Total posts: 1,740
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But a lot of people, myself included, don't think that gender is fluid.
This is where our reasoning diverges. Your (or my) opinion is not equivalent to that of experts informed by evidence. I'll trust their conclusions.
And we control more states than you do,
..still don't care. I am a slave to the evidence. Political clout is not part of that.
Pretty arrogant to insist that this is "reality" without even addressing the opposing argument.
I intend to look at his post later. I see no reason to address what was linked. Would you accept a link in response? (I should hope not.)
How do you know that?
I can't with absolute certainty, but the odds are strongly against indoctrination. Is this where you tell me my nephew has been indoctrinated because I won't claim 100% certainty against it? ;-)
2.1% of Gen Z adults identify as trans, double that of millennials, quadruple that of Gen X and twenty times that of previous generations.
And? Diagnosis of autism increased after we realized it was a thing too. It is hardly a surprising observation.
make your own
Are you suggesting I should make my own kids? We've done that, although, they can't really be considered kids anymore!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I take it you're accepting kindergartners being taught anal sex is not something based in fact? If so, good. I just want to make it clear this isn't something that happens as it seemed you suggested earlier.
Keep in mind how dumb as shit little kids are.
I'm going to take this out of order before I respond to your question. Little kids have processing power. What they severely lack is knowledge. I personally believe the potential of children is limited mostly by underestimation.
what do you think is age appropriate for grade schoolers?
I am fine with the framework as you quoted above. I think where everyone freaks out is that they view these discussions as some type of invitation or proselytizing (Do you accept transgenderism into your heart as your lord and savior?), but that is not how I understand this conversation. It is simply making children aware gender and orientation is fluid. This is information that is good for them in that it gives insights into other people and maybe themselves too.
What right have you to decide for me what my children are taught on this subject, and how can you expect there not to be a response that potentially threatens the public school system?
I didn't decide reality. It is how it is, and that is what we teach. Another appeal to consequences.... I don't think education should stop including the world as it is just because some don't understand and/or don't want to understand it.
Just leave the kids alone and we wouldn't have this problem. Is talking about transgenderism to elementary schoolers so important? why? Cant we just focus on reading and writing...
So you know where I am coming from: My sister's family is conservative. Her husband is military and comes from a military family. My and my sister's parents are conservative. My brother in law's family is conservative. They live in a military town in Oklahoma...a conservative town in a conservative state. My nephew is trans. There was no indoctrination into transgenderism. It is simply who he is. The point being, 'Leaving kids alone' doesn't prevent transgenderism, but it does hobble insight and support for transgender kids. Education is supposed to be for the benefit of society, and Trans folks are part of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I found this within 30 seconds
What you found doesn't support the objection/fear 'kindergartners are being taught about anal sex'. Kindergartners are not being taught anal sex.
Gender identity is not an appropriate conversation for six year olds.
These conversations already happen all the time. Every time we describe a child as "boy" or "girl" and what traits a boy or girl are 'supposed' to have.
For example Florida banned talking about sex for K-3 and people got extremely angry about it. Do you disagree with banning sex talk for kindergartners?
Describing gender identity/sexual orientation as "sex talk" is silly. Both stand apart from sexual intercourse. If you mean to say discussions of anatomy are 'sex talk' then potty training will inevitably involve 'sex talk'...and so will diaper rash. What is this world coming to?! ;-)
This means that childhood sexual trauma can impact your sexuality and people have all kinds of weird fetishes from the first sexual thing their mind fixates on.
Do you find discussions of human gender and orientation traumatic?
Is it really so implausible to you that in the current zeitgeist of identity politics some teachers are more likely now than in the past to try and have inappropriate conversations with their students, or think that getting them to question their gender (something I, and many other parents, would strongly oppose for our kids) is a moral imperative?
I don't think malicious people are more likely to be malicious now than at any time in the past, and they wouldn't need this subject to cause harm. Your fear of this subject (with all due respect) doesn't make other people more or less dangerous.
But we probably have a different view of what the school system should be for.
Yes, we most certainly do.
Also how is that a false impression? The country definitely hasn’t gotten more racist since the civil war. Unless youre saying there was a nadir of race relations after reconstruction and into the 1920s in which case you’d be right
You nailed it. African Americans had more rights after being freed than they had in the 20's. The progression has been anything but smooth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It’s not an absurd objection because I’ve seen videos of teachers talking about how they discuss homosexuality, gender identity etc with their very young students. I
It absolutely is an absurd and baseless objection. If anal sex were being taught to kindergartners it shouldn't be too difficult produce the offending curriculum or offending teachers. I doubt there is any curriculum or anyone who can still call themselves a teacher doing what you suggest.
I saw an email from a teacher boasting that after teaching her 4th graders about gay and trans issues 20 of the 30 “came out” to her as some kind of LGBT
Well, first, a story about an email isn't substantiation. Secondly, discussing LGBTQ does not require discussing anal sex. This is nothing but an attempt to poison the well either by you or by whoever you got the story from.
As for the highlighted bit, it’s a free country and they can be uncomfortable with it if they want to. It goes back to my original point, you need to be very careful with how hard you want to push because conservatives control more states than you do and that’s only going to accelerate in the next few years.
Which political party is in power has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of gender and sexual orientation. This is not an argument against the position, but a fallacious appeal to consequences.
Is teaching fifth graders about gay sex really an important issue?
Whenever sex ed is taught it should include all aspects of human sexuality. I don't know when sex ed is age-appropriate exactly, but it should occur before the students have first-hand experience. This is an important issue because sexual ignorance leads to societal problems.
Welcome to history sadly. It’s virtually impossible to teach history without pushing some kind of agenda even if it’s just picking the topics you teach or leave out. Could you be more specific? What do you think needs to be taught that right wingers want to get rid of?
There are fairly major historical events which have been left out of the history text books (eg. Tulsa race massacre) and the events that are covered can be heavily ethnocentric (eg. Thanksgiving) or leading to generally false impressions (eg. steady progress for the equality of African Americans since Reconstruction). The criticism is not about preventing current material from being banned, but of the current material being inadequate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Parents aren’t objecting to LGBT kids existing, they’re objecting to stuff like teachers wanting to teach kindergarteners about anal sex.
This is an absurd objection since educators in general (if not across the board) aren't teaching kindergartners about anal sex or advocating for such a curriculum. The younger generations now have a much broader and fluid understanding of gender and sexuality. I think it is fair to say some parts of our society are uncomfortable with this and seek regressive legislation to prevent this from being true of future generations.
What is it that you want schools to teach that you think they aren’t, or that you think (and have evidence that) right wingers want to ban?
As an example, I am certain parts of my historical education were distortions of what actually happened. An accurate account of our history, warts and all, would serve us better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I wonder if this 'abolition of public schools' conversation truly began when the 'social' issue of equality was implemented throug desegregation? Or maybe it was an earlier controversy or has been a constant companion of public schools since their inception? I suspect the latter and imagine the conversation is a little more firey than usually considering the highly charged political climate.
Either way, allowing LGBTQ students to be marginalized by pretending they don't exist or to withhold accurate historical information is not an option. Education is about telling the whole story as best we know it. Historical accuracy and most especially the recognition of a broader understanding of humanity should not be equated to a mere social or political issue. It is the denial of LGBTQ and historical accuracy that is the political touchstone which has no place in public schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The state has no buisiness whatsoever indoctrinating our kids [...]
Looks like an assumption to me. Plus, is it really any different if parents indoctrinate their children under the guise of education? The goal should be to prevent indoctrination rather than move to a system with less oversight and regulation where it is easier and more common.
Let parents install their own values in their own kids.
Absolutely, but ignorance isn't a value. The Earth is round, the earth is billions of years old, and the spectrum of gender/sexual orientation isn't something that can be disregarded because they are difficult to process under certain worldviews. Facts are not optional.
The typical kid is in the 80th percentile by the standards of public school.
And? This doesn't address the reasons why homeschooling is not feasible for every family. It also assumes a perfect world where every student is on even ground and capable of focusing on academics rather than difficulties created by their life circumstances. For example, doing well on a test isnt all that important if you're not sure where your next meal will come from.
Just another example of the government screwing up.
Government certainly isn't perfect, but in this case government is dealing with a much broader set of issues than your typical homeschooling teacher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
...because that doesn't ensure future generations will be properly equipped to make informed decisions on societal issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Just look at some of the thread topics at DArt and it doesn't take much intellect to see where humanity is headed for and why.
Don't burst my bubble - I like to think some of the more extreme threads come from members of a very loud minority!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
ConCon: Society would be better off with organic education rather than an assembly line style education that produces obedient factory workers and obedient voters.
Define organic education and explain how our current system produces obedient factory workers and voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How? If strangers have kids, they alone bear the responsibility of homeschooling them.
And that brings us back to "because somebody else's kids can and will effect and you the rest of society. It is better for all involved if we invest in a future where those making decisions for society have cultivated minds."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Homeschooling is an option, but not suitable for everyone. After all, some families do not have the luxury of abandoning their jobs, some people are not capable of teaching, and some at home curriculum is inadequate. On top of all this, homeschooling should have oversight (homeschooling is not always better) to address possible deficiencies and that would necessarily require you to pay for other people's kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Pro: Why should I be forced to pay for somebody else's kids?
Con: because somebody else's kids can and will effect and you the rest of society. It is better for all involved if we invest in a future where those making decisions for society have cultivated minds.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The obvious intention is to imply that if some people call Gaetz bad his opposition is awarded a "get out of jail free" card for Hunter.
A 'get out of jail free card' is not needed when you're not actually in jail.
There is no double standard here, no hypocrisy. Perhaps some poisoning the well.
...like attacking Hunter in an effort to disparage his dad?
If there were a case against Hunter, the floor of the House of Representatives is not where it should be tried. This is political theatre.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
POST #26- complains about WHATABOUTISMPOST #33- what about Hillary?
Yes. It is quite amusing. His second post to me (his first was pure snark) was literally whataboutism with whataboutism as the subject. Apparently, DOL believes fallacies are what other people do.
Created:
Avoiding the argument AND throwing out accusations are both necessary for whataboutism. You claimed fallacy, but you were mistaken.No that is an absurd way to look at it.
"Whataboutism [...] is a deflection or red herring version of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy [...] which is employed as a propaganda technique. It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it."
There is no fallacy in addressing the issue and pointing out the hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you had read the thread
Reading the thread is not required to comment on the OP.
Whataboutism would be throwing out accusations to avoid addressing an argument.Observe:[SkepticalOne] Besides, I would really like to know about the sex trafficking charges against Gaetz.Because that is relevant to Hunter's laptop? I don't think so.
Avoiding the argument AND throwing out accusations are both necessary for whataboutism. You claimed fallacy, but you were mistaken.
If Gaetz does have the laptop, where did he get it from?In post #10 ILikePie5 suggested Gaetz did not have it, only the contents.
This is not a strong rebuttal. Gaetz doesn't have the laptop (even though he claimed to) and only has the info from it. So? My question regarding chain of custody is not answered by this. The data still has an uncertain provenance.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People who I will definitely call out if they ever say something like "that's whataboutism":
Whataboutism would be throwing out accusations to avoid addressing an argument. First, there was no argument presented by the OP. Secondly, I sincerely commented on the subject matter the OP presented (that is as close as I can get to addressing an argument).
On the other hand, you have not responded substantively to my op and you accuse me of wrongdoing....sounds like whataboutism to me. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you want to address my criticism about the chain of custody, we can have a conversation. If not, I am not interested in dishonest interlocutors.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tell me you think conspiracy theories and transparently biased (bordering on tabloid) sources deserve inordinate amounts of attention without telling me...
Created:
-->
@Bones
If Gaetz does have the laptop, where did he get it from? The chain of custody for this laptop is all over the place bringing into question anything found on it.
Besides, I would really like to know about the sex trafficking charges against Gaetz. That seem less difficult to decipher since he has admitted to actions that could be classified as such. No chain of custody issues there...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Blocked. You've established yourself as a disingenuous and dishonest interlocutor. I will devote no more energy toward you while that remains true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Wordplay does not make my point. Atheism is definitionally a belief. Theism can be (and generally is) the absence of belief.- Indeed.
Dishonesty.
Tell me you don't understand "atheism" without actually telling me? I think you nailed it! :-p- These powerful arguments need to be displayed in museums for all to admire.
Well, I mean, it's not dishonesty...so there's that.
I've explained why I think your position is in error and your response has been wordplay, dishonesty, and snark. (Not necessarily in that order). Do you have a rebuttal or have you given up on debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Theism is not a belief - it is the absence of a belief in the inexistence of God.
Wordplay does not make your point. Theism is definitionally a belief. Atheism can be (and generally is) the absence of belief.
Atheism entails an entire paradigm & worldview based not on the belief in God, which is unlike any belief system we've ever seen. A belief system truly devoid of any Morality, Rationality or Spirituality.
Tell me you don't understand "atheism" without actually telling me? I think you nailed it! :-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
My religious view is atheism. Given that atheism is not a knowledge claim (at least not for me),- It is, regardless of your wishes. The moment you have a view, you're in the provision of belief.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of a belief in gods in general.
I know everything there is to know about it. 10/10- For consistency sake that should be 0/10.
Fair enough.
Also, Atheism is an ideology in itself, a worldview. How deep is your knowledge of it?
The absence of a belief does not a worldview make.
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10- That's quite something, given Atheism is unattainable.
I would like to here your explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
My religious view is atheism. Given that atheism is not a knowledge claim (at least not for me), I know everything there is to know about it. 10/10
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I have a debate coming on morality - one is enough.
If this thread is any indication of your debate tactics, an opponent is optional for you. You are quite the crafter of strawman and dodger of criticism. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You know what's absolutely depraved though, it's the dozens of millions of teen & preteen children in your country being in sexual relationships without marriage,
It sounds like you're saying sex with children is acceptable if they are married. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you did not communicate that well.
MARRIAGE. Perfectly legal in your country as well,
Not when one of the parties is 9. Someone who is 9 can not give informed consent to sex and/or marriage. That is why pedophilia is considered predatory - someone old enough to understand the scenario is taking advantage of someone who is not.
If you were born a couple of decades ago, you would've abhorred gays
Perhaps, but if we allow it, our moral compass is honed by a greater understanding of humanity. I will take an incomplete morality over a rigidly flawed 7th century morality which does not allow for the insights new information can provide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually if they were going to add a new letter it would probably be for polyamory or polygamy.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
unlike his holy book.- Please! Don't stick your depravities & sexual fantasies on us. Ew! You're atheist anyways, you got no moral judgment.
That "depravity and sexual fantasy" is explicitly permitted by the Quran. Muhammad married A'isha when she was 7 and took her to his house as a bride (with her dolls) at 9.
I don't revere pedophiles or cherish books which permit pedophilia. I also dont gaslight when caught out. It is not my moral compass which needs calibrating, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well pedophilia will never be added to the western LGBTQ+ but has always been socially acceptable for legal marriage in Islamic cultures until they realised that elsewhere it is considered disgusting and wrong.
This. I have to say, it's pretty tone deaf for OP to rail against the 'sexual depravity' of LGBTQ and modern society when neither condone pedophilia ...unlike his holy book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Illiterate idiots.
You've got to watch out for those illiterate idiots that can read and write and (somehow) string together a coherent response. ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, that seems over the top. Especially since OP is literally looking for ways to segregate the forum so as not to have to interact with atheists....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheism is a position relevant to religion. It is fitting for atheists to post in a religious forum. Seeking to disqualify atheists from a religious discussion is akin to disallowing religious adherents of a particular sect from the forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.The problem is that you are essentially ascribing “awful actions” specifically and uniquely to a particular identity group. Black people, in the above case.
Nonsense. It's not about the immutable skin color but the mutable actions. Plus, it just so happens those actions were done by white people - that's not some sort of agenda to make white people look bad - its a factual statement. You are essentially objecting to an accurate accounting of history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The argument that the white crime rate is just as high and whites just get off is patently absurd.
This was not my argument.
But if you’re going to say that we as a race “owe” them something,
I specifically addressed this in my last response. I've not said we as a race owe anyone anything other than honesty about the past and a better path forward.
Exactly what portion of my net worth was “stolen” from black people?
You've missed the point. I am not advocating for monetary reparations.
I see no reason to continue. You have established a pattern of oversimplifying and/or misrepresenting my arguments. Thanks for the conversation though.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact also is that for the last half century they have been committing wildly disproportionate amounts of crime, to the point that in 90% of black-white crimes white people are the victims despite whites outnumbering blacks 5 to 1.
When we consider factors such as POC being many times more likely to be pulled over, POC being many times more likely to be charged with drug offenses (when blacks and white use and sell illegal drugs at similar rates), POC being more likely to be excused from juries, white defendants being more likely to be offered plea bargains, etc., that statistic unravels and corroborates the existence of an unfair system.
In addition, the welfare state that has existed since the 1960s has disproportionately benefited black people and has disproportionately been paid for by white people
Given the obstacles systemic racism provides, it would be no surprise (and not unreasonable) if there was a greater need for help in black communities. However, as it stands now, blacks are the not the prime welfare beneficiaries. For instance, ~37 % of SNAP participants are white as compared to ~26 % black. Whites burden the system moreso than blacks.
I don’t think anyone owes anyone else anything other than the people who have actually committed crimes or benefited from someone else’s labor
If you go back and look at the post you responded to, you'll see listed quite a few ways society has benefitted from the labor, resources, and stolen potential of the black community.
If you’re going to say that I, because of the color of my skin, am indebted to some other group because of the color of THEIR skin…I’m going to push back.
That is not what I am saying. We should recognize how as a society we have taken advantage of and mistreated some of our own, and we should make every attempt to correct and go in a new direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, yes it is. See: “guilt by association”… or guilt by group identity, in other words
It's not guilt by association - it is literally white people who, in this country, have been guilty of taking advantage of POC in a multitude of ways. It is also not all in the past. The legacy of black codes, Jim Crow laws, redlining and the way that we fund schools (property taxes), voter suppression (historically and now), as well as disparate treatment in policing and the judicial system (and many others).
If you feel guilty being told white people have been responsible for a multitude of evils from which they still benefit and from which POC still struggle, all I can say is the truth hurts. We need to own up to transgressions (past and present) as well as our stolen inheritance, and start being part of the solution for a change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I am not entitled to any of the benefits of my ancestors, nor am I forced to inherit their problems.
It is likely you are the recipient of the benefits due to your ancestors. It is also likely some of those benefits came from systemic repression of other groups.
Out of curiosity, do you think there is anything wrong with an inheritance created from unethical/immoral actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Well I wasn't responsible for any of history's misfortune.
Were you called out by name? That's weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I see it as unproductive because it appears to undermine its own point— that it’s wrong to discriminate against a group on basis of identity and immutable characteristics, all while casting white people in a negative light.
Casting (white) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I vote Airmax. No offense to the other candidates -Airmax is a known quantity.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I have. I was team captain of a pool team in the APA that I led to go deep in a national tournament in Vegas.
APA/national tournament as well. What part of the country do you reside? (Wondering if there is a chance we've met irl)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The GOV of California just proposed spending 300 million to support radical racist cops in California. The same cops that deny a person's right to resist arrest unless they are a black man.
What?
"The announcement came after hours after the Los Angeles Times reported more than a dozen current and former officers with the Torrance Police Department exchanged hateful messages about Black, Jewish and LGBTQ people. In other messages, officers spoke about using violence against suspects and lying about a police shooting, the newspaper found.
The messages led to the dismissal of at least 85 criminal cases at the local and county level, according to the Times. The officers who sent racist text messages were involved in at least seven use-of-force incidents since 2013, three of which resulted in the death of Black and Latino men according to records obtained by the outlet."
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
...Especially as related to standards of evidence, burden of proof, Biblical slavery, and the moral relativism of slavery being justified by "it was a different time and culture".I am not sure if you are for or against what the ancients were doing.I have never read of any holy man badmouthing slavery in the distant past.What would be your best advice to a slave in those days or to those who held slaves?
I am confused at your confusion. My position is spelled out fairly well in the post you sampled.
Created:
Posted in:
The ones that created generations of fatherless families. Go read the Moynihan report.
This does not answer the question.
Don't pretend CRT is anything other than a scapegoat for Democrat failures to ensure their dynasty lives on longer than necessary.
I feel as though we are speaking a different language. CRT the conservative boogeyman, has very little relation to what CRT actually is.
BTW, I'm willing to drop the block if you are. This indirect conversation is silly.
Created:
Posted in:
This CRT craze will be irrelevant anyway once Democrats lose sufficient political power to permit the opportunity to reverse the social policies they implemented in 1965 that verifiably insured generations of black families would remain largely fatherless and far from the American dream.
I wonder which 1965 policies Parrot desires to be overturned? Overturning the Voting rights act would be the most regressive, but reversing medicaid/Medicare would be a close second...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Soo if public schools mandate that CRT must be taught in order to graduate, can the student take what ever test they give, pass then turn around to the teacher and say I took the class and passed your test. And then say "I think it is the biggest load of race baiting garbage ever conceived of and wont listen to a word of it from here on out."
Yes. A student can cling to ignorance.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
But JoeBiden is not being looked at for those concerns, and the party who is looked at for impeachment on those matters cannot be impeached since that party has already left office; the one punishment impeachment and conviction on that impeachment can impose. Your 'if' is meaningless. Try reading the Constitution once in a while and comprehending its text.
It seems you've mistaken my response for someone suggesting Trump should be impeached (for a third time). Certainly tilting at windmills has never been done with such fine technique, sir.
Created: