[scaredyclassic]

[quote=temeculaguy]paul, please do not take this as a flippant comment after your first hand account and insight. But when I was on college one of my friends was raised by his gay dad and his partner. It was the 1980’s and not something that was common or commonly spoken of, and certainly not something that was supported by the majority. Anyways, that friend is a big part of my view on the subject today. Not only was he straight (he felt you were born that way, I tend to agree) but the guy was an ass magnet of the highest order. He knew how to dress, was very cultured and well traveled, but most of he knew how to talk to women. In summary, he had more game than anyone I had ever met, to this day and I took a number of cues from him. We had a speech class together that was loaded with hotties. I think I ended up sleeping with one of them, he slept with the rest, sometimes more than one at a time. So do I think gay couples are something to be feared when raising children and will make them gay, nope. In some cases they can be better parents than most straight couples. But this is purely anecdotal, feel free to allow your religion or fear to dismiss differing opinions.[/quote]

perhaps THIS is the greatest fear; that gay men will raise a new breed of superheteromen, who with their special homoenhanced ways, including but not limited to actual grooming, style, sophitcation, savoirfaire, etc., will get to screw all the women, and leave just the dregs for the offspring of heteros….in this way, gay men will conquer the world….

curses, how can my kid stand a chance?! stop gay adoption!

[scaredyclassic]

ultimately, schools are social conformity tools to produce cogs in a machine. that is what “education” is. to pretend otherwise, to claim there is some neutral education that is “real”, is just, well, false.

schools transmit societal values by their very structure …wait in this line…shut up,,,curved grades……listen to teacher..observe and obey social pecking order…barely any movement or exercise…tedium…wait for the bathroom and suppress impulses…etc etc…

they teach us to survive in the society we have…it could be entirely different of course…but it isnt…that’s our values…

if we taught nothing but mathematics all day long, it would still not be “valueneutral”. im not sure exactly what value that would be expressing, but im pretty sure it would be some technocratic nightmore and it’s not neutral.

i don’t think you could possibly come up with an english passage or readingassignment that does not have some sort of valueladen message in it, either right there on the surface, or with a bit of reading between the lines…

in fact, i DEFY you to provide me with a bit of english reading material that cannot be interpreted as having some sick, twisted agenda. i doubt it can be done! there is no valuefree language..schools that are in the business of teaching english are in the business of teaching values.

as pink freud says:

We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher leave them kids alone
Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall

(With kids)
We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher leave us kids alone
Hey! Teacher! Leave us kids alone!
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall

[scaredyclassic]

the trailer for the CONJURING scared the pants off of me.

[scaredyclassic]

Civics is the study of the great theoretical and practical aspects of citizenship, its rights and duties; the duties of citizens to each other as members of a political body and to the government.[1] It includes the study of civil law and civil code, and the study of government with attention to the role of citizens ― as opposed to external factors ― in the operation and oversight of government.

shoot. sounds like it covers gay marriage…

but i agree. i hate teachers who fail to teach math and english, then send kids home with hours of homework to cover up their own failure to get anything done in school.

[scaredyclassic]

the wind was scary last night. I woke up afraid.

[scaredyclassic]

There is more than one function to the justice system, and it doesn’t always result in what appears to be justice.

We are trying to rehabilitate people, to deter others from committing crimes, to give a sense of retribution to victims, to take the offendor out of society for our own safety, or perceived safety, and also to restore (to some extent) damage done to the victim and the social fabric.

and at the same time, we want the punishment to be relatively proportional to the offense….

these desires may often, very often, conflict with one another.

That is the nature of punishing crime with more than one goal in mind…

[scaredyclassic]

“Nonsensical” is a little strong.

Let’s say we were back in the 1960’s and rage against blacks was still strong in the south. Would it be “nonsensical” to punish crimes against blacks a little stronger, in order to achieve the desired social goal of a society where people of all colors can be safe and secure?

Probably not.

reasonable people can disagree about who should be protected a bit more when to further which societal goal, or even if it shoudl be done, but it’s not irrational.

[scaredyclassic]

temecula.

of course, it depends on what the defintion of normal is.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI, speaking for myself, I take exception because punishments in this country are TOO severe as it is, and it costs both taxes and lives. Existing punishments for violent crimes are enough.

Secondly, why establish protected classes? Is it really worse to injure someone because of their orientation or race, than to do so because you don’t like them for other reasons?

Is the Black guy beat up by another Black guy because he was wearing a Red Sox hat after the Yankees lost the Series any less worthy of justice than an Asian guy beat up by a White guy because of his race? I’d think not.

Random violence FOR WHATEVER REASON should in itself be an aggravating factor. If there was provocation or a crime previously committed, as in the case of a man who killed a robber, then that should be taken into account as mitigation. Same goes for a simple assault during (let’s say) a bar-fight.[/quote]

actually it may be a little worse to hurt someone solely because they are white or gay or some other protected class, not because one person is more “valued” than another, bt because racial hatred and hatred against homosexual is a particular social evil we might reasonably want to deter. it’s a little extra. enhancing the punishment doesnt mean we like gays morebut only that we are sending a message…

that is what criminal laws do….send messages to society.

if we put it in terms of a marketplace, it is information for rational actors to take in an d consider before deciding where to invest their capital…

[scaredyclassic]

well, see, sneaking up on someone and punching them in the face is a lot worse than saying, punching a fellow ina bar….and it’s also a lot worse if the other person is vulnerable. and it’s kidn of the icing on the cake if you look for a gay dude, or a jewish dude.

[scaredyclassic]

no, white on white would be bad too, but, it does not mean that hate crime laws are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest (as the above post implies), or are part of a marxist scheme, or even inappropriate.

it’s not just about rehabilitation; criminal laws are intrinsically about sending a message to society about how we want society to be.

it is called…deterrence…

[scaredyclassic]

not really a critique of hate crime legislation per se, but instead that it is being applied unequally that is, we don’t charge blacks with hate crimes on whites…

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Knockout-Game-Assault-Arrests-Brooklyn-NYPD-233001891.html

but we do…

black kids attack white jewish guy in NYC.

this knockout thing has the feel of end time anarchy…

i guess probably affirmative action and hate crime views are going to line up pretty close…perhaps hate crimes against gays legislation will phase out as more and more people in normal society feel gays are ok to remain living and don’t have to be killed.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=spdrun]Speaking for myself personally, I don’t think the legal concept of “hate crimes” should exist at all. I think whatever happens (assault, mayhem, murder, etc) should be tried as the offense itself and punished appropriately, subject to a judge’s discretion. Motives are less important than actions, and the actions should be punished.[/quote]

you be tripping. motive matters. the type of victim matters.

we punish people who hurt kids, old people, cops, different. kill a cop, a certain class of individual, and society might want to give you the death penalty. why? there’s a particularly flagrant disregard for the law in killing a police officer. there’s particular societal deviance, an intrinsic meanness, in raping say a 7 year old , or a 97 year old, as opposed to a 27 year old woman (or man).

it is perfectly justifiable to pick out certain groups as crime victims and give them additional levels of protection, in the abstract sense that additional punishment is any form of actual protection.

which it probably isn’t. but at least it shows we give a damn about hurting a vulnerable, or fringe or other group with significant social meaning..

[scaredyclassic]

i think it was clear to people not so long ago that allowing interracial couples to adopt was in general a bad idea. perahps it still is viewed that way.

if so, it’s only because of society’s apprehension that society in general will view the family situation as deviant.

the same with gay families.

there is no rational relationship between an interracial family’s racial makeup and the wuality of the parenting.

there may perhaps be no rational relationship between a gay family’s sexual makeupa nd the quality of the parenting.

but to assert it as fact, that it is less preferable, is ina way, to make it so, since it helps perpetuate’s a society that sees such groups as effed up in some way…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=paramount]scaredy, please allow me to clarify….

I’m not opposed to gay marriage
I’m not opposed to gay adoption
I am opposed to gays being recognized as a minority of any type…
I do think the gay agenda should be kept out of elem school curriculums

…[/quote]

ok. What about gays as a recognized group for purposes of a hate crime? can they be recognized as a minority for that?

perhaps the radical gay agenda in pointing to “two moms” , assuming it exists, is acknowledging that gays exist, and their existence is legitimate and they a r e human beings, coeequal in all regards as other humans, even humans who are hetero, and the ultimate goal of the radical agenda, is to prevent the formation of attiudes that would tend to dehumanize gays and cause hate crimes. like torturing and murdering people cause they’re perceived to be gay.

radical, man.

[Author]

Posts