It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California’s indoctrination of children reaches new lows

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 



So....it's perfectly fine for California JUNIOR high school students to take 'sex education classes' but NOT perfectly fine to discover that (shock and awe!) the great German composer HANDEL had a live in MALE lover for 25 years, or that Alexander the Great was openly gay in a Greek Culture which not only ALLOWED male homosexuality in public, but also encouraged it !!


Calm down, Sigismundus! I know this issue must be close to home since you’re from SAN FRANCISCO and all….BUT....you completely missed the point of my OP.


Why don’t you re-read it and then respond rather than jumping to conclusions. The argument is not about whether or not a school should mention that a historical figure may have been gay. The argument is about the fact that they distort history to paint these groups in a more favorable light.


In addition to the free speech implications, the state is essentially codifying revisionist history. If certain groups don't look good, their history doesn't get taught, at least not in its full context. It'd be like glossing over the attack on Pearl Harbor for fear of offending Japanese-Americans, or leaving out portions of the Civil War because it might make Southerners look bad.

It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, yet it's now the law of the land in the nation's most populous state. And it's more than political correctness run amok -- it's dangerous.

We used to criticize other countries for doing this sort of thing -- Japan for downplaying the Rape of Nanking, Turkey for denying the Armenian genocide, textbooks in the Arab world for their portrayal of Israel -- yet here we are, doing it in the U.S.


Is it OK to re-write history and be dishonest so that we don’t offend a gay person?

I think NOT!




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?


yes of course they are I have family members who are gay I dont have any problem with them mentioning gay/lesbian/trangendered peoples contribution to history-BUT I have problem with them planning to rewrite history -think about all that cant be taught because it might say something bad about religion think about all the incidents in history that are going to have to be left out of the classroom-the Crusades,the Inquisition, even the discovery of America wont be able to taught and how much more will be left out? Do we really think not mentioning the role radical Islam played in the 9/11 attacks is a good idea? And I dont mean teaching that all Moslems are terrorists. We cant pretend it didnt happen. And we cannot rewrite history whether the liberals like it or not.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
It has a lot to do with it because liberals (the left) overwhelmingly support homosexuality while conservatives (the right) overwhelmingly oppose homosexuality.


That doesn't mean there's causality. I'd also doubt what you say is even true. The left overwhelmingly support homosexuality? That really is news to me! I could have sworn homophobia was rife in Europe, where leftists are plenty.

Conservatism and Liberalism have no place on the left right paradigm. This is a Yank invention, a bastardisation of political theory.

Liberals are not necessarily on the left and conservatives are not necessarily on the right. There are many left wing parties in Europe that are conservative in nature. You've heard of the Nazis, eh? That's a start.

To say conservatives = right and liberals = left actually = you're a dumb American who doesn't understand political theory.



There is nothing "conservative" about California or this garbage they are teaching children.


I didn't say there was.



You seem to be the one who is confused, sir! You appear to have little intelligence to insult.


And yet I'm not the one who thinks conservatism is exclusive to Capitalism, and Liberalism exclusive to Socialism/Communism.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
www.politicalcompass.org...

This contains a decent test for you about political ideologies.



edit on 2012/1/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
www.politicalcompass.org...

This contains a decent test for you about political ideologies.



edit on 2012/1/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


No it doesn't. That's the stupidest political compass I've ever seen. EVER.

I don't know how anyone could look at that and see it as making any sort of legitimate sense. It's so bad I wouldn't even know where to start in addressing the mistakes. If there's one thing everyone of all political persuasions can agree on I would hope it's that the compass you post is out and out inaccurate and misunderstands the vast majority of political systems.

Seriously. In what way does that even make sense to you?
edit on 5-1-2012 by JessopJessopJessop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Like most models, it isn't perfect. However, it isn't that bad either.

Most times when people have problems with a model like this, it is due to their misunderstanding of the political ideologies or definitions of political ideologies.

edit on 2012/1/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Like most models, it isn't perfect. However, it isn't that bad either.

Most times when people have problems with a model like this, it is due to their misunderstanding of the political ideologies or definitions of political ideologies.

edit on 2012/1/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


Do I really have to go through this compass for you? It makes no god damn sense. For a start there is no difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism. For a second Statism, Authoritarianism and Conservatism can't be placed anywhere, they're not unique to themselves. For a third there's no such bloody thing as "ultra capitalism". For a fourth "fascism" has no place on the left or right exclusively, neither does nationalism, or progressivism, or libertarianism or anarchism or "ultra anarchism"(whatever the hell that is?) or traditionalism etc etc etc etc

Should I continue?

Any legitimate political compass should have socialism on the left, capitalism on the right, with authoritarianism(notable state control) and libertarianism(notable lack of state) as North and South

Your compass makes absolutely no sense. It's a cluster-f///


edit on 5-1-2012 by JessopJessopJessop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Ah. Your model you've sketched out isn't completely wrong either. It is maybe simplistic, but more useful for conversations.

I agree with you about some of these concepts having more Left-Right scaling than is depicted on this chart. Though some of your ideas aren't completely correct - there certainly is Socialism and Democratic Socialism and they exactly aren't the same thing.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Ah. Your model you've sketched out isn't completely wrong either. It is maybe simplistic, but more useful for conversations.

I agree with you about some of these concepts having more Left-Right scaling than is depicted on this chart. Though some of your ideas aren't completely correct - there certainly is Socialism and Democratic Socialism and they exactly aren't the same thing.



You missed my point, I'm not saying some of these things aren't more to the left or more to the right, I'm saying half the stuff on here has nothing to do with the left or right, in any way.

And Democratic Socialism is textbook Socialism. If there's a difference explain it to me.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Calm down, Sigismundus! I know this issue must be close to home since you’re from SAN FRANCISCO and all….BUT....you completely missed the point of my OP.


Why is it when you don't respond the way the OP wants or expects you to.

You missed their point?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Ah. Your model you've sketched out isn't completely wrong either. It is maybe simplistic, but more useful for conversations.

I agree with you about some of these concepts having more Left-Right scaling than is depicted on this chart. Though some of your ideas aren't completely correct - there certainly is Socialism and Democratic Socialism and they exactly aren't the same thing.



You missed my point, I'm not saying some of these things aren't more to the left or more to the right, I'm saying half the stuff on here has nothing to do with the left or right, in any way.

And Democratic Socialism is textbook Socialism. If there's a difference explain it to me.


Your textbooks.

Not all forms of socialism include democracy.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Is it OK to re-write history and be dishonest so that we don’t offend a gay person?

I think NOT!


Again with the revision?

What revision? There is no revision. There is only fact - that was omitted.

If there was any revision - - it was covering up the real facts in the fist place - - that a historical figure was homosexual.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Ah. Your model you've sketched out isn't completely wrong either. It is maybe simplistic, but more useful for conversations.

I agree with you about some of these concepts having more Left-Right scaling than is depicted on this chart. Though some of your ideas aren't completely correct - there certainly is Socialism and Democratic Socialism and they exactly aren't the same thing.



You missed my point, I'm not saying some of these things aren't more to the left or more to the right, I'm saying half the stuff on here has nothing to do with the left or right, in any way.

And Democratic Socialism is textbook Socialism. If there's a difference explain it to me.


Your textbooks.

Not all forms of socialism include democracy.


Actually they do. If you can point to a Socialist system void of Democracy then it isn't Socialism by any accepted political definition.

Without Democracy Socialism ceases to be Socialism.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

This contains a decent test for you about political ideologies.


Who devised it?

What is the source?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

This contains a decent test for you about political ideologies.


Who devised it?

What is the source?


Check FAQ on the site.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   


Originally posted by JessopJessopJessopYour textbooks.

Not all forms of socialism include democracy.


Actually they do. If you can point to a Socialist system void of Democracy then it isn't Socialism by any accepted political definition.

Without Democracy Socialism ceases to be Socialism.


I presume that you are a socialist then.

You are incorrect. Democratic socialism is a form of socialism.

dictionary.reference.com...


so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


There is nothing inherent in socialism that makes it exclusive to democracy. The tendency for socialist states with forms of voting to mutate into "single party" "democracies" should show you this.
edit on 2012/1/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Can't get to site from this computer. It has blocks on it.

I did try to research myself first. I try to find the source of most articles, to find the slant



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by kozmo

Hi Cuz

Except of course...when it comes to the IDEA of Gay Marriage - then the 'breeders' in the US start to REALLY care about what goes on in all the Closed Door Bedrooms of gay men and women !!

It always makes me laugh outloud when I hear breeder's talking about the sanctity of hetero-sexuality and dragging in Jeeezzuzzz or the Baaaahble into it - especially American-English speaking persons who style themselves as proud 'Christians' - most of whom cannot even read the New Testament Greek - but they never have an issue about getting Divorced - Anita Bryant springs to mind - the Baaaaahble's NT forbidding legistlation against Divorce did not seem bother her getting a divorce AND a remarriage - despite R. Yehoshua's apodeictic stance ('a man must never ever divorce his wife and marry another ! It would be the same as Adultery...' and we all (should) know the penalty in ancient Judaean times that adulterers paid !!

Now if only the 'bahhble' believing fundamentalist American 'christian' would actually take the time and trouble to read ALL the words placed into their precious Greek-speaking Iesous' mouth (or read about all the up 'rubbing up' against his nipple talk in John 13:23, maybe they would think twice about casting aspersions !!)

To say nothing of David and Jonathan - who were doing ALOT more apparently than holding hands according to Jonathan's daddy (1 Sam 20:30 !!!) or 2 Sam chapter 1 ('Jonathan Jonathan, my love for thee was strange - far surpassing that of any female !!')


Well, apparently you are very well-read in the Baaahble - much more so than I. I'm not interested in derailing the thread, so I'm going to refrain from turning this into a religious argument, which in my opinion is simply foolish and flimsy.

I am not against legal gay unions and affording gay couples all of the same benfits and protections afforded by the law to married couples. In fact, I believe the Constitution guarantees it. But, here is where the gay people make a wrong turn in "Advocating" for their rights. First, they demand the right to marry. Marriage is an instution that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and is between a man and a woman and should remain such. Instead of "Advocating" for equal treatment under the law and be afforded the right to a legal union, they instead assail a tried and true tradition - marriage - with a near expectation that non-religious traditionalists should embrace the notion. Newsflash: They won't!

Next, they circumvent the direct address of equal treatment under the law by pulling stunts like this and attempting to impose their will upon the masses employing indoctrination and trickery. An act likely to draw the ire of any sensible person who recognizes they're being played.

Also, they have no qualms about flaunting their sexual preferences in your face. In a normal world, this behavior would be every bit as much "Sexual harassment" as a man hitting on a woman in the workplace, but yet, the expectation exists that this should be embraced. Another newsflash: It won't!

The reality is thus... sensible people recognize the necessity for gay couples to enjoy all of the same benefits provided any other married couple. But sensible people also recognize that discretion is the better part of valor. And since the "Movement" exercises little to no discretion, it only reinforces the fears that sensible people subconsciously harbor - that society would begin to resemble a bad fetish club. Nobody wants that for themselves or their children.

When gays are ready to separate themselves from their own extremist movement and put this behavior back where it belongs, inthe privacy of individuals bedrooms, they will begin to gain acceptance. Just as sensible people have disregarded the religious extremists and their looney positions - then a sensible discussion can ensue and desired results likely achieved. But this kind of act of sedition imposed upon our children is going to have the exact opposite of the desired effect and will likely solidify a guarded position by sensible people thus prohibiting the gay community from taking steps forward. In other words, a great deal of their failings have been self-imposed. This occurence right here will set their "movement" back by years. The reality is that sensible people quickly recognize that one's sexual preference or proclivity is not the secret ingredient that makes one famous and/or successful, as the "movement" would have you believe. Simple hard work and perseverence are the only things that matter and THAT is ALL that need be celebrated when it comes to great accomplishments made by great people!



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by seabag
Is it OK to re-write history and be dishonest so that we don’t offend a gay person?

I think NOT!


Again with the revision?

What revision? There is no revision. There is only fact - that was omitted.

If there was any revision - - it was covering up the real facts in the fist place - - that a historical figure was homosexual.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Historical revisionism (negationism), either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about an historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light..................

Depends on how one interprets it.

Example: The Pocahontas love story..........


edit on 5-1-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by seabag
Is it OK to re-write history and be dishonest so that we don’t offend a gay person?

I think NOT!


Again with the revision?

What revision? There is no revision. There is only fact - that was omitted.

If there was any revision - - it was covering up the real facts in the fist place - - that a historical figure was homosexual.


Historical revisionism (negationism), either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about an historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light..................

Depends on how one interprets it.

Example: The Pocahontas love story..........



I find your point of argument silly.

There are many already in history that were homosexual (an omitted fact - not a distortion).

There are probably more people that should be included in history to make it more accurate. Histories that have been omitted from history books.

Native American code talkers.
Negro Calvary
WWII All-Black Air Squadron
George Washington Carver
Susan B. Anthony
Amelia Jenks Bloomer
Belle Boyd.



edit on 5-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join