NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html

You know, I would say that a field trip to any wedding is a bit irrelevant.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html

You know, I would say that a field trip to any wedding is a bit irrelevant.
Maybe it would be helpful to link a better news source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

It wasn't the teacher's idea (although your news source even admitted this), a parent suggested it, the teacher didn't even know about it until her students showed up at her wedding.

The moral of the story: Some religious people don't even agree with a parent's right to suggest a visit to a wedding or any event that gay people are just like straight people except that they are attracted to a different gender.

I'm not usually a proponent of "Don't provoke the homophobes", but whatever the merits of this, the middle of the month prior to a referendum on same-sex marriage is a politically poor time to send first-graders on a school trip to a same-sex wedding.

Especially when "AH! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" has been such a focus of the other side's propaganda.

I'm not usually a proponent of "Don't provoke the homophobes", but whatever the merits of this, the middle of the month prior to a referendum on same-sex marriage is a politically poor time to send first-graders on a school trip to a same-sex wedding.

Especially when "AH! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" has been such a focus of the other side's propaganda.
It wasn't the school's idea! It was the idea of one of the parents of a student in the class!
Not only that, the parents had the option to opt their children out of the field trip (which was only 90 mins long), two sets of parents did this, the rest of the class went.

Haha. I didn't even read the article. But I can tell you in the next five years about 40% of teachers are going to get pink slips and no pensions.

So, lol, whatever. Teachers.

Maybe it would be helpful to link a better news source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

It wasn't the teacher's idea (although your news source even admitted this), a parent suggested it, the teacher didn't even know about it until her students showed up at her wedding.

I don't recall anyone criticizing the teacher...

It wasn't the school's idea! It was the idea of one of the parents of a student in the class!

So? The school approved it.

"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.

But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.

It wasn't the school's idea! It was the idea of one of the parents of a student in the class!

Once again: no one is criticizing the school.

Though, for the record, the administration approved of the trip, which means the school WAS involved. (Because otherwise it wouldn't be a field trip, it would be a bunch of kids showing up at their teacher's wedding).

Once again: no one is criticizing the school.

Though, for the record, the administration approved of the trip, which means the school WAS involved. (Because otherwise it wouldn't be a field trip, it would be a bunch of kids showing up at their teacher's wedding).
Yeah, the school approved the trip suggested by a parent in the class and parental approval was needed to go on the field trip. Any parents who didn't want their children indoctrinated by the "evil homosexual agenda" could make their kids sit in on another class for 90 minutes.

And if you're not criticizing the school or the teacher then what is the point of this thread?

It wasn't the school's idea! It was the idea of one of the parents of a student in the class!
Not only that, the parents had the option to opt their children out of the field trip (which was only 90 mins long), two sets of parents did this, the rest of the class went.

Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.

So.

So? The school approved it.
And...? It's still relatively historic since you guys are just letting gay people do this now. Aside from this, the kids are fond of their teacher, I don't see why having them in attendance at her wedding is a bad thing. They probably had a supply anyways since she was off getting married and it's not like kids learn much with supply teachers.

So.
So people are stupid bigots who don't want anyone else's children learning that it's ok to be gay (since parents have to opt in to these programs anyways), what's your point?

Yeah, the school approved the trip suggested by a parent in the class and parental approval was needed to go on the field trip. Any parents who didn't want their children indoctrinated by the "evil homosexual agenda" could make their kids sit in on another class for 90 minutes.

And if you're not criticizing the school or the teacher then what is the point of this thread?

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point? Can't anyone just talk about something?
"Oh, that's interesting..."
"Quite. I wonder how all the parents felt about it..."
"Yeah, not to mention the bill up to ban same-sex marriages! I bet this might affect public opinion about the bill."
"Oh I'm sure. But I think the bill was the reason why they justified the field trip."

Are any of you capable of small talk? Or does someone have to win or be absolutely right and someone else wrong every time someone talks about anything?

That's just weird and creepy. Forget whatever "moral" line they might be crossing, how about the boundary between professional and personal? I love my students, but I don't want to run into them at the store, let alone on my wedding day. It's just such a terrible lack of judgment and appropriate boundaries.

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point? Can't anyone just talk about something?
"Oh, that's interesting..."
"Quite. I wonder how all the parents felt about it..."
"Yeah, not to mention the bill up to ban same-sex marriages! I bet this might affect public opinion about the bill."
"Oh I'm sure. But I think the bill was the reason why they justified the field trip."

Are any of you capable of small talk? Or does someone have to win or be absolutely right and someone else wrong every time someone talks about anything?

NSG doesn't do small talk.

So people are stupid bigots who don't want anyone else's children learning that it's ok to be gay (since parents have to opt in to these programs anyways), what's your point?

My point was that your criticism of Soheran's post was completely unfounded.

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point? Can't anyone just talk about something?
"Oh, that's interesting..."
"Quite. I wonder how all the parents felt about it..."
"Yeah, not to mention the bill up to ban same-sex marriages! I bet this might affect public opinion about the bill."
"Oh I'm sure. But I think the bill was the reason why they justified the field trip."

Are any of you capable of small talk? Or does someone have to win or be absolutely right and someone else wrong every time someone talks about anything?

This is NSG, sadly. So, no, I find most here incapable of such a small task. Best do your small talking elsewhere.

NSG doesn't do small talk.

Apparently.

And you people wonder why trolls exist: because you don't even have to try when all you have to do to start an argument is say hi.

Apparently.

And you people wonder why trolls exist: because you don't even have to try when all you have to do to start an argument is say hi.

NSG is a debate forum, general talk goes in that chat or spam forum.

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point? Can't anyone just talk about something?
"Oh, that's interesting..."
"Quite. I wonder how all the parents felt about it..."
"Yeah, not to mention the bill up to ban same-sex marriages! I bet this might affect public opinion about the bill."
"Oh I'm sure. But I think the bill was the reason why they justified the field trip."
Because you linked to fox news which was definitely making an argument about it.

Are any of you capable of small talk? Or does someone have to win or be absolutely right and someone else wrong every time someone talks about anything?
Well, no, people who are complaining about their inability to bigots and teach their children to do the same (in your news article) are generally wrong.

And...? It's still relatively historic since you guys are just letting gay people do this now.

You're right. It is. But that doesn't change the fact that the lying assholes on the "Yes" side of this thing will still seize on any excuse presented to them to continue distorting the issue and pushing people's buttons.

The politically best response to the complaints about indoctrination has always been, "This is about equal rights, not about what we do and do not teach in public schools." Field trips like this one undermine that message. It's a fight that would best be fought at another time... like, say, a month from now.

Because you linked to fox news which was definitely making an argument about it.

...Where, exactly?

Well, no, people who are complaining about their inability to bigots and teach their children to do the same (in your news article) are generally wrong.

I'm not entirely convinced that that makes sense literally.

You're right. It is. But that doesn't change the fact that the lying assholes on the "Yes" side of this thing will still seize on any excuse presented to them to continue distorting the issue and pushing people's buttons.

The politically best response to the complaints about indoctrination has always been, "This is about equal rights, not about what we do and do not teach in public schools." Field trips like this one undermine that message. It's a fight that would best be fought at another time... like, say, a month from now.
I'm just saying that the parents in the class seemed fine with this idea so nobody's being indoctrinated without parental permission so this fear is retarded.

Someone should introduce some laws against lying.

You're right. It is. But that doesn't change the fact that the lying assholes on the "Yes" side of this thing will still seize on any excuse presented to them to continue distorting the issue and pushing people's buttons.

The politically best response to the complaints about indoctrination has always been, "This is about equal rights, not about what we do and do not teach in public schools." Field trips like this one undermine that message. It's a fight that would best be fought at another time... like, say, a month from now.

I think what Soheran is saying is that, regardless of whether the field trip was ethically justified or not, providing potential fuel for the anti-gay movement was a bad idea, so the field trip probably was a bad idea politically, even if not bad ethically.

I'm just saying that the parents in the class seemed fine with this idea so nobody's being indoctrinated without parental permission so this fear is retarded.

Not if you fear retarded, misguided, indoctrinating parents.

Someone should introduce some laws against lying.

Doublespeak much?

NSG is a debate forum, general talk goes in that chat or spam forum.

I would submit that NSG is a discussion forum. Discussion does not necessarily have to be a debate, nor does small talk have to be inane.

I also want to point out how silly it is to say that NationStates: General is not for general talk. Mind, I understand the semantics and concept behind it, but it still sounds silly to say it.

Not if you fear retarded, misguided, indoctrinating parents.
What? I'm saying that the bigots voting for the bill are retarded in their fear that children will be indoctrinated by the "gay agenda".

Doublespeak much?
What do you mean by that?

I'm just saying that the parents in the class seemed fine with this idea so nobody's being indoctrinated without parental permission so this fear is retarded.

Yeah, so is opposition to same-sex marriage in general.

Someone should introduce some laws against lying.

Someone should introduce laws against bullshit propositions that evade the rule of law for the sake of satisfying fear-mongering bigotry. Or at least require a margin greater than a majority--maybe 60%, like Florida, whose Amendment 2 is even worse but probably won't pass for exactly that reason.

But, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you fight for equality in the society you have, not the society you wish you had.

I would submit that NSG is a discussion forum. Discussion does not necessarily have to be a debate, nor does small talk have to be inane.

I also want to point out how silly it is to say that NationStates: General is not for general talk. Mind, I understand the semantics and concept behind it, but it still sounds silly to say it.
I would submit that if you want discussion you should put more than a one line bit about the news link you posted and try to encourage discussion instead of leaving everyone to guess whether you had any other intentions.

Yeah, so is opposition to same-sex marriage in general.
Very true.

Someone should introduce laws against bullshit propositions that evade the rule of law for the sake of satisfying fear-mongering bigotry.
Maybe... I'm not sure how this proposition business works... here many of the courts in different provinces found that they couldn't legally justify gay people not being able to get married and then eventually this became a federal thing. The only province that seemed to get pissy about it was Alberta. It would take invoking the notwithstanding clause to have it undone and nobody is going to do that because it would be political suicide.

What? I'm saying that the bigots voting for the bill are retarded in their fear that children will be indoctrinated by the "gay agenda".

And I'm saying that retarded is a subjective adjective: you might think nothing will come of this field trip, but if you think strongly enough that homosexuality is wrong then you wouldn't want any children, your own or otherwise, to be exposed to it in such away.

In other words, it is indoctrination. The question is whether or not it's the right doctrine.

What do you mean by that?

Omnipresent, over-enthusiastic government, such as the kind that would actually have laws against lying.

General For discussion and debate about anything.

Stupid minimum character count.

I would submit that if you want discussion you should put more than a one line bit about the news link you posted and try to encourage discussion instead of leaving everyone to guess whether you had any other intentions.

My criticism is exactly that I shouldn't have to encourage discussion. Everyone's apparently inclination is to turn everything into a debate, even if no one offers forth a definitive point to debate against. In other words, I didn't say anything you can disagree definitively with, but for some reason you tried to anyways.

General For discussion and debate about anything.Stupid minimum character count.

Imagine that.

My criticism is exactly that I shouldn't have to encourage discussion. Everyone's apparently inclination is to turn everything into a debate, even if no one offers forth a definitive point to debate against. In other words, I didn't say anything you can disagree definitively with, but for some reason you tried to anyways.
You didn't say much at all. You left a news article with very little information to speak for you. If you want people to discuss, you need to start a discussion.

Maybe... I'm not sure how this proposition business works... here many of the courts in different provinces found that they couldn't legally justify gay people not being able to get married and then eventually this became a federal thing.

The California Supreme Court ruled back in the spring that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution prohibited the state from discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them marriage equality. The only way to undo this decision is by constitutional amendment--so the opponents of the decision got enough signatures from people to put a proposition on the ballot, Proposition 8, that would add a clause to the California Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

It's pretty common for states to require direct ballot measures to change their constitutions, but my understanding is that California's rules are particularly loose... certainly the state is known for being proposition-heavy.

You didn't say much at all.

Exactly. And yet, somehow, without any prompt or definitive opposition, you still tried to argue with someone who wasn't arguing.

You left a news article with very little information to speak for you. If you want to encourage discussion you need to start a discussion.

I brought up a point: Field trip to a same-sex marriage. What more do I need to tell you? Or do you actually need someone to tell you that you should discuss something on a discussion forum?

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point? Can't anyone just talk about something?
"Oh, that's interesting..."
"Quite. I wonder how all the parents felt about it..."
"Yeah, not to mention the bill up to ban same-sex marriages! I bet this might affect public opinion about the bill."
"Oh I'm sure. But I think the bill was the reason why they justified the field trip."

Are any of you capable of small talk? Or does someone have to win or be absolutely right and someone else wrong every time someone talks about anything?

If you thought to post this just for the novelty value and nothing else, why did you say this:
You know, I would say that a field trip to any wedding is a bit irrelevant.

It shows you do have an opinion about the matter. So much so it made you decide to make a thread about it. Why do you think it's irrelevant?

Exactly. And yet, somehow, without any prompt or definitive opposition, you still tried to argue with someone who wasn't arguing.
Perhaps because this is what most people do on this forum?

I brought up a point: Field trip to a same-sex marriage. What more do I need to tell you? Or do you actually need someone to tell you that you should discuss something on a discussion forum?
It's a forum for discussion and debate. The fact that usually people put up minimal information looking to either start an argument or produce a massive thread which might consist of a lot of arguing about what the opening post meant means that I'm going to assume that your minimal comments were trying to pick a fight.

I've been around a while... there seem to be more debate threads than discussion threads. If you don't want someone to assume that you are trying to debate then you should start a discussion.

If you thought to post this just for the novelty value and nothing else, why did you say this:

It shows you do have an opinion about the matter. So much so it made you decide to make a thread about it. Why do you think it's irrelevant?

A field trip to a wedding is an irrelevant field trip, not an irrelevant topic of discussion.

Swing and a miss.

A field trip to a wedding is an irrelevant field trip, not an irrelevant topic of discussion.

Swing and a miss.
I think you misunderstood the post. S/he was asking why you thought the field trip was irrelevant (I think).

Perhaps because this is what most people do on this forum?

Yes, that would be what I'm criticizing.

It's a forum for discussion and debate. The fact that usually people put up minimal information looking to either start an argument or produce a massive thread which might consist of a lot of arguing about what the opening post meant means that I'm going to assume that your minimal comments were trying to pick a fight.

Is that my fault or yours? You know what they say about assuming...

I've been around a while...

Yes, so have I. Pulling the join-date card?

there seem to be more debate threads than discussion threads. If you don't want someone to assume that you are trying to debate then you should start a discussion.

I would have thought that not having anything to debate against would be enough of an incentive, seeing as how, you know, there's nothing to debate against.

I think you misunderstood the post. S/he was asking why you thought the field trip was irrelevant (I think).

It's a field trip to a wedding. Unofficial class meeting to celebrate your teacher's marriage - that's all well and good. But "teachable moment"? I'm not buying that, same-sex or not.

I brought up a point: Field trip to a same-sex marriage. What more do I need to tell you? Or do you actually need someone to tell you that you should discuss something on a discussion forum?

What did you intend for us to discuss? Since you created an entire thread for this story, surely you had in mind what might be discussed.

A field trip to a wedding is an irrelevant field trip, not an irrelevant topic of discussion.

Swing and a miss.

swing and miss by you. I asked you a very specific, straightforward question.
Why do you think it's irrelevant?
tbh, If you are unable to understand simple English and are unable to put forward any structured, coherrent argument to back up your statement I suggest you learn you some more good English before posting again.
It's plainly obvious that you are just trolling and are refusing to listen to anyone but the wee voices inside your own head that tell you that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
I suspect this thread will continue much like your other one; Posters pointing huge discrepancies and illogical fallacies in your statements followed by you ignoring their critiques and mindlessly reiterating your first statement. Over and over and over and over again until they give up and then you can feel like you've somehow 'won'.
Well, whatever gets you through the day.

and no, I'm not expecting you to fully understand this post, nor answer my very simple question.

What did you intend for us to discuss? Since you created an entire thread for this story, surely you had in mind what might be discussed.

Same-sex marriage.
Homosexuality in grade school.
Homosexuality in school.
How educational this field trip really is.
The use of this field trip as ammunition against same-sex marriage.
The use of this field trip as ammunition for same-sex marriage.
The roll of educators as social indoctrinators.
The roll of politics in education.

I hope that's clear enough because I'm not at all sure I can spell it out any clearer than that.

Same-sex marriage.
Homosexuality in grade school.
Homosexuality in school.
How educational this field trip really is.
The use of this field trip as ammunition against same-sex marriage.
The use of this field trip as ammunition for same-sex marriage.
The roll of educators as social indoctrinators.
The roll of politics in education.

I hope that's clear enough because I'm not at all sure I can spell it out any clearer than that.

And how did you intend on encouraging such discussion with a link and an off the cuff remark?

Oh, and I do enjoy your unwarranted condescending comment at the end there.

swing and miss by you. I asked you a very specific, straightforward question.
Why do you think it's irrelevant?
tbh, If you are unable to understand simple English

1) You were unclear as to the subject of your question. There are several things I think are irrelevant (erasable pens, for example), and "it" can refer to any noun used before your post. Accuse me of stupidity only after you're made yourself clear, otherwise you're accusing me of being wrong because I different question entirely.

and are unable to put forward any structured, coherrent argument to back up your statement I suggest you learn you some more good English before posting again.
It's plainly obvious that you are just trolling and are refusing to listen to anyone but the wee voices inside your own head that tell you that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
I suspect this thread will continue much like your other one; Posters pointing huge discrepancies and illogical faalacies in your statements followed by you ignoring their critiques and mindlessly reiterating your first statement. Over and over and over and over again until they give up and then you can feel like you've somehow 'won'.
Well, whatever gets you through the day.

and no, I'm not expecting you to fully understand this post, nor answer my very simple question.

2)
a) Capitalization is not for squares.
b) Coherent
c) "back your statement up"
d) better English
e) other one:
f) logical fallacies
g) fallacies

3) I've just spent several posts explaining that I'm not actually trying to "win" anything, so why exactly would I want to make a thread for the end result of feeling like I've "won"?

4) The best you can come up with is calling me a troll? Really?

And how did you intend on encouraging such discussion with a link and an off the cuff remark?

Once again, I shouldn't have to encourage discussion on a discussion forum. Step 1: post something worth discussion. Step 2: Discuss. Step 3: PROFIT!!!

Oh, and I do enjoy your unwarranted condescending comment at the end there.

Just returning the favor.

You know, I would say that a field trip to any wedding is a bit irrelevant.

So do I.

but this...
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
is just plain wrong. Using children as weapons to get your political point across. and yes, I this is a total, across the board viewpoint.

First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

California will vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 8 which seeks to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and supporters of the measure say the field trip shows that allowing same-sex marriage will mean it’s taught to school children, the newspaper said.

"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign, told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."



Once more, the same people who are the most guilty shout about indoctrination.

The people who are arguing about how homosexuals should not get married need to come up with a better reason than a book says so. Not until the day that while perfectly sober and in front of millions the same guy who is supposedly the source of all this information appears from the clouds and states in no unspecific terms that it is a horrible and wrong thing. All real evidence suggest that they need to shut the fuck up and quit throwing the big I word around until they stop indoctrinating other people into their half-assed insane beliefs.

So do I.

but this...

is just plain wrong. Using children as weapons to get your political point across. and yes, I this is a total, across the board viewpoint.

That was a very calm, rational, and thought-provoking post. Obviously it can't be that hard to just discuss something.

Once more, the same people who are the most guilty shout about indoctrination.

Like I said before, the issue at hand is not indoctrination: it's all indoctrination of one sort or another. The disagreement is about which doctrine should be used.

It's a field trip to a wedding. Unofficial class meeting to celebrate your teacher's marriage - that's all well and good. But "teachable moment"? I'm not buying that, same-sex or not.
Why not? Do you care to elaborate?

Perhaps these are things you should have included in your opening post?

I would have thought that not having anything to debate against would be enough of an incentive, seeing as how, you know, there's nothing to debate against.
There's also very little to discuss. You didn't ask a question, you just provided a link and a one line point that wasn't elaborated upon at all.

If you had said "I think this was not a legitimate reason for a field trip. What do you guys think?" it would have been infinitely better for initiating a discussion.

Same-sex marriage.
Homosexuality in grade school.
Homosexuality in school.
How educational this field trip really is.
The use of this field trip as ammunition against same-sex marriage.
The use of this field trip as ammunition for same-sex marriage.
The roll of educators as social indoctrinators.
The roll of politics in education.

I hope that's clear enough because I'm not at all sure I can spell it out any clearer than that.
If you wanted us to discuss these things then you should have mentioned this in your opening post.

i.e. "I think that this was a flimsy excuse for a field trip. It's all well and good that these students wanted to attend their teacher's wedding, but school time should be spent learning, not at a wedding. Furthermore, I disagree with the use of children as political tools in this instance, but I also think that those who are most upset about this do not really have a legitimate complaint since parental permission was required to go on the field trip so no children were being indoctrinated into anything without their parent's consent. What does anybody else think about this topic?"

Why not? Do you care to elaborate?

Perhaps these are things you should have included in your opening post?

Or perhaps I like to wait and see how the discussion goes rather than dictating the thread to discuss exactly what I want it to.

And what's to elaborate? Nothing relevant to learn at a wedding. Not much else to say about that specific point.

There's also very little to discuss. You didn't ask a question, you just provided a link and a one line point that wasn't elaborated upon at all.

Wasn't elaborated upon by me. What's stopping you?
Arguing about why you're arguing is stopping you.

If you had said "I think this was not a legitimate reason for a field trip. What do you guys think?" it would have been infinitely better for initiating a discussion.

I disagree. I think (or at least hope) that most people are intelligent enough to understand that if something is posted on a discussion forum it should be discussed and don't need a definitive, spelled-out prompt to initiate it.

Like I said before, the issue at hand is not indoctrination: it's all indoctrination of one sort or another. The disagreement is about which doctrine should be used.

Look to the rest of my post to garner your answer. My argument is two fold:

1. They need to STFU, especially about indocrination.

2. They need to come up with real proof that there is something wrong with the teacher marrying another woman before I will seriously consider their argument.


The only thing I agree on is that it was inappropriate for the teacher to have her students attend her wedding as a field trip. Its one thing to invite her students, and totally another for them to be missing valuable time they could be learning real things, like reading and mathematics. It was highly unprofessional of the teacher and the school.

Like I said before, the issue at hand is not indoctrination: it's all indoctrination of one sort or another.

No, it isn't. Taking children on a field trip is not "indoctrination" unless you impose a particular analysis of it on them (which is not even the same as merely presenting a viewpoint.)

1) You were unclear as to the subject of your question. There are several things I think are irrelevant (erasable pens, for example), and "it" can refer to any noun used before your post. Accuse me of stupidity only after you're made yourself clear, otherwise you're accusing me of being wrong because I different question entirely.



2)
a) Capitalization is not for squares.
b) Coherent
c) "back your statement up"
d) better English
e) other one:
f) logical fallacies
g) fallacies

3) I've just spent several posts explaining that I'm not actually trying to "win" anything, so why exactly would I want to make a thread for the end result of feeling like I've "won"?

4) The best you can come up with is calling me a troll? Really?

Thank you for proving me right in my estimation of you. Yup. When unable to actually form any sort of coherrent statement and unable or unwilling to defend your own bigotted views the best - indeed only - defence is to attack the other person's poor (and delibrate I might add as I knew you would do this) grammar.
Because, you know, pointing out that someone has made a spelling mistake immediately shows that you are right and they are wrong. It also proves that you do not need to answer even the simplest of questions nor defend your position. the fact you are unable to is irrelevant. You've won because the other person made a spelling mistake!
Well done. Makes you feel sooooo much better doesn't it?

You've spent several posts ignoring everyone's extremely straightforward questions as to your position on this topic. It's blindingly obvious what your opinion is, but you're too afraid to say on here. Instead just content to denigrate other poster's positions and stick to your tired old, "I not saying anything!" defence. A more truer definition for trolling there has not been.

Still waiting for an answer to my question. I really do not see how much simply I can put it. I'll use smaller words, will that help?
You say you no think it good use for school kid to see marry? Why?

there. All one si - la - bal words. May - B now you un-der-stand. o - k?

If you wanted us to discuss these things then you should have mentioned this in your opening post.

It's mentioned in the article. Any of those points that isn't is certainly implied by the article. Stop asking me to think for you.

No, it isn't. Taking children on a field trip is not "indoctrination" unless you impose a particular analysis of it on them (which is not even the same as merely presenting a viewpoint.)

then what do you call the fact that they handed out pins concerning a controversial vote in the upcomming elections to the kids to wear?

Or perhaps I like to wait and see how the discussion goes rather than dictating the thread to discuss exactly what I want it to.
Because discussion threads generally start with some sort of opinion presented by the opening poster. There are a lot of possible topics in this sort of news article and discussion needs some sort of point. It would be one thing if you had posted a longer news article with more details or an editorial presenting an opinion, but you didn't. You presented a news article that had two small snippits of quotes, minimal details and then expected a discussion to emerge which is unreasonable. Especially since you didn't even say anything like "what do you think?" indicating that you wanted us to discuss this.

And what's to elaborate? Nothing relevant to learn at a wedding. Not much else to say about that specific point.
How is there nothing to learn at a wedding? Maybe some of the students had never been to a wedding before, let alone a secular one at a courthouse. It teaches them about the wedding ceremony itself, that people get married in a variety of different ways even that different kinds of couples are perfectly normal. It might not be directly relevant to their curriculum, but school isn't just about learning math and how to read, a lot of it is learning about life.

Wasn't elaborated upon by me. What's stopping you?
It's not my thread or my opinion.

Arguing about why you're arguing is stopping you.
I'm not arguing about arguing. I'm suggesting how you can set a thread up for discussion instead of debate in the future.

I disagree. I think (or at least hope) that most people are intelligent enough to understand that if something is posted on a discussion forum it should be discussed and don't need a definitive, spelled-out prompt to initiate it.
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter where someone who is vaguely interested in the subject (not that they'd know it from the title) who just wanders in might not have a specific opinion on the subject, but you cared enough or were interested enough to start the thread and potentially had an opinion on the subject which you didn't really share.

NSG doesn't do small talk.

*Sigged*

Because it is so true, everytime I have tried to have a little discussion with someone it builds up into some heated debate rather than a small discussion where no one has to receive a yellow card.

*Sigged*

Because it is so true, everytime I have tried to have a little discussion with someone it builds up into some heated debate rather than a small discussion where no one has to receive a yellow card.

Odd.. works for me w/LG, DI, Nats, and several others...

*Sigged*

Because it is so true, everytime I have tried to have a little discussion with someone it builds up into some heated debate rather than a small discussion where no one has to receive a yellow card.
I've started little discussions that have stayed discussions. It's not hard, you just need to get the discussion started.

then what do you call the fact that they handed out pins concerning a controversial vote in the upcomming elections to the kids to wear?

Did they? A kid was wearing one; that doesn't mean the school was distributing them.

The parents seemed pretty sympathetic, after all.

No, it isn't. Taking children on a field trip is not "indoctrination" unless you impose a particular analysis of it on them (which is not even the same as merely presenting a viewpoint.)

Semantics, but teaching children to think for themselves can arguably be called indoctrination of the idea that it's good to be able to and practice thinking for yourself. Of course, I wouldn't argue that such indoctrination is a bad thing, but I would still call it indoctrination. Good indoctrination, though.

<snip>

*Completely ignores*

then what do you call the fact that they handed out pins concerning a controversial vote in the upcomming elections to the kids to wear?

I think Soheran meant field trips in general.

*Sigged*

Because it is so true, everytime I have tried to have a little discussion with someone it builds up into some heated debate rather than a small discussion where no one has to receive a yellow card.

Odd.. works for me w/LG, DI, Nats, and several others...

I enjoy participating in those threads.

It's mentioned in the article. Any of those points that isn't is certainly implied by the article. Stop asking me to think for you.

Perhaps if you didn't pick short, immflamatory articles from Faux News and insult anyone that doesn't get the same impression from that article that you did, you'd have better luck starting "small talk" threads.

Now these kids are going to think its ok to show up uninvited if its a gay wedding.

Perhaps if you didn't pick short, immflamatory articles from Faux News and insult anyone that doesn't get the same impression from that article that you did, you'd have better luck starting "small talk" threads.

When did I insult someone for not getting the same impression as I did?

And perhaps instead I should pick something more boring (http://www.topix.com/city/boring-or) so I can be careful not to unduly upset anyone who might not like Fox, gays, not gays, or thinking for themselves.

If you don't like my threads so much why do you continue to appear in them? Not that I'm telling you not to, just wondering why.

Semantics, but teaching children to think for themselves can arguably be called indoctrination of the idea that it's good to be able to and practice thinking for yourself.

Maybe, but if the end is critical, independent thinking, the usual objections to indoctrination don't really apply.

Now these kids are going to think its ok to show up uninvited if its a gay wedding.

LOL!

Look, those that want to deny marriage to gays just want to see them suffer out of sadism. Nothing more, nothing less. The book saying so is but an excuse: They want to see gays suffer because they want to see gays suffer.

Maybe, but if the end is critical, independent thinking, the usual objections to indoctrination don't really apply.

Unless you think that critical, independent thinking is a bad thing.

And as much as critical, independent thinking is a good thing, there's something to be said for critical, independent, socially-acceptable thinking.

The point I'm trying to make is that indoctrination in itself is not good or bad, it simply is. The doctrine you use is what determines the validity of the indoctrination. (The method of indoctrination can also be called into question, but indoctrination is not intrinsically bad).

The upshot of this is that when you think like this you can understand, even if you don't agree with them, why people would object to, say, making a field trip out of a same-sex marriage: it's all indoctrination, just different sides.

Mind, I'm not saying that their opinion is worth having, just that they have every right to have it and to them it's not as crazy or hypocritical as some people have made it out to be.

For the love of God, does everything have to be an argument, a critique, or some kind of cutting point?

You do know this is a debate forum, right?

Unless you think that critical, independent thinking is a bad thing.

But that's not the kind of objection we level against indoctrination as such. A person who made that objection would have no problem with indoctrination in most cases, as long as it was for a viewpoint he or she supported.

Someone like me, who's opposed to indoctrination even for views he or she supports, is pretty necessarily assuming that critical, independent thinking is a good thing.

And as much as critical, independent thinking is a good thing, there's something to be said for critical, independent, socially-acceptable thinking.

Truth and right are not subject to social acceptability.

The point I'm trying to make is that indoctrination in itself is not good or bad, it simply is. The doctrine you use is what determines the validity of the indoctrination.

Not at all. If I try to pressure or coerce or bully someone into supporting legal same-sex marriage, that's indoctrination, and it's wrong even though legal same-sex marriage is a worthy cause.

(The method of indoctrination can also be called into question, but indoctrination is not intrinsically bad).

Indoctrination, by its very nature, subverts rationality. It may spread the right conclusions, but for the wrong reasons. The ends do not justify the means: I may not enslave people's minds for the sake of getting them to agree with me.

(That does not mean that our education system should be "value-neutral", which is a different subject. Our education system should be founded on the same liberal democratic values as our political system is supposed to be, but it should not impose or indoctrinate those values.)

You do know this is a debate forum, right?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097239&postcount=15
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097242&postcount=17
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097247&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097254&postcount=19
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097297&postcount=26
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097306&postcount=29
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097326&postcount=32
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097335&postcount=33
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097338&postcount=34

Read the thread before you post, or at the very least, skim it.

#32 is particularly relevant since it definitively shows that NSG is not, in fact, only a debate forum, it is also a discussion forum. Discussion does not necessarily mean debate, nor does discussion require a winner/loser or someone to be right/wrong, and so I would not think it would require that every post be an argument critique, or some kind of cutting point: discussion merely requires the exploration of various ideas which do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, oppose each other, or be otherwise incompatible.

#32 is particularly relevant since it definitively shows that NSG is not, in fact, only a debate forum, it is also a discussion forum. Discussion does not necessarily mean debate, nor does discussion require a winner/loser or someone to be right/wrong, and so I would not think it would require that every post be an argument critique, or some kind of cutting point: discussion merely requires the exploration of various ideas which do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, oppose each other, or be otherwise incompatible.

Before you continue to condescend, perhaps you should read the definition of "discussion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion)":

1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Read the thread before you post, or at the very least, skim it.

Don't like it? Try not responding. I'm not going to go through a load of threads then try to remember which ones I wanted to reply to and what I wanted to say to them.

So do I.

but this...

is just plain wrong. Using children as weapons to get your political point across. and yes, I this is a total, across the board viewpoint.

Did you bother to read the very next line?

Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.

Yeah, how DARE they teach their daughter that they are a family and laws that try to break them apart are wrong? If they made her wear the button, sure, that could be a bit slimy, but I'm willing to believe a six-year-old is capable of a belief as complex as "My mommies love each other and are getting married, and I think that is a good thing. They told me this button means they should be allowed to get married, so I want to wear it."

I know. We can trade baseball cards and pretend we are rich. Nothing ever can go wrong with that plan.

But that's not the kind of objection we level against indoctrination as such. A person who made that objection would have no problem with indoctrination in most cases, as long as it was for a viewpoint he or she supported.

Someone like me, who's opposed to indoctrination even for views he or she supports, is pretty necessarily assuming that critical, independent thinking is a good thing.

Not at all. If I try to pressure or coerce or bully someone into supporting legal same-sex marriage, that's indoctrination, and it's wrong even though legal same-sex marriage is a worthy cause.

Indoctrination, by its very nature, subverts rationality. It may spread the right conclusions, but for the wrong reasons. The ends do not justify the means: I may not enslave people's minds for the sake of getting them to agree with me.

I think most of this boils down to defining the word "indoctrination." I take it to mean "teaching a doctrine" and doctrine is pretty much "an idea". By that definition, all teachers, by definition, indoctrinate.

That said, forcing others to agree with your point of view, or otherwise teaching your point of view in such a way so that it is the inevitable conclusion is the more common connotation, if not actual definition, of "indoctrination". Even under that definition, one can argue (and I do) that teaching someone to be a free-thinking individual is still indoctrinating - the negative connotation definition - that individual with the idea that being a free-thinking individual is right and not being a free-thinking individual is wrong.

Which brings me to the next point about value-neutral education:

(That does not mean that our education system should be "value-neutral", which is a different subject. Our education system should be founded on the same liberal democratic values as our political system is supposed to be, but it should not impose or indoctrinate those values.)

Semantics aside, how far do you go to ensure that these values are taught, taught correctly, and understood (if not agreed with)? At what point does the education of these ideals infringe upon the right of others to teach their ideals to their children? At what point does education become indoctrination? The answers to these questions, I feel, are too problematic to find when abiding by a strict "no-indoctrination" idealism. Instead, as you can see, I solve the dilemma by admitting a broader, connotation neutral definition of indoctrination, allow indoctrination, and set out on the less problematic, if more controversial task of deciding which doctrine should be indoctrinated.

Truth and right are not subject to social acceptability.

True, but being socially acceptable is nonetheless valuable. Being right does you little good if no one else will listen to you. I am not advocating being wrong for the sake of getting along: rather, I submit that the problem needs to be solved on the societal level rather than the individual. If society is indoctrinating the right thing, then the individual will both get along with society and be right in his thinking. That is, of course, idealistic. I prefer a balance: push the boundaries of social-accepted doctrine, but don't go beyond them. Arriving at the truth is slower, as the steps in that direction are still close to societal values, but they are easier for society to accept, so society is more likely to move in that direction than a much greater step.

Before you continue to condescend, perhaps you should read the definition of "discussion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion)":

1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate. [emphasis added]

Your own second definition makes no mention of "debate" as such.

to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, esp. to explore solutions; debate: to discuss the proposed law on taxes.

It can be debate, it is like debate, debate can be a part of it, but it does not require debate.

Don't like it? Try not responding.

That would make sense except that it's my thread and you don't like it. So you're telling yourself to stop responding.

I'm not going to go through a load of threads then try to remember which ones I wanted to reply to and what I wanted to say to them.

If you're referring to the list of URLs I posted above, that is not a load of threads, that is several posts in this thread. #32 consists of a quote from the top of every NSG webpage.

And if you're going to use laziness as an excuse, then you certainly can't fault me for being lazy in any attempts to prompt discussion.

I think most of this boils down to defining the word "indoctrination." I take it to mean "teaching a doctrine" and doctrine is pretty much "an idea". By that definition, all teachers, by definition, indoctrinate.

I looked it up, and you have it right. This part of the point is conceded.

Even under that definition, one can argue (and I do) that teaching someone to be a free-thinking individual is still indoctrinating - the negative connotation definition - that individual with the idea that being a free-thinking individual is right and not being a free-thinking individual is wrong.

How so? A free-thinking person can reject free-thinking. Teaching a capacity does not make someone live his life according to that capacity. Curing blindness does not mean a person cannot close her eyes.

Semantics aside, how far do you go to ensure that these values are taught, taught correctly, and understood (if not agreed with)?

I'm not talking about having a "Democratic Values" class, I'm talking about being open and unashamed about the fact that, say, civics and history classes operate under certain values assumptions, and explaining the kind of reasoning that has led our society to the moral consensus we are imparting. So, for instance, on the issues of slavery and civil rights we might point to the collapse of the various scientific theories justifying racism. We can teach such things the same way we teach anything else.

At what point does the education of these ideals infringe upon the right of others to teach their ideals to their children?

No one has any "right" to "teach their ideals to their children."

Public education should, however, be public in that it should not advance any particular ideology outside of the broad framework of liberal democracy... and, of course, it should not attempt to force anyone to agree.

The answers to these questions, I feel, are too problematic to find when abiding by a strict "no-indoctrination" idealism.

I see no reason to agree with that.

Instead, as you can see, I solve the dilemma by admitting a broader, connotation neutral definition of indoctrination, allow indoctrination, and set out on the less problematic, if more controversial task of deciding which doctrine should be indoctrinated.

I refuse to collapse the ideal here. The highest end is rationality, regard for truth and right: I would rather someone adopt a wrong conclusion for good reasons than a right one for bad reasons. I don't want my conclusions to be "indoctrinated" in anything but the broadest sense of the word; I want people to be convinced by them.

If society is indoctrinating the right thing, then the individual will both get along with society and be right in his thinking.

If society's methods of indoctrination are so powerful as to generate unanimity, all people will be wrong in their thinking, because they will have been trained to respect the authority of social institutions rather than the authority of reason.

Perhaps you will have slaves who vote right, but they will still be slaves.

I prefer a balance: push the boundaries of social-accepted doctrine, but don't go beyond them.

Who is setting the agenda? On what basis do you trust them?

I looked it up, and you have it right. This part of the point is conceded.

Even so, I do recognize the negative connotation attached to the word "indoctrination". Thus the problems associated with arguments based on semantics.

How so? A free-thinking person can reject free-thinking. Teaching a capacity does not make someone live his life according to that capacity. Curing blindness does not mean a person cannot close her eyes.

I never said it was a bad thing. Nonetheless, it is indoctrination: they must, for a time, accept free-thinking so that they may use it to reject free-thinking. If you never taught them free-thinking in the first place, they would never have to accept it at all. It's a strange, twisted, self-referential logic, but it does (in my opinion) follow.

Though, once again, I'm not saying free-thinking is a bad thing. I agree that it's better to give them the tools to decide for themselves, even if they decide upon ignorance. I'm just trying to make my point: indoctrination is, but not, by definition, good or bad. It's what you indoctrinate and how you go about doing it that makes it good, bad, or otherwise.

I'm not talking about having a "Democratic Values" class, I'm talking about being open and unashamed about the fact that, say, civics and history classes operate under certain values assumptions, and explaining the kind of reasoning that has led our society to the moral consensus we are imparting. So, for instance, on the issues of slavery and civil rights we might point to the collapse of the various scientific theories justifying racism. We can teach such things the same way we teach anything else.

My point stands: how do you ensure that they were taught and understood, regardless of the method? Can you test for it? Unless you have very creative testing methods, testing necessitates a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which reinforces whatever you're trying to teach with a bias.

No one has any "right" to "teach their ideals to their children."

Many, many people would disagree with you. Understand, you just said that you don't have the right to teach your children that it's wrong to impose their ideals on other people, including their children.

Everyone has the right to teach their children. But I would also submit that the society they are in has the right to adjudicate upon the ideals being taught, to a certain extent. For example: "Respect everyone!" Ok, society can get behind that. "" Ok, not everyone agrees, but some do. As long as it doesn't get crazy... "Kill people you don't like and enslave anyone you can against their will!" Not good, you have forfeited your right to teach your children.

Public education should, however, be [I]public in that it should not advance any particular ideology outside of the broad framework of liberal democracy... and, of course, it should not attempt to force anyone to agree.

That is very difficult to do. The very social aspect of school ensures that those who might hold a dissenting opinion with the rest of the class are put down and shunned, if only a little. There's always bias in literary works, historical analyses, what have you: counter-balancing these creates another set of problems when you realize that ideals are not simply sets of diametrically opposed twos, but a complex arrangement of many mutually exclusive ideals. Testing also reflects the bias of the test creator, and testing is necessary to ensure that the students are learning. I would not be so bold as to say that such a system is impossible to create, but it is impractical.

Once again I submit the ease of admitting bias and running with it.

I see no reason to agree with that.

I submitted it as my own opinion, so there's no particular reason you should.

I refuse to collapse the ideal here. The highest end is rationality, regard for truth and right: I would rather someone adopt a wrong conclusion for good reasons than a right one for bad reasons. I don't want my conclusions to be "indoctrinated" in anything but the broadest sense of the word; I want people to be convinced by them.

Again, this is problematic. Wrong conclusion for the right reasons is all well in good in theory, but history is riddled with the horrible results of morally, ethically, scientifically, etc. false conclusions that were nevertheless the product of rational, intelligent, independent thought. What safeguard is there to prevent societal degradation due to morally questionable conclusions?

The easy answer is that if everyone follows the correct logical paths, then they will arrive at the truth (which, presumably, is intrinsically morally good). But this is idealistic and assumes several things: that no one makes a mistake; that all of the premises necessary for the right conclusion are known; that no one purposefully corrupts the system...

I suggest that there has to be at least a small amount of guidance. Like I said, the truth is harder to get to, but the mistakes are smaller and more amendable.

If society's methods of indoctrination are so powerful as to generate unanimity, all people will be wrong in their thinking, because they will have been trained to respect the authority of social institutions rather than the authority of reason.

Not necessarily. You're assuming that one political or social entity is doing the teaching. In an idealistic society, everyone is teaching everyone, and since it all started with the correct assumptions and conclusions, it all leads back to those same correct assumptions and conclusions. Of course this is idealistic, and so not viable. Nonetheless, my point remains: If society all taught the right thing in the right way, everyone would be right and wouldn't need to think independently, since they're already right. Arguably, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, since the free-thinking individuals would also arrive at the same conclusion (ideally, of course).

Perhaps you will have slaves who vote right, but they will still be slaves.

But they won't know they're slaves. Which begs the question: if you don't know you're a slave, and you're a slave to the best, idealistically benevolent master, and the end result is morally right, is this slavery a bad thing? I'm not submitting a yes or a no, just posing the question.

This brings up more questions: at what point does an individual's right or ability to think freely infringe upon a society's right to happiness, moral rightness, and the like? If everyone is a slave and happy, and free-thinking by a single individual (hypothetically) would the slavery, and therefore their happiness, to end, what right does the individual have to destroy that society? Again, I'm not submitting a yes or no, just posing a moral dilemma.

Who is setting the agenda? On what basis do you trust them?

Those are very important questions. In a democratic republic, the people are setting the agenda indirectly, and you trust them on the basis that it's you (and you should trust you), and also on the idea that no single individual in a democratic republic can gain such power that that person alone sets the agenda and no one else has the power to change it if it doesn't work.

For the record, I understand I threw out a lot of idealistic and/or hypothetical ideas, and I understand that these are logical extremes. I'm only posing them as thought experiments, not as realistic possibilities. How you answer those questions, however, reflects your views which can be applied to the current, realistic problems being raised.

Note to self: Don't respond to a thread with a post that isn't antagonizing, incendiary or incomprehensible. No one will bother to read it while they kvetch about how everyone's trying to pick a fight.


This field trip was an EXCELLENT idea and if you don't think so you're a BIGOTED IDIOT. Learning about gay marriage should be MANDATORY for every grade school student in California, and if parents don't like it, they can move to Alaska!

I don't mean this as a criticism RhynoD (or maybe I do) but Fox news????????

Why can't people talk about something? Sure but not the half-baked garbage that passes for news churned out by that Darth Vader of media, Rupert Murdoch.
And then there is Bill O'Reilly. I am so glad we don't get that fascist redneck in Australia.
Mind you, Australia has plenty of redneck fascists (many of whom work for Murdoch's huge media holdings here.)
I tell you, Big Brother has nothing on Rupert Murdoch. Orwell got it wrong. Murdoch became the arbiter of 'thoughtcrime"
Now repeat after me:
"Fox news is doubleplusgood! Fox News ids doubleplusgood! Victory to Oceania in the war on Terror!"

Note to self: Don't respond to a thread with a post that isn't antagonizing, incendiary or incomprehensible. No one will bother to read it while they kvetch about how everyone's trying to pick a fight.

Also don't post anything from Fox if you're not expecting at least a page of people completely ignoring the article to complain about the article being from Fox.

Did they? A kid was wearing one; that doesn't mean the school was distributing them. where did the kid get the pin? the married couple planned to drive around the state with a 'vote NO for Proposal 8' banner so it is possible they handed out pins at the wedding.

The parents seemed pretty sympathetic, after all. really? where was that in the article.

allowing a student to go to a wedding is one thing, but to take part in a political fight?

would the first grade student understand what propsal 8 stood for?

I think Soheran meant field trips in general.

Did he?

I would think having a child wear a political pin commenting on how to vote on a particular issue would be imposing a particular analysis on them.

if they didn't mention the pin then I wouldn't have any problems with the feild trip.

You do know this is a debate forum, right?

at the top...
General For discussion and debate about anything.

underlined is mine. ;)

where did the kid get the pin? the married couple planned to drive around the state with a 'vote NO for Proposal 8' banner so it is possible they handed out pins at the wedding.

True, but I would hope that 1) the people handing out the pins would know better and 2) that the chaperons would be paying attention and know better.

really? where was that in the article.

Arguable, but it's somewhat implied since the parents suggested the trip and gave permission.

allowing a student to go to a wedding is one thing, but to take part in a political fight?

would the first grade student understand what propsal 8 stood for?

Which of course makes me wonder why anyone bothered to give them pins. The answer could very well be that they were using the children to get their own point accross.

True, but I would hope that 1) the people handing out the pins would know better and 2) that the chaperons would be paying attention and know better. and chances are the Chaperons and those handing out the pins thought it would look 'cute' on a first grader...

Arguable, but it's somewhat implied since the parents suggested the trip and gave permission. which is why I have no problem with the trip itself nor with the comments the children made (I smiled thinking about them saying that to the reporters.) but giving the political pin could be seen as indoctrination.

something I wouldn't want my children to wear. even if it's a pin advocating "prayer in school".

Political fights should be, in my opinion, adult fights. sure teens can get involved, but not elementary/intermediate school children.

Which of course makes me wonder why anyone bothered to give them pins. The answer could very well be that they were using the children to get their own point accross.
which is my point about using the children as weapons in their political fight.

and chances are the Chaperons and those handing out the pins thought it would look 'cute' on a first grader...

which is why I have no problem with the trip itself nor with the comments the children made (I smiled thinking about them saying that to the reporters.) but giving the political pin could be seen as indoctrination.

something I wouldn't want my children to wear. even if it's a pin advocating "prayer in school".

Political fights should be, in my opinion, adult fights. sure teens can get involved, but not elementary/intermediate school children.


which is my point about using the children as weapons in their political fight.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097937&postcount=80

and chances are the Chaperons and those handing out the pins thought it would look 'cute' on a first grader...

So the criticism applies to them: using children to promote political views. Or they're just stupid. Either way.

which is why I have no problem with the trip itself nor with the comments the children made (I smiled thinking about them saying that to the reporters.) but giving the political pin could be seen as indoctrination.

something I wouldn't want my children to wear. even if it's a pin advocating "prayer in school".

Political fights should be, in my opinion, adult fights. sure teens can get involved, but not elementary/intermediate school children.

which is my point about using the children as weapons in their political fight.
Which, I think, is the main objection to the field trip: justifying the trip educationally is dubious. Honestly, I don't think you can (not because it's a lesbian wedding, but because I don't think any wedding would be particularly educationally necessary). So, if it's not educational (if), then why did they have it?

I agree with Ryadn. There is a lack of professionalism that I think has caused many of the problems we now face in the schools. There is a fine line and the parents crossed it. I do not care if the teacher was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, autosexual, or whatever; it was not appropriate behavior. OK now I've calmed down; I happy for the teacher and her wife, God bless them both. I can see if the teacher's family and the families of some of the students were good friends that parents and (former) students might attend, but that should never be at a detriment to their studies.

and chances are the Chaperons and those handing out the pins thought it would look 'cute' on a first grader...

which is why I have no problem with the trip itself nor with the comments the children made (I smiled thinking about them saying that to the reporters.) but giving the political pin could be seen as indoctrination.

something I wouldn't want my children to wear. even if it's a pin advocating "prayer in school".

Political fights should be, in my opinion, adult fights. sure teens can get involved, but not elementary/intermediate school children.


which is my point about using the children as weapons in their political fight.

Because you've ignored Poliwanacraca's attempts to straighten you out on this, from the article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL):

"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."

Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks

But I'm curious, does your objection to "using children" include the use of children as flower girls or ring-bearers at weddings -- whether the be same-sex or not?

So the criticism applies to them: using children to promote political views. Or they're just stupid. Either way.


Which, I think, is the main objection to the field trip: justifying the trip educationally is dubious. Honestly, I don't think you can (not because it's a lesbian wedding, but because I don't think any wedding would be particularly educationally necessary). So, if it's not educational (if), then why did they have it?

I agree with Ryadn. There is a lack of professionalism that I think has caused many of the problems we now face in the schools. There is a fine line and the parents crossed it. I do not care if the teacher was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, autosexual, or whatever; it was not appropriate behavior. OK now I've calmed down; I happy for the teacher and her wife, God bless them both. I can see if the teacher's family and the families of some of the students were good friends that parents and (former) students might attend, but that should never be at a detriment to their studies.

So, the objection here is that this trip wasn't educational enough? Even if that is true, how was it a detriment to their studies?

Didn't any of you ever go on field trips that were primarily fun? As an honor student, I went to more than one trip to a local amusement park as a reward.

Given that this was the idea of one of the parents, that parents could and did opt out of the trip, and it was the wedding of their teacher, I fail to see the menace out of a harmless show of affection for one's teacher.

Be honest, people, if this wasn't a same-sex marriage, the media (particularly Faux News) wouldn't care. No one would be talking about a "controversy."

Your own second definition makes no mention of "debate" as such.

It can be debate, it is like debate, debate can be a part of it, but it does not require debate.


at the top...

underlined is mine. ;)

"Gentlemen, you can't [debate] in here! This is the [Debate and Discussion] Room!"

:p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097937&postcount=80 Sorry Poli. missed that post. my complaint is not the wedding itself, but the fact that the child was wearing the pin.

if the pin was the typical wedding "Name and Name forever" or something about the wedding itself... like a picture of the two brides, I would have no objection.

now I did mention the possiblity that the pin was NOT passed out at the wedding. and if it wasn't then my only objection is removed.

Because you've ignored Poliwanacraca's attempts to straighten you out on this, from the article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL):

"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."

Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks

But I'm curious, does your objection to "using children" include the use of children as flower girls or ring-bearers at weddings -- whether the be same-sex or not?

ah, but as ring-bearers or flower girls/boys they are participating in the wedding and no I wouldn't be objecting to that. correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the children throw flower pedals and blow bubbles at the brides? I have no objection to that nor to the wedding itself.

and just becausee Chava's mothers are getting married doesn't mean the pin didn't necessarily NOT come from that wedding. a wedding where the brides say they will campaign for "No on 8" very soon.

The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.

Which, I think, is the main objection to the field trip: justifying the trip educationally is dubious. Honestly, I don't think you can (not because it's a lesbian wedding, but because I don't think any wedding would be particularly educationally necessary). So, if it's not educational (if), then why did they have it?
to celebrate the wedding of a nice and popular teacher?

I wouldn't object if my child came to me with a permission slip stating that the class/grade wants to attend a teacher's wedding, even if it's a same sex wedding.

but to try to spin it as "educational" is a rather poor excuse.

"Gentlemen, you can't [debate] in here! This is the [Debate and Discussion] Room!"

:p

damn... and here I had a whole "Debate through Mime" planned! :(

Be honest, people, if this wasn't a same-sex marriage, the media (particularly Faux News) wouldn't care. No one would be talking about a "controversy."

That's true. But it's not so there is.

So, the objection here is that this trip wasn't educational enough? Even if that is true, how was it a detriment to their studies?

My objection is that it was advertised (at least to the news) as being educational. The problem is that this was an administration approved field trip, not just a spontaneous, voluntary gathering of students. The school should have been more careful in officially approving such a controversial trip.

Think of it this way: if it wasn't educational, what was the point? If it was just to visit their teacher's wedding, why was it an official field trip, rather than just a mutual trip organized by the parents?

Didn't any of you ever go on field trips that were primarily fun? As an honor student, I went to more than one trip to a local amusement park as a reward.

But those trips weren't controversial.

Given that this was the idea of one of the parents, that parents could and did opt out of the trip, and it was the wedding of their teacher, I fail to see the menace out of a harmless show of affection for one's teacher.

The menace is in the possible use of children to promote a political ideology, as well as a possible indoctrination of an ideology on those children that is outside the bounds of what public education should be teaching. Am I saying it was those things? No, just that that is the reason behind the fears of the objectors.

to celebrate the wedding of a nice and popular teacher?

I wouldn't object if my child came to me with a permission slip stating that the class/grade wants to attend a teacher's wedding, even if it's a same sex wedding.

but to try to spin it as "educational" is a rather poor excuse.

Let me clarify: I don't mean to ask why the had the trip at all, I mean to ask why it was an official field trip. I've nothing against celebrating their teacher's wedding. But why did the administration get involved?

That's true. But it's not so there is.

Nice tautology.

My objection is that it was advertised (at least to the news) as being educational. The problem is that this was an administration approved field trip, not just a spontaneous, voluntary gathering of students. The school should have been more careful in officially approving such a controversial trip.

Think of it this way: if it wasn't educational, what was the point? If it was just to visit their teacher's wedding, why was it an official field trip, rather than just a mutual trip organized by the parents?

Perhaps because it was during school hours. Are you going to claim no one would be objecting if this had been "a mutual trip organized by the parents" which took the kids out of school?



But those trips weren't controversial.

Begging the question.


The menace is in the possible use of children to promote a political ideology, as well as a possible indoctrination of an ideology on those children that is outside the bounds of what public education should be teaching. Am I saying it was those things? No, just that that is the reason behind the fears of the objectors.

What political ideology? What indoctrination? This was a frickin' teachers wedding.

I know you like to play cute with "I'm not saying this, but it could be said" shit, but I'm saying the "fears of the objectors" are irrational and hateful. Fuck 'em.

Let me clarify: I don't mean to ask why the had the trip at all, I mean to ask why it was an official field trip. I've nothing against celebrating their teacher's wedding. But why did the administration get involved?

ah, misunderstood.

Possibly to justify any spending of the school's money. they probably used school buses which are paid by the school.

add to that it was probably billed as an official school function. even tho it was proposed by a parent, that doesn't make the trip a non-school function.

What political ideology?
would the "vote no on 8" pins (IF they wre being handed out at the wedding) fit the bill of "possible use of children to promote a political ideology"?

Nice tautology.

And yet, it's true. You're right, if it wasn't controversial no one would have cared. Does that make the trip less controversial? Does that mean a less controversial would necessarily be right or wrong? Does that mean this trip, by being controversial, is necessarily right or wrong? No. It just means this trip was controversial and others aren't. Which means this trip got the press and others didn't. None of that makes a difference as to whether or not the trip was a wise or ethically right.

Perhaps because it was during school hours. Are you going to claim no one would be objecting if this had been "a mutual trip organized by the parents" which took the kids out of school?

The complaint would be different: instead, they would be complaining about bad parenting, which isn't their business. But the current complaint is about bad public school administration, which is their business.

Begging the question.

No, raising this issue. Fun trips are fun and few care except people who are overprotective with the role of their tax money in public education. Controversial fun trips get a lot of people upset and make everyone pay attention to both that school system, public education in general, and whatever issue made it controversial.

I'm not trying to prove anything except that this a controversial issue. Controversial issues should be handled carefully.

What political ideology? What indoctrination? This was a frickin' teachers wedding.

A lesbian teacher's wedding. Which makes all the difference in the world.

I know you like to play cute with "I'm not saying this, but it could be said" shit, but I'm saying the "fears of the objectors" are irrational and hateful. Fuck 'em.

I am not necessarily disagreeing, just seeking to understand their point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

A lesbian teacher's wedding. Which makes all the difference in the world.

Only to bigots. Should we really be catering to bigots?

ah, misunderstood.

Possibly to justify any spending of the school's money. they probably used school buses which are paid by the school.

add to that it was probably billed as an official school function. even tho it was proposed by a parent, that doesn't make the trip a non-school function.

But that's the problem: it should never have had to be justified, since it should never have been an official thing. Why was the administration involved? Why did they have to get involved? Why did it require school funds or be labeled a school function?

Only to bigots. Should we really be catering to bigots?

Being bigoted doesn't make you wrong, it makes you bigoted. And bigots have rights, too.

But that's the problem: it should never have had to be justified, since it should never have been an official thing. Why was the administration involved? Why did they have to get involved? Why did it require school funds or be labeled a school function?
dunno how it is now or in that state, but when my mother was an active teacher...

the school pays for the school buses. if the children used the school buses, then the school has to pay for it.

if a number of parents and teachers volunteered their cars to drive down, then the school won't have to pay for it.

so if school buses were used, then the drivers need to be paid and also the gas used.

now wether or not that's what happened here is speculation.

Being bigoted doesn't make you wrong, it makes you bigoted.

:rolleyes:

And bigots have rights, too.

Whose rights were violated here? What rights were violated? How were they violated?

And yet, it's true. You're right, if it wasn't controversial no one would have cared. Does that make the trip less controversial? Does that mean a less controversial would necessarily be right or wrong? Does that mean this trip, by being controversial, is necessarily right or wrong? No. It just means this trip was controversial and others aren't. Which means this trip got the press and others didn't. None of that makes a difference as to whether or not the trip was a wise or ethically right.



The complaint would be different: instead, they would be complaining about bad parenting, which isn't their business. But the current complaint is about bad public school administration, which is their business.



No, raising this issue. Fun trips are fun and few care except people who are overprotective with the role of their tax money in public education. Controversial fun trips get a lot of people upset and make everyone pay attention to both that school system, public education in general, and whatever issue made it controversial.

I'm not trying to prove anything except that this a controversial issue. Controversial issues should be handled carefully.



A lesbian teacher's wedding. Which makes all the difference in the world.



I am not necessarily disagreeing, just seeking to understand their point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

So "it's a controversial issue" because some people find it controversial because some people have an issue? So we have to avoid ever doing anything that someone might not agree with 100%, because there might be controversy?

I'm getting dizzy from the circles.

But that's the problem: it should never have had to be justified, since it should never have been an official thing. Why was the administration involved? Why did they have to get involved? Why did it require school funds or be labeled a school function?

Which all begs the question: why not?

would the "vote no on 8" pins (IF they wre being handed out at the wedding) fit the bill of "possible use of children to promote a political ideology"?

First, big "IF"

Second, are children inherently incapable of having opinions -- even on subjects like whether their own parents should be able to marry?

Being bigoted doesn't make you wrong, it makes you bigoted. And bigots have rights, too.
I see the screw-up fairy is visiting my favourite troll again.

Newsflash for ya: Being bigoted does make you wrong. Being bigoted makes you very wrong indeed. It makes you incapable of rational and reasonable thought. Which is not A Good Thing.
well not to us. Apparently being bigoted is fine with you. Big surprise there...

I may be religious, but I really don't care one way or the other about gay marriage so long as the Church does not condone it... If city hall wants to give out marriage licenses to homosexual couples, be my guest... If not, that's fine with me too.

As far as the field trip, I think it was totally irresponsible of that parent to even suggest that the children go to the wedding... It has absolutely zero academic relevence. Since this appears to be a private school, I'd take my child out of there asap if that's the sort of bull they were calling field trips.

I see the screw-up fairy is visiting my favourite troll again.

Newsflash for ya: Being bigoted does make you wrong. Being bigoted makes you very wrong indeed. It makes you incapable of rational and reasonable thought. Which is not A Good Thing.
well not to us. Apparently being bigoted is fine with you. Big surprise there...

Ad hominem.
That was easy.

NSG doesn't do small talk.

I think we do, but for the most part we call it spam.

So "it's a controversial issue" because some people find it controversial because some people have an issue? So we have to avoid ever doing anything that someone might not agree with 100%, because there might be controversy?

I'm getting dizzy from the circles.

No. But you shouldn't be surprised if you do something you know will be controversial and there is controversy because of it.

Or perhaps the administration approved this trip because it would cause controversy.

The main point I'm trying to make is that whether or not other field trips would cause controversy has nothing to do with this field trip right now. Nor does the reason for this trip's controversy make a difference as to whether or not this trip was a good idea; the fact that it caused controversy does affect whether or not it was a good idea.

:rolleyes:

It does not logically follow that being a bigot makes you wrong.

Unless you want to try to prove that bigotry is intrinsically wrong. Good luck.

Whose rights were violated here? What rights were violated? How were they violated?

Just pointing out that bigots still have them, even if we all wish they didn't sometimes.

dunno how it is now or in that state, but when my mother was an active teacher...

the school pays for the school buses. if the children used the school buses, then the school has to pay for it.

if a number of parents and teachers volunteered their cars to drive down, then the school won't have to pay for it.

so if school buses were used, then the drivers need to be paid and also the gas used.

now wether or not that's what happened here is speculation.

None of that answers the question though: Why was it an official field trip? Why did they have to use school buses? If the parents wanted to do it, why didn't the parents get together with their minivans and go? Why was it official?

Which all begs the question: why not?

Time, money, controversy, putting undue pressure on the school system, putting ethical tension on young minds, fueling opposition, it was unnecessary, it was irrelevant...

I think we do, but for the most part we call it spam.

Haven't seen you around in a while.

I hear this talk of indoctrination of an ideology. Well let me put it this way, hate to break it to ya, but kids are indoctrinated with ideological views as a natural part of development. The parents pass on their virtues to their children by taking them to mosque, synagogue, and church worship services. Economics texts sing the praises of unbridled capitalism and warfare. Advertising glorifies an ungodly consumerist society. Daycares and schools have rules and grading systems that mold a person to think a certain way. So what? #1 and #4 are okay, just doing what is supposed to be done. #s 2 and 3, children are exposed to this as well, and in my own humble opinion, this is NOT okay.

Again my main objection is on professionalism... that was what was lacking, and that is what I consider wrong. I do not care if my future children's teachers are gay or straight as long as they are able to conduct themselves professionally, honor IEP commitments, and can teach the subject matter. That is the minimum of what I expect, with that much I would be happy.

While I don't agree with the concept of taking kids to your teacher's wedding, because it invades the teacher's privacy, why the uproar over the fact that it happened to be 2 women? Why is it so much worse and how does it become indoctrination just because it is 2 women marrying?

Would it be the same thing if it were a man and a woman at a decidedly Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/miscellaneous ceremony? Yes.

Being bigoted doesn't make you wrong, it makes you bigoted.

Yes, actually it DOES make you wrong.

Ad hominem.
That was easy.
easy to ignore the point, true. But I don't expect anything more from you than that. Actually addressing an issue raised is well outside your capabilities, as has been shown countless times already. Still when you're batting 0 from 100, why risk wasting a perfect score, eh?

Yes, actually it DOES make you wrong.

Going to try to back that up?

easy to ignore the point, true. But I don't expect anything more from you than that. Actually addressing an issue raised is well outside your capabilities, as has been shown countless times already. Still when you're batting 0 from 100, why risk wasting a perfect score, eh?

Countless? How many of my threads have you actually seen? I'm fairly certain that two threads or so isn't countless to most people.