[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]CDMA ENG — there’s a big difference between knowing about something healthy and pleasant and learning about horrible, painful injuries and unpleasant death early on.

What’s funny is that Americans seem to think that death and gore are OK for kids to see on TV or in games, yet show a 1/8″ crescent of a distaff areola mammae and there’s a furore.[/quote]

The word is nipple. Deal with it.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]No one is prohibiting parents from sending their kids to parochial or private school. But what we’re talking about is essentially kids learning biological facts. Homosexuality exists. Sex exists. Pregnancy can be prevented. Some have lingams, others yonis.

These aren’t value judgments. They’re part of scientific fact. Why is it OK for parents to use the excuse of superstition to keep their children from learning these facts? Should it also be OK for believers in a flat Earth to forbid the school from teaching their children about the structure of the solar-system?

Speaking of the Dutch…
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/14/mind-reading-what-we-can-learn-from-the-dutch-about-teen-sex/%5B/quote%5D

Ok – just so you get my perspective – I have a masters degree in molecular biology. My kids beg me to stop talking to them about biology. They have not been shielded from much. But I do respect the fact that I’m not everyone and that no one made me the arbiter of what’s right. Everybody has rights – whether they hold socially popular views or not. We should listen to the majority.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]I’m saying, the earlier the better. I have no problem with a 4 or 5 year old knowing that some kids have a mommy and daddy, and others have two of a single gender. They’ll know it eventually, so may as well learn. Kids are open-minded by default, so it’s unlikely that any trauma will ensue.

And it’s healthier that the kids that are gay by nature go through puberty knowing that what they’re feeling is OK, not a shameful thing to be painfully hidden.[/quote]

You feel that way, but do you respect someone else’s right to feel differently, and to choose to raise their children differently than you would raise yours? How about the Dutch motto – Live and let live?

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]The twist on polygamy and hidden polygamy seems trollish too.[/quote]

What do you mean?

[njtosd]

You think one person being involved with two other people isn’t prevalent? Polygamy has been much more common in history than monogamy. But I only raise this issue to make a point: there is no logical argument that can be made for gay marriage that can’t be made for polygamy. Why is one the open minded choice and the other held in disdain?

[njtosd]

delete

[njtosd]

Ok – nobody responded to my earlier point, and I’m curious as to why not (maybe i’m boring . . .). Would the people on this board be ok if the family was polygamous (i.e. more than 2 people)? If all the members of the family are fine with it, shouldn’t that be ok to include in a children’s book?

[njtosd]

The adoption story does raise a question that some parents may justifiably wish to leave until a child gets older. Most children don’t think about who’s married to who, until something is raised that is outside of their zone of assumptions.

Would the other commenters here be ok with a story of Jack and his wives Jane and jean? If everyone in jack’s family is ok with it – shouldn’t it be ok to have in a book? And before someone says “that’s not legal” remember that gay marriage isn’t legal everywhere. Note: I’m not in favor of polygamy- just making a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]Yeah! Obama dental care?

Candy is also a non sustainable energy resource. Kids are gonna crash and burn.[/quote]

I just learned that pediatric dental care must be included in all policies under the ACA, even for adults (I don’t get it, but that’s what the brochure said).

[njtosd]

[quote=CA renter]Both men and women can be equally superficial, but I would also have to add that women have a legitimate reason for seeking a mate who can provide the resources necessary to raise a family. That doesn’t mean that he has to be wealthy, but he can’t be a dirt-poor bum with no prospects in life, either. Of course, some men would counter that in order for men to mate, they would have to find their partner attractive enough to make it happen.[/quote]

And there is abundant evidence that female “attractiveness” relates to the health of the mother and likely ability to produce healthy offspring. So 6packscaredy is right, form is function. On the other hand, if we all followed our most basic instincts the world wouldn’t be a great place. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=Happs]Good point, but do you think if the guy in the video said an introductory remark that was more erudite, philosophical or academic, and unrelated to looks that he would have had any interest from the woman?[/quote]

You’re missing the point. The only reason he wants to go out with her is because she’s pretty – therefore he’s superficial. So, I guess there’s really no point in hiding it, as his true colors will come out sooner or later. It’s kind of like a woman saying how do I get to know a rich man without him knowing I’m looking for a rich man. It’s a bad idea from the start, in my book.

I never saw the point in going out with someone I didn’t know something about (classmate, friend of a friend, etc.) – plus it always seemed a bit dangerous (as an old and boring married woman, I’m beyond all of this now). There are so many creeps in the world.

[njtosd]

Flyer said:

“NJ, I can agree to a certain extent that kids today may be no different than they’ve ever been, but I do believe the game they are being forced to play in life has changed since the time of Socrates.”

I respectfully disagree. People, especially young people, emigrated to the US in various waves because the resources at home were, basically, nil. The Irish (my relatives) were forced out of Ireland by the English (my other relatives) and ended up here in a desperate attempt to not starve to death. Speaking more academically, populations tend to increase until they hit the carrying capacity of the environment (I don’t mean this in the green sense). So there will always be a struggle for resources. The only exception that I’m aware of was directly after the plagues that swept through Europe. The drastic reduction in population allowed many to acquire land and other resources they otherwise could not have. Even in that case , my understanding is that the sudden per capita “abundance” of resources did not result in excessive prosperity.

I think the media over the past 50 years has given people a false impression of what is average. Watch HGTV and see what people making a very modest income say they “can’t” live with (Formica counters or old carpet, for example). Life has always involved a struggle for the best stuff (jobs, houses, mates,etc). I think people have just forgotten that.

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]A costume is like a uniform for trick or treating and should be deductible if the candy is taxable.[/quote]

Your persistence is very funny. I would have to ask, however, whether the costume or elements thereof can reasonably used outside of “work.” Having watched my kids wearing the costume in many non-work activities, I am left with the impression that they are not deductible.

[njtosd]

[quote=flyer][quote=6packscaredy]Ok now getting back on topic:

Kids today; they think society OWES them free candy.[/quote]

Agree, 6pack. We’ve seen this with some of the kids our kids grew up with in RSF–who are now in their 20’s and early 30’s. In fact, there are those who have even become suicidal because their lives didn’t go as their parents promised. [/quote]

Go back and look at my earlier post in this thread with the quote from Socrates. Kids are no different today than they’ve ever been.

[njtosd]

[quote=CA renter][quote=SD Realtor]Not just candy. Society owes them health care, education, and a 6 figure job.[/quote]

And capitalists think their employees, customers, etc. owe them a profit…often, a very sizable one that is in no way correlated to the amount of “work” done or the risk taken on the part of the capitalist.[/quote]

CA Renter – I have to disagree. But I have to ask you a question – do you disagree with capitalism as an overall economic structure , or do you just not like parts of it?

In any event, no one holds a gun to anyone’s head and says you must work at this company or you must buy from this vendor (except, now that I think about it, the ACA). If you dont want to be cheated as an employee – start a business that doesn’t extract “sizable” profits (I’m including small businesses here). And in terms of being a gouged customer – there is always the DIY route. People did it for centuries. One could strive to be Amish (without the religion). I’m being a little flip here, but everything in life is a choice. And we should take care of those who are incapable of helping themselves, but not those who are unwilling.

[Author]

Posts