Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

OK Groomer...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Many are not fit to have ANY control over ANY children (teachers who think it is acceptable to entice young children to engage in sexual activity, for example) - but I think that the "parents being the best to choose" concept is based on the idea that the parents are sane, or at least reasonable.
    More than that (here) I think. The claim (by Seer?) was that parents (in general) are better qualified to teach a complicated subject than a teacher, who should at least have had some education in it. There's more to say, let's see how people respond.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alien View Post

      Ideally, yes.
      Good, we agree...


      Of course. All teaching should be factual.

      Do you think it really will be allowed? How about if the class now has to refer to the trans girl as she?
      Last edited by seer; 04-20-2022, 10:18 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alien View Post

        More than that (here) I think. The claim (by Seer?) was that parents (in general) are better qualified to teach a complicated subject than a teacher, who should at least have had some education in it. There's more to say, let's see how people respond.
        Yes, of course parents are better qualified to teach their moral beliefs - and teachers need to stay out... They have enough to do with teaching the three Rs...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Yes, of course parents are better qualified to teach their moral beliefs - and teachers need to stay out... They have enough to do with teaching the three Rs...
          That is a general rule of course. There are some really bad parents out there.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            That is a general rule of course. There are some really bad parents out there.
            Sure, but apart from physical abuse the State and its agents (teachers) need to keep their nose out our business.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post

              Good, we agree...
              This is what I agreed to, and I said "ideally"..


              Of course parents are the best care takers of their children. No one loves them more, and sure you are going to have exceptions - but that does not give the government the right to run rough shod over parental prerogative.


              By ideally, I mean "good", well-informed parents with no other agenda. "The government riding roughshod over [insert prerogative here]" is true by implication as "roughshod" has a negative connotation and so what you said is automatically correct.

              A sensible parent would realize that school has much greater part to play in the child's life than just teaching "three Rs". Presenting alternative points of view is one of them. It has to be done in the right way of course, and I would support protest against, say, militant atheism being pushed on to children of religious parents. That doesn't mean that nothing should be taught under the heading of "religion". What I'm trying to say here was well argued by Starlight. One day, your children will make up their own minds about these things. Wouldn't you rather that they were in full possession of all the facts? You're not going to be able to lock them in a box forever, so wouldn't it be better to be able to give your point of view while they still somewhat respect your opinion? You still have them for all the time they are not in school.

              Do you think it really will be allowed? How about if the class now has to refer to the trans girl as she?
              What "it" is to me is the teaching of current medical findings on transexuality. That would include a lot more than just not being able to change DNA. I would consider referring to her as "she" is simple politeness and respect. What harm does it do?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                You're missing the point, which is that the children are being isolated from as much contact with the "outside world" as their parents can manage, with the objective of shielding them from any other beliefs than those of their parents. How about if the parents were flat earthers? Or Satanists? or Jihadist Muslims? Even forgetting that level of bad stuff, even the best intentioned parents can't provide the full spectrum that a good school education can.
                I see nothing wrong with sheltering children. There's a lot that they aren't ready to handle. You wouldn't let a child make a decision to get drunk at 8, 9 10, or even 15. Would you let an 8 year old drive a car on the highway? No. Kids need to be protected and raised in such a way that when they encounter problems they are able to handle them and make logical, sound and right decisions. That's not to say you "hide them" or destroy them or keep them from everything, but as a parent the right thing to do is provide a filter, a safe home that is free from the dangers of the external world and a listening/compassionate ear. That way when your kids come home and say "My friend brought in a magazine with nude photos" you can talk about why it's wrong, how to stay strong, stand your ground and say no, even if it means some rejection initially.
                A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                George Bernard Shaw

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                  This is what I agreed to, and I said "ideally"..


                  Of course parents are the best care takers of their children. No one loves them more, and sure you are going to have exceptions - but that does not give the government the right to run rough shod over parental prerogative.


                  By ideally, I mean "good", well-informed parents with no other agenda. "The government riding roughshod over [insert prerogative here]" is true by implication as "roughshod" has a negative connotation and so what you said is automatically correct.

                  A sensible parent would realize that school has much greater part to play in the child's life than just teaching "three Rs". Presenting alternative points of view is one of them. It has to be done in the right way of course, and I would support protest against, say, militant atheism being pushed on to children of religious parents. That doesn't mean that nothing should be taught under the heading of "religion". What I'm trying to say here was well argued by Starlight. One day, your children will make up their own minds about these things. Wouldn't you rather that they were in full possession of all the facts? You're not going to be able to lock them in a box forever, so wouldn't it be better to be able to give your point of view while they still somewhat respect your opinion? You still have them for all the time they are not in school.



                  What "it" is to me is the teaching of current medical findings on transexuality. That would include a lot more than just not being able to change DNA. I would consider referring to her as "she" is simple politeness and respect. What harm does it do?
                  Actually using the desired pronouns can do more harm than good. There is a level of "social contagion" and "brain washing" that is responsible for the sudden outbreak of transgenderism among young females and young males. Using the desired pronouns in many cases ends up reinforcing the lie. Would you call an Anorexic student fat when she comes up and complains that all of her problems are related to her inability to be thin enough?
                  A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                  George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alien View Post
                    A sensible parent would realize that school has much greater part to play in the child's life than just teaching "three Rs". Presenting alternative points of view is one of them. It has to be done in the right way of course, and I would support protest against, say, militant atheism being pushed on to children of religious parents. That doesn't mean that nothing should be taught under the heading of "religion". What I'm trying to say here was well argued by Starlight. One day, your children will make up their own minds about these things. Wouldn't you rather that they were in full possession of all the facts? You're not going to be able to lock them in a box forever, so wouldn't it be better to be able to give your point of view while they still somewhat respect your opinion? You still have them for all the time they are not in school.
                    That is correct, someday kids will make up their own minds, and it is not so much about facts but how they are presented. Right now public schools are teaching that LGBQT behavior and life styles are perfectly normal and moral. With Gay pride events in grade school. To my mind that is wicked and immoral. The schools should not be taking a side on this, but they are. Like fostering Gay pride Week:

                    https://www.conservativebusinessjour...ussion-groups/


                    What "it" is to me is the teaching of current medical findings on transexuality. That would include a lot more than just not being able to change DNA. I would consider referring to her as "she" is simple politeness and respect. What harm does it do?

                    How about the politeness towards the student who doesn't want to lie and call a boy a girl? This is exactly why people like you should not be in charge.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Catholicity View Post

                      I see nothing wrong with sheltering children. There's a lot that they aren't ready to handle. You wouldn't let a child make a decision to get drunk at 8, 9 10, or even 15. Would you let an 8 year old drive a car on the highway? No. Kids need to be protected and raised in such a way that when they encounter problems they are able to handle them and make logical, sound and right decisions. That's not to say you "hide them" or destroy them or keep them from everything, but as a parent the right thing to do is provide a filter, a safe home that is free from the dangers of the external world and a listening/compassionate ear. That way when your kids come home and say "My friend brought in a magazine with nude photos" you can talk about why it's wrong, how to stay strong, stand your ground and say no, even if it means some rejection initially.
                      I actually agree with most of what you say. I'd add to your examples though. I wouldn't let a child get drunk, but neither would I hide all the bottles of drink and never let anyone mention bars. When my son first sees a bottle of scotch, I want him to say "I know what that is, Dad warned me about it". I can't think of how to change the second example, but you get the idea. As far as the nude pictures go, my response would be different, as I don't think that's "bad" in the same way as I think you do.

                      I'm going to write a more general post, please read it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post

                        That is correct, someday kids will make up their own minds, and it is not so much about facts but how they are presented. Right now public schools are teaching that LGBQT behavior and life styles are perfectly normal and moral. With Gay pride events in grade school. To my mind that is wicked and immoral. The schools should not be taking a side on this, but they are. Like fostering Gay pride Week:

                        https://www.conservativebusinessjour...ussion-groups/
                        Yes, that's the nub of it. "Wicked and immoral". I'm going to write a general post on this. Stand by.

                        How about the politeness towards the student who doesn't want to lie and call a boy a girl?
                        It's not true, but really no different from any "white" lie is it? Can't we sometimes just be kind?

                        This is exactly why people like you should not be in charge.
                        Aaah! "If I ruled the world" ... run through the words of John Lennon's Imagine. (Oh yes, every day would be the first day of Spring too!)

                        Comment


                        • Ok. This why we will never agree on this subject.

                          You: LGBTQ behavior and life styles are not normal and moral because God says so. Me: Yes they are. Sexual acts, gay or straight, in or out of marriage are not bad in and of themselves. The test is if harm is done to others.

                          You: LGBTQ folks are constantly trying to corrupt our children. Me: No. They are trying to help those who are struggling with desires that much of society condemns. They recognize that you are gay or straight and you can't help that.

                          You: Some people are going too far in supporting LGBTQ people because they see them as victims. Me: I agree, but I understand why they would do that. I wish they wouldn't do it though.

                          You: Nudity is wrong. Me: Not to me it isn't.

                          I could go on. I can understand your point of view. Can you understand mine?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                            It's not true, but really no different from any "white" lie is it? Can't we sometimes just be kind?
                            Nope, you are asking the child to agree that a boy can in fact be a girl. But you are making my point - you favor the student who wants to be called 'she' while dismissing the child who doesn't want to go along with the lie


                            Aaah! "If I ruled the world" ... run through the words of John Lennon's Imagine. (Oh yes, every day would be the first day of Spring too!)
                            Thankfully we live in a Republic. Where we all have the ability to redress the powers that be.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alien View Post
                              Ok. This why we will never agree on this subject.

                              You: LGBTQ behavior and life styles are not normal and moral because God says so. Me: Yes they are. Sexual acts, gay or straight, in or out of marriage are not bad in and of themselves. The test is if harm is done to others.

                              You: LGBTQ folks are constantly trying to corrupt our children. Me: No. They are trying to help those who are struggling with desires that much of society condemns. They recognize that you are gay or straight and you can't help that.

                              You: Some people are going too far in supporting LGBTQ people because they see them as victims. Me: I agree, but I understand why they would do that. I wish they wouldn't do it though.

                              You: Nudity is wrong. Me: Not to me it isn't.

                              I could go on. I can understand your point of view. Can you understand mine?
                              You can hold any position you wish, but remember what this thread is about - infecting the minds of young children. Often behind the back of the parents...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                                This is what I agreed to, and I said "ideally"..


                                Of course parents are the best care takers of their children. No one loves them more, and sure you are going to have exceptions - but that does not give the government the right to run rough shod over parental prerogative.


                                By ideally, I mean "good", well-informed parents with no other agenda. "The government riding roughshod over [insert prerogative here]" is true by implication as "roughshod" has a negative connotation and so what you said is automatically correct.

                                A sensible parent would realize that school has much greater part to play in the child's life than just teaching "three Rs". Presenting alternative points of view is one of them. It has to be done in the right way of course, and I would support protest against, say, militant atheism being pushed on to children of religious parents. That doesn't mean that nothing should be taught under the heading of "religion". What I'm trying to say here was well argued by Starlight. One day, your children will make up their own minds about these things. Wouldn't you rather that they were in full possession of all the facts? You're not going to be able to lock them in a box forever, so wouldn't it be better to be able to give your point of view while they still somewhat respect your opinion? You still have them for all the time they are not in school.



                                What "it" is to me is the teaching of current medical findings on transexuality. That would include a lot more than just not being able to change DNA. I would consider referring to her as "she" is simple politeness and respect. What harm does it do?
                                And with the underlined part you really are only little different than those who want to "teach all sides" of issues like biological evolution.

                                The point is that there really isn't enough time to teach all sides -- even when there are instances where different points of view are legitimate. Especially when they are young children. That IS the time you simply stress the facts and in latter years you can start presenting alternative points of view on issues to be discussed.

                                For instance, it is a biological fact that a biological male can NOT "transform" into a biological female. No matter what you might snip off or add. No matter what drugs you take. And no matter how much someone may insist otherwise, a biological male is still a biological male and will remain so. Period.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 05:16 PM
                                2 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, Today, 02:36 PM
                                4 responses
                                20 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, Today, 09:23 AM
                                22 responses
                                91 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, Today, 08:44 AM
                                10 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 09:03 PM
                                3 responses
                                36 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Working...
                                X