
Angela Merkel won the next election, being very pro-American in her approach to international politics.

What does that tell you? Maybe that a candidates opinion on America is a very, very small factor in German elections?

Merkel won because she proved the former chancellor was using anti-american sentiment to distract the population from his shortcomings.

For a 13 year old? Fuck no! That's a question for a 17 year old, or a 19 year old, but not for a 13 year old.

We've already played through this loop once. I'm not going through it again. Suffice to say that what it was, was bullying, plain and simple, and it was unfair.

Why is it not a question for a 13 year old and how the hell was it "bullying"?

Hey, little parrot, go fly away.

And take your words like "delusional" with you.

lol and the sentence in bold supports what is ay about the nature of kids. Once you teach them something...(they will experiment!)

i don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who Have begun puberty. by 15 and especially 16 yes, but any younger and it should be abstinence only teaching.

If you don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who've begun puberty, you don't know many at all then.
All the ones I know began a few years ago.
And I know a lot of 13/14 year olds (I am one, for fuck's sake!).

filtered media? I get my European information from the CBC, BBC and Sky News. I do not watch American media outlets for news on whats going on internally at Europe, though when Gerhard was running for office, many of his quotes caught the American media's attention. So did the whole "mecca" cola craze Germany went through as they "boycotted" Coca-Cola.

and my sister lives in East Berlin and speaks fluent German she assimilated to the society real fast. She's another news source I go to.

*roflmao
Do you want to know when I saw Mecca Cola for the first time? About a year ago here in Dublin. I've never, ever seen it while I lived in Germany, which was all in all from 1974 - 2003.
There were no boycotts of any American company or product in Germany. We just watched in speechless amazement how the USAmericans suddlenly spent small fortunes buying French wine to pour it down the drain....

If you want news about Germany, watch Deutsche Welle, they do news in English. Don't rely on foreign media.

i addressed your question briefly and the admission that you would actually resort to physical assault on someone just because of a heated exchange proves your barbarity. I have had many exchanges with people, even with alcohol involved and i personally have never come to blows with anyone over politics. But then again, I can usually read people and tell if they have self control.

No, I don't recall you answering the question of how you would handle the situation of children of the ages below 16 having sex and not using birth control because all they were taught was abstinence.

I hate to nitpick, but...


Taught in kindergarten, eh?
Sounds like taught to 13 year olds, which is what we were talking about anyway.

I saw her on Larry King, she elaborated on her position and said Kindergarteners should be included.

Hey, little parrot, go fly away.

And take your words like "delusional" with you.

lol and the sentence in bold supports what is ay about the nature of kids. Once you teach them something...(they will experiment!)

i don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who are done with puberty. by 15 and especially 16 yes, but any younger and it should be abstinence only teaching.

You've got to be kidding.... buddy, I was 9 when I got my first period. I was done with sexual development and growing when I was 13....

Merkel won because she proved the former chancellor was using anti-american sentiment to distract the population from his shortcomings.

She never did anything like that. Where on earth did you get the idea that 80 million in Germany would elect their head of government based on the fact that she supports the actions of another nation???

Had she been running in 2002, she would have won those elections. Stoiber is an immensly unpopular figure in most of Germany, that was one of the main reasons that Schroeder was re-elected.

If nothing else, this thread gets points for longevity.

If nothing else, this thread gets points for longevity.

Hehe... it's drifting off-topic now, though.

No, I don't recall you answering the question of how you would handle the situation of children of the ages below 16 having sex and not using birth control because all they were taught was abstinence.



and as for kids having sex at such a young age, that is [not as common as you seem to think] but what is increasingly more common is 13 year olds performing oral sex on one another because they learn in their health classes that it cannot get them pregnant and is safe as long as a condom is used. But I'm sure you are ok with this sharp increase in oral sex among young children.

look i said before that i support the explanation of safe sex but sex ed classes get too explicit. tone it down. and the questions of sexuality and experimentation should not be covered until a few years later.

She never did anything like that. Where on earth did you get the idea that 80 million in Germany would elect their head of government based on the fact that she supports the actions of another nation???

Had she been running in 2002, she would have won those elections. Stoiber is an immensly unpopular figure in most of Germany, that was one of the main reasons that Schroeder was re-elected.


they didn't elect her because she supported america, they elected her because she finally got the german public to stop buying into gerhard's anti-american rhetoric and focus on what she had to offer as a candidate and what he did not as a chancellor. finally the voters paid attention to real substance and she won.

On life in the gay community. Exactly where does it specificy that she is to take the role of a hetero-sexual in the gay community?

In the part of the article where it STATES that she was to imagine herself as part of a heterosexual minority in this hypothetical colony perhaps?

Hehe... it's drifting off-topic now, though.

Nobody expects a 10 page thread to be on topic, much less a 70-something page one.

and as for kids having sex at such a young age, that is [not as common as you seem to think] but what is increasingly more common is 13 year olds performing oral sex on one another because they learn in their health classes that it cannot get them pregnant and is safe as long as a condom is used. But I'm sure you are ok with this sharp increase in oral sex among young children.

look i said before that i support the explanation of safe sex but sex ed classes get too explicit. tone it down. and the questions of sexuality and experimentation should not be covered until a few years later.

You said to teach nothing but abstinence for those under age 16.

And yeah, I'm fine with the increase in oral sex. Maybe they weren't taught that oral sex also transmits sexual diseases, in which case it's the fault of not ENOUGH education, as opposed to too much.

You've got to be kidding.... buddy, I was 9 when I got my first period. I was done with sexual development and growing when I was 13....

9? what are they putting in the meat where you live? most girls do not start until 11. and guys at 13 or so. i do not think i even knew a girl going through puberty at 9 or even 10.

then again, I am 26 and a friend and I saw some kids getting off a bus and both us of looked at each other and agreed that the girls did not look like that when we were that age.

I teach high school. I have been teaching for ten years and in that time I have had the pleasure of working with students of all ages in a multitude of subject areas.

Any sex education program that's worth a damn is comprehensive (at all grade levels) and deals with issue that are appropriate for each grade level.

Homosexuality needs to be included at some point and it seems to me that middle school ought to be a good time to talk about orientation issues.

The original issue as I understood it was that a student had not done a school assignment.

We seem to have drifted way way off topic.

Merkel won because she proved the former chancellor was using anti-american sentiment to distract the population from his shortcomings.Hahaha! Germany isn't a two party system. Just a hint. It may help you in understanding what exactly happened.

You said to teach nothing but abstinence for those under age 16.

And yeah, I'm fine with the increase in oral sex. Maybe they weren't taught that oral sex also transmits sexual diseases, in which case it's the fault of not ENOUGH education, as opposed to too much.

you're fine with 12 and 13 year olds giving each other blow jobs?

they didn't elect her because she supported america, they elected her because she finally got the german public to stop buying into gerhard's anti-american rhetoric and focus on what she had to offer as a candidate and what he did not as a chancellor. finally the voters paid attention to real substance and she won.

Hon, I was there. I am German.

She didn't run before, at all. Ever. Never Ever. She ran once, and she won.
Schroeder ran three times, and won the first two. The first against Kohl, for the simple reason that people were fed up with the old guy (he had been in office for 16 years at the time), and the second against Stoiber, who kept embarassing the population by showing up in Bavarian outfit and got himself out of the race with a few pointedly xenophobic remarks. He's still regarded as a bit of a clown, even in the freestate.

Schroeder never used anti-american rethoric. That's not how you win elections in Germany. You don't attack anybody or anything. You point out the problems that you see and you propose your solutions. Attacks are what lost Stoiber the elections. Germans don't take too kindly to that sort of politics, no matter who you go against.

And, btw, we're hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss this any further, please open a seperate thread for it.

they didn't elect her because she supported america, they elected her because she finally got the german public to stop buying into gerhard's anti-american rhetoric and focus on what she had to offer as a candidate and what he did not as a chancellor. finally the voters paid attention to real substance and she won.Voters didn't like Merkel crawling into Bush's ass (http://de.altermedia.info/images/MerkelamArsch.jpg) at all. That's why the CDU lost what seemed to be an easy victory in the election and had to form a coalition with the SPD.

9? what are they putting in the meat where you live? most girls do not start until 11. and guys at 13 or so. i do not think i even knew a girl going through puberty at 9 or even 10.

then again, I am 26 and a friend and I saw some kids getting off a bus and both us of looked at each other and agreed that the girls did not look like that when we were that age.

9 is a perfectly normal age for starting puberty for a girl.

Menstruation forms a normal part of a natural cyclic process occurring in healthy women between puberty and the end of the reproductive years. The onset of menstruation, known as menarche, occurs at an average age of 12, but is normal anywhere between 8 and 16.



Yes, boys take a little longer, but most have reached puberty by the age of 13.

I don't know how old you are now, but those biological facts haven't changed in decades...

Voters didn't like Merkel crawling into Bush's ass (http://de.altermedia.info/images/MerkelamArsch.jpg) at all. That's why the CDU lost what seemed to be an easy victory in the election and had to form a coalition with the SPD.

Well, that was the last election. They didn't lose as such, they just didn't gain by as much as they would have needed to form a coalition with a smaller party.

they're called guidance counselors. I have thought things though and I know the more you talk about sex, the more likely a kid is to experiment.

This is patently untrue. Making sex a taboo generally leads to dangerous practices and experimentation. Talking about it does not. In general, a more informed teenager is likely to put off sexual contact longer than peers who are sheltered.

you subscribe to the "they're going to have it anyway" philosophy, I disagree. The school going into such detail about sexuality and experimentation in front of a whole class gives it a sense of legitimacy.

Are you suggesting that sex and sexuality are illegitimate? I think we can all agree that we don't think 13-year olds should be going out and having lots of promiscuous sex, but if all they hear about it is what the older kids or their peers say, they are actually *more* likely to do this.

Okay, please reserve all discussion of German polotics for another thread, don't hijack this one.

Like I said, it's better that alot kids know too much and have sex safely then kids know to little and a somewhat smaller number of kids do it and get pregnant and diseased.

you're fine with 12 and 13 year olds giving each other blow jobs?

Given the right protection, yes. I was a 15 year old getting a blow job - I'm in no position to object.

Well, that was the last election. They didn't lose as such, they just didn't gain by as much as they would have needed to form a coalition with a smaller party.They lost 3.3% of what they had in the last election. They didn't gain anything.

I'm a biased source, of course, because I think neuroscience rawks. :D
The Illusion of Conscious Will (Bradford Books) (Hardcover)
by Daniel M. Wegner
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262232227/qid=1026079712/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-9593211-2351841

I just got past the introduction and its not totally about neuroscience but I know that it is at least a part of it. The chances are probably slim that you've read it but I'm just curious. Maybe you know of the author or something.

yeah they are dealing with these issues, discovering themselves, but they do not need explicit instructions on how to deal with these feelings until they are a little older.

So they should just suffer in silence until you decide they are old enough for adults to help them through it?

You may want to talk pre-pubescant kids about sex, but I think the mystery behind it should be kept a mystery without an adult standing before them as they laugh and giggle while the penis being inserted into the vagina and then ejaculating is discussed. And just the night before they were watching Nickelodeon.

So you think that they are going to be better off if they have no clue what is going on when they do enter puberty and start wanting to do these things?

let me ask you something, do you support the handing out of gay literature such as "Heather has 2 mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" to 5 year olds, as they tried to in the NYC school system before a public outcry put a stop to it?

LOL, "Gay literature." Yes, I do support children reading these books. Why? Because there are students that age who do have two mommies or two daddies. It isn't like either of those books describes sex in detail. It simply lets children know that there are different types of families - that some of their peers might have two mommies or daddies.

Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?

I've never heard anything about masturbation in kindergarten. In fact, when that whole thing was going on, the most "controversial" proposal I heard was that she wanted to show students in sex ed classes how to put on a condom. Actually, I think that this is an absolute necessity in a sex ed class. I've met grown men who didn't know how to properly put on a condom because nobody ever showed them how - so they were actually having unsafe sex.

I don't think anyone needs to "teach masturbation," however, any more than I think they need to teach oral sex techniques.

i don't know many 13 and 14 year olds who are done with puberty. by 15 and especially 16 yes, but any younger and it should be abstinence only teaching.

So you want to actually increase the rates of teen STDs, pregnancies, and risky sexual behaviors?

They lost 3.3% of what they had in the last election. They didn't gain anything.

I think we really should take this to another thread... it's got nothing at all to do with the topic in this one.

I think we really should take this to another thread... it's got nothing at all to do with the topic in this one.Is there really an argument left? All I have to do is link him to the ARD Wahlarchiv and prove him wrong. Nothing worth wasting a thread on.

Hon, I was there. I am German.

She didn't run before, at all. Ever. Never Ever. She ran once, and she won.
Schroeder ran three times, and won the first two. The first against Kohl, for the simple reason that people were fed up with the old guy (he had been in office for 16 years at the time), and the second against Schroeder, who kept embarassing the population by showing up in Bavarian outfit and got himself out of the race with a few pointedly xenophobic remarks. He's still regarded as a bit of a clown, even in the freestate.

Schroeder never used anti-american rethoric. That's not how you win elections in Germany. You don't attack anybody or anything. You point out the problems that you see and you propose your solutions. Attacks are what lost Stoiber the elections. Germans don't take too kindly to that sort of politics, no matter who you go against.

And, btw, we're hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss this any further, please open a seperate thread for it.

I know Ms. Merkel only ran once and that Schroeder ran twice before. I also know that the vote was split between 4 or 5 parties with Merkels Christian Democrats on top and Schroeder's Socialist Democrats party in second.

Schroeder used anti-americanism in 2002 and he used it in this past election which helped him close a huge gap on merkel. It was not overt in his speeches but it was there. I saw posters with flag draped american coffins and in 2002 he likened Bush to hitler. an attack on the American president by a foreigner is an attack on the american people as Hugo Chavez learned recently. Schroeder also publicly undermined any of Bush's foreign policies such as demanding a military option be taken off the table regarding the Iranian Nuclear threat (how stupid). This was to show he was "tough" to stand up to America (as opposed to Tony Blair one would presume).

Also, the parties allied with schroeder such as the German green party depicted angela merkel on a poster as having a "W" crown, waving an american flag and i even saw a poster of angela merkel looking like monica lewinsky while Bush held a cigar.

from what i saw, it seemed whoever was willing to, stick it to america, could get a german vote with relative ease. My sister lives in Germany and though she kept her mouth shut about politics (she loves Germany by the way) she told me that whenever she ran across a Schroeder supporter they would have to say something negative about America. almost everytime.

but you're right lets not hijack this thread. I just wanted to clear up where I am coming from.

So they should just suffer in silence until you decide they are old enough for adults to help them through it?

they don't need explicit classes. nobody is "suffering" as they go through changes. They should be informed what is happening to them and what to expect but the explicit sex talk should be for later.



So you think that they are going to be better off if they have no clue what is going on when they do enter puberty and start wanting to do these things?

not many 12 year olds or 13 year olds actually have sex. though they certainly are more likely to experiment when the different sexual activities are explicitly discussed.


LOL, "Gay literature." Yes, I do support children reading these books. Why? Because there are students that age who do have two mommies or two daddies. It isn't like either of those books describes sex in detail. It simply lets children know that there are different types of families - that some of their peers might have two mommies or daddies.

I guess you could call it gay literature. and I disagree completely. If a child has two mommies, then the two mommies can explain it to her why she has two mommies. especially is they are below 13 years old. I do not think homosexuality, or any sexuality, should be talked about to anyone younger than that. seriously, leave the kids alone.

I've never heard anything about masturbation in kindergarten. In fact, when that whole thing was going on, the most "controversial" proposal I heard was that she wanted to show students in sex ed classes how to put on a condom. Actually, I think that this is an absolute necessity in a sex ed class. I've met grown men who didn't know how to properly put on a condom because nobody ever showed them how - so they were actually having unsafe sex.

how to put a condom on should be taught. The surgeon general went on record later on, and I saw her on Larry King (i believe it was him), where she endorsed teaching 5 year olds about masturbation.

I don't think anyone needs to "teach masturbation," however, any more than I think they need to teach oral sex techniques.

agreed.

So you want to actually increase the rates of teen STDs, pregnancies, and risky sexual behaviors?

of course not, but i do not like seeing the numbers of teens engaging in casual oral sex rising every year either.

and only 10 years ago it seemed the girls that "hooked up" alot in high school were considered sluts. Not it seems the peer pressure is reversed as my sister, 10 years younger than me, explains her experiences in high school. The girl who does not "hook up" alot is ridiculed as a "prude".

There is something terribly wrong with the school system when most kids can't tell you who the secretary of state or that Castro is a communist but they can certainly tell you how to put a condom on and that you can't get pregnant through anal sex or by swallowing semen.

how to put a condom on should be taught. The surgeon general went on record later on, and I saw her on Larry King (i believe it was him), where she endorsed teaching 5 year olds about masturbation.




"In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught."" -from Wiki. Haven't found anything about 5 year olds and masturbation.

<snip>

Answered here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503060)

To everyone else : I apologise for the hijack, folks.

but you're right lets not hijack this thread. I just wanted to clear up where I am coming from.Yeah, we're taking it here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11804073&posted=1#post11804073).
You have a lot of misconceptions about the 2005 election.

I guess you could call it gay literature. and I disagree completely. If a child has two mommies, then the two mommies can explain it to her why she has two mommies. especially is they are below 13 years old. I do not think homosexuality, or any sexuality, should be talked about to anyone younger than that. seriously, leave the kids alone.

I think you're missing the point. The kids are fine with having two moms or two dads, up until the other kids pick on them for it - if you educate the entire class, it promotes understanding and empathy for everyone.

I think you're missing the point. The kids are fine with having two moms or two dads, up until the other kids pick on them for it - if you educate the entire class, it promotes understanding and empathy for everyone.
Precisely. Kids think their lives are the norm until you tell them otherwise. When I was growing up, I thought it was normal for families to move to a new country ever couple years because most of my friends were in the same situation as I was. It didn't occur to me that a lot of families stayed in one house/city/country their whole lives, until someone laughed at me and called me weird for moving around so much. If a kid grows up with two moms or two dads, they're not going to think there's anything wrong with it because it's the only reference point they have. That is, until someone who hasn't come from that background and hasn't been taught that it's perfectly acceptable points it out to them and starts picking on them.

I guess you could call it gay literature. and I disagree completely. If a child has two mommies, then the two mommies can explain it to her why she has two mommies. especially is they are below 13 years old. I do not think homosexuality, or any sexuality, should be talked about to anyone younger than that. seriously, leave the kids alone.

Okay. From now on, kids should not be exposed to fairy tales in which princes kiss princesses, as that involves heterosexuality. No stories mentioning parents, as that involves heterosexuality. No stories, in fact, in which one character feels any romantic attraction for another. Of course, while we're at it, we should probably lock our children in small boxes, since otherwise they're pretty well bound to see horrible things like couples holding hands on the street.

You seem to have "homosexuality" confused with "hot girl-on-girl XXX-rated sex!" Books like Heather Has Two Mommies contain no "dirty" material; they're just about how different families have different structures. How the heck will this hurt kids to know?


and only 10 years ago it seemed the girls that "hooked up" alot in high school were considered sluts. Not it seems the peer pressure is reversed as my sister, 10 years younger than me, explains her experiences in high school. The girl who does not "hook up" alot is ridiculed as a "prude".


Girls who have lots of sex are still regularly considered to be "sluts." Girls who have no sex have always been regularly considered to be "prudes." There always have been and always will be idiots at every point in the spectrum who think they know how much sex everyone else should be having.

It was a decent point. How many of the people in this thread would be defending the exercise if it had been 'imagine you're a foetus about to be aborted'.

I can really see everyone saying "it's just a creative thought exercise with no political motives" then. :rolleyes:

That's not why I support it. A fetus is not a person (one who has sentience); a homosexual is, and all persons get equal protection in the law. I say that the assignemt is fine; your equivalent is something entirely different.

Fetus =/= Homosexual

Okay. From now on, kids should not be exposed to fairy tales in which princes kiss princesses, as that involves heterosexuality. No stories mentioning parents, as that involves heterosexuality. No stories, in fact, in which one character feels any romantic attraction for another. Of course, while we're at it, we should probably lock our children in small boxes, since otherwise they're pretty well bound to see horrible things like couples holding hands on the street.


People holding hands on the street isn't terribly bad, but people making out in school hallways is horrible. I've seen it before, and it makes me want to throw up.

But I agree that romantic themes, whether homosexual or heterosexual, shouldn't be banned from children's books, as long as it isn't more explicit than a kiss (which still looks gross, but isn't too horrible for kids to see).

I hate to nitpick, but...

Taught in kindergarten, eh?
Sounds like taught to 13 year olds, which is what we were talking about anyway.

Ah, now teaching that masturbation is a healthy alternative to riskier forms of sexual activity is quite different. Sounds, in fact, like a rather good idea.

People holding hands on the street isn't terribly bad, but people making out in school hallways is horrible. I've seen it before, and it makes me want to throw up.

But I agree that romantic themes, whether homosexual or heterosexual, shouldn't be banned from children's books, as long as it isn't more explicit than a kiss (which still looks gross, but isn't too horrible for kids to see).

Not to be offensive or anything, but you're hardly the spokesperson for kids your age.

1984 has a sex scene in it, and I'd like middle schoolers to have it as basic reading material in the curriculum.

Ah, now teaching that masturbation is a healthy alternative to riskier forms of sexual activity is quite different. Sounds, in fact, like a rather good idea.

To what age group? I'm still not entirely certain of what that means.

Ah, now teaching that masturbation is a healthy alternative to riskier forms of sexual activity is quite different. Sounds, in fact, like a rather good idea.

Look how horrible Mrs. Elders is!
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do click on her picture.

People holding hands on the street isn't terribly bad, but people making out in school hallways is horrible. I've seen it before, and it makes me want to throw up.

But I agree that romantic themes, whether homosexual or heterosexual, shouldn't be banned from children's books, as long as it isn't more explicit than a kiss (which still looks gross, but isn't too horrible for kids to see).

What is wrong with telling kids about sex?

Sorry, I don't get it. I simply don't. They are born with a penis or a vagina each, some of them with both. Why not tell them what they're for? What is so utterly and inherently bad and evil about sex that people fear the mere knowledge could harm children?
Kids know about sex. If you grow up on a farm, you know what happend if the rooster jumps on a hen. You see it every day. You see dogs in the street, you see your cat in heat, your see your pets doing it... but we can't let them know that humans do that, too? Why?

Only in your politically controversial opinion that the fetus is 'nonexistant'.

A fetus has no conscience thus no thought thus no POV. THAT is what they mean.

To what age group? I'm still not entirely certain of what that means.

Any age group. Masturbation is normal even for pre-pubescent kids.

Look how horrible Mrs. Elders is!
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do click on her picture.

We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States
Booooo!

Any age group. Masturbation is normal even for pre-pubescent kids.

When I looked at this I missed the highlighted full stop(period).

People holding hands on the street isn't terribly bad, but people making out in school hallways is horrible. I've seen it before, and it makes me want to throw up.Skippy for you. Other people eating certain types of cheese in my prescence will make me retch, but you don't see me going around campaigning to ban mozarella and parmesan.

Not to be offensive or anything, but you're hardly the spokesperson for kids your age.

1984 has a sex scene in it, and I'd like middle schoolers to have it as basic reading material in the curriculum.

I know I'm not. But it just looks so disturbing, and besides, it's against school rules. I don't understand why people would even want to kiss or anything.

For middle schoolers and high schoolers, sure it should be allowed as long as its not too explicit. It'll disgust me, but I could just kind of mentally block out any references to sexual activity and just think "Okay, they're doing...that" and then not really think about the sex scene itself and focus on what happens as a result.

And I thought the post I quoted was talking about elementary schoolers, since it mentioned fairy tales. Maybe I was mistaken, though.

Booooo!

Damn... tried to find it elsewhere. Basically, she compared abstinence only education to child abuse. She did it pretty successfully.

What is wrong with telling kids about sex?

Sorry, I don't get it. I simply don't. They are born with a penis or a vagina each, some of them with both. Why not tell them what they're for? What is so utterly and inherently bad and evil about sex that people fear the mere knowledge could harm children?
Kids know about sex. If you grow up on a farm, you know what happend if the rooster jumps on a hen. You see it every day. You see dogs in the street, you see your cat in heat, your see your pets doing it... but we can't let them know that humans do that, too? Why?

Chandelier's got a fear of sex, I think. He's only like 15 and says he doesn't have sexual urges.


Keep in mind, Chandelier, I'm not making fun of you. You're a decent person, but I think you might have a disorder of some sort.

they don't need explicit classes. nobody is "suffering" as they go through changes.

You don't think a young boy who has been told all his life that he *must* be attracted to girls and that being homosexual is wrong isn't going to suffer when he begins to realize that he is, in fact, attracted to other young men?

You think a young girl who gets a crush on another girl in her class and is labelled a "dyke" by her classmates isn't going to suffer?

You think that a young person whose body and outlook is changing in ways they don't understand - who probably thinks they are the only ones going through it - isn't going to suffer?

You must have a different definition of suffer than everyone else.

They should be informed what is happening to them and what to expect but the explicit sex talk should be for later.

A discussion of sexuality does not need to be "explicit" and it was sexuality that we were discussing.

of course not, but i do not like seeing the numbers of teens engaging in casual oral sex rising every year either.

Then make sure that comprehensive sex ed includes the dangers associated with oral sex, instead of leaving students to believe that it is perfectly safe.

One way or another, it is exceedingly clear that less informed students are those likely to engage in risky sexual activity. It is exceedingly clear that abstinence-only education, rather than comprehensive sex ed, actually leads to increased rates of teen STDs, pregnancy, and risky behaviors.

and only 10 years ago it seemed the girls that "hooked up" alot in high school were considered sluts. Not it seems the peer pressure is reversed as my sister, 10 years younger than me, explains her experiences in high school. The girl who does not "hook up" alot is ridiculed as a "prude".

Actually, these were both always true - simultaneously. Meanwhile, many more teenagers *claim* to have sex than actually have - another thing that has always been true.

Any age group. Masturbation is normal even for pre-pubescent kids.

Then why hasn't anyone ever taught me about it? It doesn't sound normal.

Skippy for you. Other people eating certain types of cheese in my prescence will make me retch, but you don't see me going around campaigning to ban mozarella and parmesan.

I'm not saying it should be banned, but the fact is that it is banned at my school, and so they were breaking the rules in a way that was traumatic to me.

I know I'm not. But it just looks so disturbing, and besides, it's against school rules. I don't understand why people would even want to kiss or anything.

For middle schoolers and high schoolers, sure it should be allowed as long as its not too explicit. It'll disgust me, but I could just kind of mentally block out any references to sexual activity and just think "Okay, they're doing...that" and then not really think about the sex scene itself and focus on what happens as a result.

And I thought the post I quoted was talking about elementary schoolers, since it mentioned fairy tales. Maybe I was mistaken, though.

They want to kiss because their hormones tell them they want to. They want to have sex because their hormones tell them to, or, they want to show the deepest physical love for someone, or they want to have a baby.

Damn... tried to find it elsewhere. Basically, she compared abstinence only education to child abuse. She did it pretty successfully.

Interesting. Feel like buying me a plane ticket to the US?

Chandelier's got a fear of sex, I think. He's only like 15 and says he doesn't have sexual urges.


Keep in mind, Chandelier, I'm not making fun of you. You're a decent person, but I think you might have a disorder of some sort.

I know, I've been talking to her about that before. I don't think it's a disorder, give her some time. Urging kids to do things they're not ready for is just as bad as trying to force them to not experiment when they want to. :)

However, my question was of a general nature, I just quoted her post as that brought up the question, really.

Then why hasn't anyone ever taught me about it? It doesn't sound normal.

I think CW is saying kids should be taught about masturbation. I tihnk I'll go as far as saying that most kids aren't. I know I never was. Ooh, that's something else I taught myself *runs to other thread*

Then why hasn't anyone ever taught me about it? It doesn't sound normal.



I'm not saying it should be banned, but the fact is that it is banned at my school, and so they were breaking the rules in a way that was traumatic to me.

It's very normal. It's not something people teach you to do, it's normally just an instinct. You touch yourself accidentally, you find out it feels good, you keep doing it.

I'm not saying it should be banned, but the fact is that it is banned at my school, and so they were breaking the rules in a way that was traumatic to me.Good grief. Stuck up prudes, whoever came up with that rule, honestly.

Chandelier's got a fear of sex, I think. He's only like 15 and says he doesn't have sexual urges.


Keep in mind, Chandelier, I'm not making fun of you. You're a decent person, but I think you might have a disorder of some sort.

She. And I'm 16.

Maybe I do have a disorder, and maybe I don't. I'm trying to figure that out.

They want to kiss because their hormones tell them they want to. They want to have sex because their hormones tell them to, or, they want to show the deepest physical love for someone, or they want to have a baby.

How is it that they have such hormones, and I don't? I've never felt such an urge, and it just doesn't make sense to me. They can kiss if they want to, I just don't want to see it.

Then why hasn't anyone ever taught me about it? It doesn't sound normal.


Taught? It's nothing you teach... it's something you have to discover yourself. I did it well before I hit puberty, even though I really had no concept of what exactly I was doing there. Nobody had taught me, nobody had even talked to me about that. I assumed it to be something negative, due to my mother's reactions anytime someone started to talk about sex organs. I didn't even know what to call my vagina back then.
I stopped during puberty, and started again around the age of 15.

Not all kids masturbate as prepubescents, but a good few do. That it's normal doesn't mean that everyone's doing it.

I know, I've been talking to her about that before. I don't think it's a disorder, give her some time. Urging kids to do things they're not ready for is just as bad as trying to force them to not experiment when they want to. :)

However, my question was of a general nature, I just quoted her post as that brought up the question, really.

I know, I'm not pressuring anyone into anything. I encourage her to be herself and nobody else. Some people are late bloomers, and others are -really- late bloomers. This, too, can be a normal occurance.

I think CW is saying kids should be taught about masturbation. I tihnk I'll go as far as saying that most kids aren't. I know I never was. Ooh, that's something else I taught myself *runs to other thread*

*lol
Not exactly. I don't think you can (or should!) teach masturbation. You can't teach people what makes them feel good, and you'd put a lot of pressure on them trying.
But I think there's nothing wrong with children masturbating and experimenting with what makes their body feel good. How can you enjoy sex if you don't know what your body loves? I think any question a child has about masturbation should be answered truthfully and in full.

She. And I'm 16.

Maybe I do have a disorder, and maybe I don't. I'm trying to figure that out.



How is it that they have such hormones, and I don't? I've never felt such an urge, and it just doesn't make sense to me. They can kiss if they want to, I just don't want to see it.

You could have a low amount of said hormones. And I don't presume to pry into your private life but you might be a 'late bloomer'. But I'm far from a doctor. They're somewhat educated guesses.

She. And I'm 16.

Maybe I do have a disorder, and maybe I don't. I'm trying to figure that out.



How is it that they have such hormones, and I don't? I've never felt such an urge, and it just doesn't make sense to me. They can kiss if they want to, I just don't want to see it.

Some people just don't have those urges until they hit a certain age. Honestly, some -never- have those urges, and some don't understand at all until they meet someone special and start feeling them themselves.

*lol
Not exactly. I don't think you can (or should!) teach masturbation. You can't teach people what makes them feel good, and you'd put a lot of pressure on them trying.
But I think there's nothing wrong with children masturbating and experimenting with what makes their body feel good. How can you enjoy sex if you don't know what your body loves? I think any question a child has about masturbation should be answered truthfully and in full.

Ah, well CW was trying to say that then.

Oh, and cos I feel like having something semi-relevant to add, I started masturbating at least 3 years before I had a word for it. Chances are the word was "wank".

Taught? It's nothing you teach... it's something you have to discover yourself. I did it well before I hit puberty, even though I really had no concept of what exactly I was doing there. Nobody had taught me, nobody had even talked to me about that. I assumed it to be something negative, due to my mother's reactions anytime someone started to talk about sex organs. I didn't even know what to call my vagina back then.
I stopped during puberty, and started again around the age of 15.

Not all kids masturbate as prepubescents, but a good few do. That it's normal doesn't mean that everyone's doing it.

I guess I just never discovered it then. It just sounds icky to me.


Good grief. Stuck up prudes, whoever came up with that rule, honestly

Maybe if it wasn't against the rules it wouldn't disgust me so much. It doesn't really bother me much when people kiss in movies. I don't know why.

I remember they had to air a commercial on Valentine's Day on the school news last year to remind everyone "No Public Display of Affection Allowed"

Ah, well CW was trying to say that then.

Oh, and cos I feel like having something semi-relevant to add, I started masturbating at least 3 years before I had a word for it. Chances are the word was "wank".

Wank, jerk, spank, etc.

I guess I just never discovered it then. It just sounds icky to me.




Maybe if it wasn't against the rules it wouldn't disgust me so much. It doesn't really bother me much when people kiss in movies. I don't know why.

I remember they had to air a commercial on Valentine's Day on the school news last year to remind everyone "No Public Display of Affection Allowed"

What school do you go to?

I guess I just never discovered it then. It just sounds icky to me.


What exactly sounds icky about it, to you?

What exactly sounds icky about it, to you?

I'm assuming, all of it. The touching, mostly.

*lol
Not exactly. I don't think you can (or should!) teach masturbation. You can't teach people what makes them feel good, and you'd put a lot of pressure on them trying.
But I think there's nothing wrong with children masturbating and experimenting with what makes their body feel good. How can you enjoy sex if you don't know what your body loves? I think any question a child has about masturbation should be answered truthfully and in full.

My parents wouldn't tell me when I asked. They were telling my little brother, and then I walked in and they stopped talking.:(

You could have a low amount of said hormones. And I don't presume to pry into your private life but you might be a 'late bloomer'. But I'm far from a doctor. They're somewhat educated guesses.

I might be. Or maybe I'm asexual. I don't know yet.

What school do you go to?

A public school in Florida.

What exactly sounds icky about it, to you?

I don't know, really. It just does.

I'm assuming, all of it. The touching, mostly.

Especially the more, um, how to phrase it... intense acts.

My parents wouldn't tell me when I asked. They were telling my little brother, and then I walked in and they stopped talking.:(
They were telling your little brother about masturbation but not you? Odd.



I might be. Or maybe I'm asexual. I don't know yet.
Yeah, there's that too.

not many 12 year olds or 13 year olds actually have sex. though they certainly are more likely to experiment when the different sexual activities are explicitly discussed.

Incorrect. Well-informed teens are actually generally likely to postpone sex and sexual activities longer than those who are not well-informed. They are also more likely to engage safely when they do engage. This has been true in every case I have ever seen, including my own.

I knew what sex was when I was four. I was reading fairly explicit explanatory books about it at 7 or 8. Want to guess when I first engaged in sexual activity? What to guess the age of my first kiss? My first experience with oral sex? My first intercourse?

I guess you could call it gay literature. and I disagree completely. If a child has two mommies, then the two mommies can explain it to her why she has two mommies. especially is they are below 13 years old. I do not think homosexuality, or any sexuality, should be talked about to anyone younger than that. seriously, leave the kids alone.

And what about the child who can't understand why another child has two mommies? What about the child who goes to spend the night with his friend and can't figure out why his friend lives with his daddy and another man, but calls them both daddy?

You are basically advocating hiding part of life, part of the world, from children. I do not advocate that. There is no reason that a 2 year old cannot understand that, even though they do not, some 2 year-olds are being raised by two mommies or two daddies.

They were telling your little brother about masturbation but not you? Odd.

That's what I thought.


Yeah, there's that too.

I've been wondering about it. I'm not sure yet, though.

My parents wouldn't tell me when I asked. They were telling my little brother, and then I walked in and they stopped talking.:(



I might be. Or maybe I'm asexual. I don't know yet.



A public school in Florida.



I don't know, really. It just does.

If you were asexual that would mean you could have sex with yourself and reproduce. :p

Hm. Every school I've been to, middle and above, have been pretty loose on public displays of affection.

My parents wouldn't tell me when I asked. They were telling my little brother, and then I walked in and they stopped talking.:(


I think you should ask them why they did that. And why they wouldn't talk to you about it.


I don't know, really. It just does.

I know you send a lot of time thinking about it... it does seem to preoccupy you quite a bit. No need to post everything here, but I think one question you might want to ask yourself is why you would find anything about yourself, about your own body, icky. When did you start to think and feel that way? Do you remember ever not feeling like this?

If you were asexual that would mean you could have sex with yourself and reproduce. :p

Hm. Every school I've been to, middle and above, have been pretty loose on public displays of affection.

No, it doesn't.:p

All the schools I've been to have rules against it.

To what age group? I'm still not entirely certain of what that means.

To any age group getting sex ed, which would probably include 2nd or 3rd grade and above.

And you aren't sure what what means? Masturbation?

If you were asexual that would mean you could have sex with yourself and reproduce. :p

Hm. Every school I've been to, middle and above, have been pretty loose on public displays of affection.

they say no, but noone cares.

Just my experience with the area schools...

Interesting. Feel like buying me a plane ticket to the US?

Hmmm... how about a large refrigerator box with "Handle with Care" stickers and a couple rolls of stamps?

Hmmm... how about a large refrigerator box with "Handle with Care" stickers and a couple rolls of stamps?

Put some booze in the refrigerator box first and you've got a deal.

Want some fries too?