Originally posted by Observer99
Originally posted by Sphota
What glib excuses did I use anywhere to deny any of the things you mentioned above? I only took a shot at humans with animals. If, by some miracle, a
dog or spider monkey was able to consent to a relationship with a human being, then by all means, be happy. But, without a language faculty and all
the societal trappings that come with it, I don't see that happening soon.
Do you have any pets? Do they consent to being your pets? Can you tell when your pet is happy or sad, loves you or is scared of you? Of course you
can. As alien as it seems to you or I, there ARE people that believe they love animals. Why is it our place to tell them they can't marry one?
It's just another double standard which you put in place to wrongfully elevate your own deviancy above the deviancy of others. The correct stance is
that individuals are allowed to be "deviant" as long as it doesn't hurt others, but that society shouldn't have to be altered to encompass and
recognize all deviant behavior as equal. Because in the changing and removal of societal standards, it ultimately DOES hurt others.
There may be people who believe a young child returns their love in "that" way, and those people need mental help, because a pre-pubescent child
cannot make those sorts of choices with rationale. There are people who believe that the object of their affection loves them even though they ignore
them and avoid them; we call these people stalkers.
Animals do not have a language faculty, they cannot be "peers" in the same way a human (or humans) can. I really have to choose my words carefully,
because what I don't mention seems to be license for you to assume I do not condone that thing. If someone's idea of a good time is putting on a
leather saddle and furry donkey outfits and be ridden around by a troupe of bisexual midget minstrels in cowboy uniforms, well, that's their kink.
As far as animals, again, yes, I've always been a pet owner and I've often contemplated the relationship between pet and owner and whether it has
been a "fair" relationship over the millenia of domestication. In a way, we take away their "nature" because we hold them into bondage, both
literal and coerced (feeding times, etc.). Maybe all pets suffer from Stockholm syndrome...what do I know, I'm not an animal behaviorist.
It's too bad that the media has told you for 30 years that standards are old and stupid. In reality, standards are necessary for a
functioning society.
Standards? What standards? You can just say words, but that doesn't mean your semantic loading of them must carry through to all other persons. I can
say "morals" and mean "thieve's code" it doesn't make it so. Standard simply means regular, common, average, the bar to attain, the minimal
goal, the "at-least". The standard way to wash a car is with a hose (there are other ways to wash it). The standards for passing the exam are X
(Johnny did not reach the standards; Jimmy surpassed them).
So, standards set by whom and for whom and for what purpose? I think of all sorts of standards that tribes in Africa live by, Aboriginal Australians,
the Chinese, the Amish, the Muslims, the Mexicans...which standards. They are not all identical. Oh, you mean pseudo-Christian, pseudo-Capitalist
ideological standards of some idealistic Main Street Disney America favored by Jesus, repeated ad nauseum in sindication with the requisite 8.5
minutes of commercial breaks to buy the products that help you attain said moralistic standards, faster, stronger, twice-the-cleaning power, now
half-price*
(*In comparison with Original Standards)
Originally posted by SphotaIt was the right of the teacher to have the opinion he so expressed. It was his right to express it
freely outside of a communal space to which he had a social contract binding his actions and speech. It is the right of society to say that within the
bounds of schooling, a teacher is not to take advantage of his position of authority to not infringe on the rights of others, students or
colleagues.
I don't see how he "took advantage of his authority" in any way. Did he post it on a school website? In a school pamphlet or newsletter? Did he
force it as the topic of his class? No, he just posted something online like everyone else does. He had a non-PC opinion, and his only mistake was
being dumb enough to state it out loud, being dumb enough to believe that free speech still exists. Then the liberal thought police arrested him. He
may be wrong for being insensitive, but the punishment doesn't fit the "crime", as usual.
He took advantage of his authority in the relationship dynamic between him and his students. If he did
not choose to have students as friends -
as I've stated countless times - he would not have done something inappropriate. This is the crux of the issue. I personally believe as well that PC
has gone to far, but that is neither here nor there. As an educator, especially when his pupils were minors, he should have had the gumption to
not have students on his personal social media site. This is the bottom line.
Originally posted by SphotaIt is not up to someone else's religion to dictate my belief system at this point in time. I do not
have entitlement or a "delusional belief of protected status". I don't know why you think I have this. I would like to know why, so please respond.
You have entitlement and protected status by the prevailing and enforced opinion of the media and the thought police, as clearly evidenced by the
topic of this thread.
By your interpretation. That still does not tell me how "I" have protected status. Do you mean gays? What protected status. I've thought about this
for a while as I have not been online to contribute or answer your post. The best I can come up with is the following: Niche groups are created by
comparison.
It's a sort of societal Gestalt - whereby the parameters of us-ness and them-ness are created by a societal dialog. For someone who is not gay, but
who listens to the media (who is only going to serve up what is demanded - though I don't want to stray), gays fit a certain profile (a Gestalt, if
you will). Those who do not fit into this profile do not possess the qualities of "gayness" that are requisite to be gay from the point of view of a
societal Gestalt. The current "Gay" gestalt in our society seems to be feminine males hell bent on marriage. So, the reaction is created, Anti-gay
marriage advocates. The whole noxious brew boils down to a Us vs. Them, you're either with us or against us mentality.
But it was never that way to begin with: There are gays out there who are not even interested in pairing off - whether that be State sanctioned,
Church sanctioned, or otherwise; there are gays out there who want to pair off, but do not really care about any sort of special recognition; there
are gays out there who want to be recognized by the State to have access to the same rights of visitation, tax breaks and so forth that come with
heterosexual marriage; and there are gays out there who want to change their religion so as to permit homosexual unions. There are also non-gays (any
and all other lifestyles to be clear) that want and/or do not want any sort of change to their status - or perhaps they've never even thought of
it.
What would have been the reaction if the teacher had commented "Guys can marry multiple women now? That makes me sick!" or "Brothers can
marry their sisters now? That makes me sick!" Not only would he NOT have gotten in trouble for "offending the sensibilities of a protected
group", on the contrary, he might have actually gotten in trouble for bringing up or talking about such a "deviant" topic. Anyone that can't see
the protected status of gays is truly blind.
Yes and no. As the issue is not even relevant in that no one is talking about it (except that polygamist court case recently, though the State argued
he had abused minor girls if I'm not mistaken), he would have been dismissed as "random". No one at this moment is bringing polygamous,
polyandrous, male-female-shemale couplings, dog-human couplings, dog-human-cousin couplings or any other random sort of union. No one is really
bringing it up.
The truth is, the norm seems to be for one person to want to be with another single person (whoever that person is) and from a standpoint of jealousy,
I can easily see why. I won't discount multiple partners in a binding union without jealousy, but there must be some hierarchy for this to exist. In
effect, history tells us how this works with harems, concubines, and so forth. I cannot speak to the idea of union, but in all honestly, more than two
people - in fact, large groups that I've seen here in the US seem to be cumbersome from a relationship standpoint. They seem to end up more like a
sort of Mormon Kibbutz than a romantic union, but I don't know enough about it either way.
As for "why it is up to religion to dictate societal standards" -- what other source would you suggest for societal standards? The
principles of the christian religion were used to set many of the standards we live by. It took us a while to get it right. Now we want to throw it
all out and believe we can live without those standards. Humans left to their own devices may ultimately retain no standards, and that's a recipe
for destruction.
OK Hobbs, I guess Christianity is the only true way to really cement our social values. Millions of people all over the world have not been able to
accomplish that on their own over time and at the present moment. Meanwhile, I don't see Christian values being so steadfast that they lock down all
the moral issues we see bubbling up here and there. I also have yet to see a Christian uprising against war and violence, which is mentioned a lot
more than homosexuality in the Bible.
As far as "took us a while to get it right"...more like work in progress. I don't see anything "right" at the moment, nor pre-Stonewall (if
we're going to focus on homosexually-generated moral decay into the abyss of fire and brimstone a la Westboro Baptist Church).
Thou shalt not
steal and
Thou shalt not kill seem to be the baby in the bathwater when it comes to the US's foreign mis-adventurism vis-a-vis the
impeccable standards you discuss.
I suppose that some of the degradation of our societal morals may be directly caused by the NWO crowd, whose goal is to completely destroy the
family and create a world similar to that described in 'Brave New World', where the state has absolute control of children (and everything.) But I
don't think the Roman Empire was similarly brought down by global elitists. They were brought down due to a lot of the same things we are seeing
today. The abandonment of moral standards, as well as unsustainable defense spending.
When that gets here, let me know. I, for one, am of the belief that the NWO (or whatever name a person could want to use) is already here and now. As
there is no other "time" but the present, all memories of the past are simply that - memories - and all preoccupations with the future are merely
best guesses based on observable details.
If you see the "family" being destroyed, I would like to know in what sense. In the sense of single mothers on welfare; the sense of the War on
Drugs and infiltration of addiction through disease breaking up the family unit; in the sense of mindless technology that disassociates us from our
friends and family and makes simple communication break down outside of cyberspace; or of Empire, destroying families on the one hand by sending the
father or mother to war to be killed or mamed, and on the other, having those would-be disabled veterans destroy families in some far off place; or is
it due to the Gays...those protected scape goats of the Whore of Babylon? Gays can only be morally corrupt, or is it their "protected" status of
lives dealing with bigotry, isolation, confusion, and loneliness that leads to the corruptive influences of anonymous sex, STDs, addiction and
suicide??? Hmmm. Let's ask "the Blacks"...the other protected class who seem to be having a jolly old time with their 50% decline in net worth,
disproportionate representation in prisons and on welfare, and their 2-times unemployment rate.
Yes, it must be that the "protected" status that these groups enjoy allows them to wallow in their inherent hedonism and immorality...probably
couldn't be that the mask of "PC" America: 2011 paints a prettier kumbaya picture than real life dictates.
It doesn't matter whether Jesus existed, what matters ultimately is what beliefs and standards help society to best function for the most good
of its citizens. Very, very few people can have an objective view on this topic. Very few people that agree with me are doing so for the right
reasons, or can really see the big picture. IF denying a piece of paper to 3% of the populace prevents the degradation of standards which ultimately
lead to the destruction of a society, if we could see ahead 100 years to visually witness the outcome, are you so selfish that you wouldn't even
consider it?
OK, got it, Jesus is a moot point, so the doctrine came from some other place...Peter, Paul and Mary, I guess (no pun intended) and yet we're
supposed to live by it either way. Nothing to really rebut there. I'm not sure what topic - at this point - I'm supposed to have an objective view
on. In the end, there is no such thing as objectivity, I'll admit to that as it is a hallmark of Peircean semiotics. Upon creation of the subject,
there can only be a subjective view, as I cannot enter your consciousness no more than you can enter mine.
But that's not really the issue. You seem to have the truth all sorted out, the objective plan of the universe and great being who created it. In the
end, the BS of this society is pointless, so why even care who gets this or that right, when it will be denied 10-fold to many others (I don't just
mean the US). In the end, we only have best guesses. Maybe your best guess is how you've laid it out. I'm willing to accept that. My best guess at
this point in time is that it really does not matter if gay people get married or not, so why be so against the ones that want to? I cannot see how it
affects others. It's not going to break up Joe Q. and Jane Public's happy marriage. It's not going to make the Beav like beaver any less and it's
not going to make little Timmy want to marry Lassey. The nostalgia of an America that never existed, eroded by the ghosts of social movements that
have always existed, even when you weren't there to see them.
Originally posted by Sphota
In fact, the teacher was/is entitled to his opinion. It's only that as a teacher, with students as friends on face book, he is not entitled to
influence their opinion on matters wholly unrelated to class
I'd be happy with that viewpoint, if it would be applied to the entire school. No more talk about alternate lifestyles. No more talk about sexual
behavior other than a one-time properly created sex education class from a pure biology standpoint, which can be opted out of. No more pushing of
liberal agendas in any public school building. They can teach and talk about traditional subjects of education and teach the children skills.
That's it. Any teacher, any faculty member which ever voices any personal opinion, or brings in outside people for the purpose of voicing their
personal opinions, will all be fired. Are you good with that? edit on 20-8-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)
I don't know where you went to high school, but I've never had a liberal agenda pushed at me. I don't recall reading Howard Zin's People's
History of the US in civics class. I read the thick book with lots of pictures with a handful of indians getting blankets in Manhattan and no relevant
sections regarding the Vietnam War or the Contras.
I don't really feel like now transitioning into a discussion of pedagogical theory with you, but I'm not sure what opinions in class you are
referring to. As a teacher, there were times when I'd have to stop myself mid sentence, because I realized what I was saying might be contrary to my
students' mainstream views of society, but these were not views upheld by the left (or the right), they were views contrary to the status quo that is
taught in the text books. Let's end here, because I can see where this last bit of discussion can really end in a chaotic back-and-forth.
The teacher can have his opinions about issues outside of the classroom. He can use social media for teaching purposes provided he keep it separate
from however he chooses to socialize with his peers. He can discuss his opinions in a respectful way with like-minded students at off-campus events,
provided that he did not coerce them or otherwise make their presence there mandatory for grade purposes.
He cannot take his opinions unrelated to the curriculum into the classroom. He cannot coerce his students to hold a belief any more than schools
should force religious people to not accept the Biblical story of Genesis (though in my opinion, the State is only obligated to teach the biology,
chemistry and geology related to planet formation, not a traditional belief system held to be true by some in the society). He *should* not (though in
theory he could) have students as friends on facebook, though he should know well enough to tone down the dialog he uses if that is the case.
