100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: How Religion Is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 10/19/10 11:19 PM
|
|
In Oregon it was just on the news they were interviewing a 4th grade teacher that had been fired. This teacher says the only reason he was fired is because he is gay. He was fired he said when a 4th grade student of his asked him if he was married. here is the link and story... http://www.kgw.com/news/Beaverton-Student-Teacher-Booted-Speaks-Out-On-Camera-105158199.html BEAVERTON, Ore. -- A student teacher who was fired at a Beaverton school after letting students know he was gay told KGW in an exclusive interview that the district discriminated against him. Seth Stambaugh, 23, wanted to be a teacher his entire life. "It's the energy I get when I walk into a classroom. It's joyous beyond belief," said Stambaugh. He grew up in New Mexico, where he was bullied and felt sheer terror by the notion of "coming out." "When I came out at 16, I felt like it was a huge relief," he recalled. He visited Portland and felt the city was very welcoming of gays and lesbians. He couldn't wait to move here. The Lewis and Clark grad student felt compelled to teach students through a program for teaching education. But he never thought that he would be tossed out of a school after he said he just told a student the truth. It was September 10th, when a fourth grader asked him the question. "The student asked me if I was married, I responded 'no.' He asked 'why?' I said it was illegal for me to get married. I said 'it's because I want to marry a man.'" Days later, Stambaugh was fired and he said no one told him exactly why. He told KGW he suspected that it was because of his conversation with that 4th grader. "I felt extremely hurt and discriminated against. Everyone in the school is free to talk about their marital status as long as they are heterosexual," he said. In a statement, the Beaverton School District wrote, "We understand this action has resulted in the student teacher alleging discrimination. The concerns were about professional judgment and age appropriateness. While the details of this issue remain confidential, the district's policy and practice is non-discrimination." So what do parents say? "He or she should not be fired," said parent Paul Chen. "I don't think anybody should be fired for giving a well though-out articulate answer to a kids' question, " said parent Mike Speer. But some parents wonder why Seth would reveal his gay marital status to a 4th grader? "I think that 4th graders know that gays exist, they hear it on the playgrounds," Stambaugh said. "To say this guy, meaning me, came out and should disappear sends a negative [message] to a gay child who could be questioning their own sexuality." The superintendent was reviewing whether to reinstate Stambaugh. In the meantime, he's student teaching at a Portland Public School. .... personally i see this as another attempt to use sexuality for poor job performance. Why tell a 4th grade student about he is not because it is illegal for him to marry a man? Looks to me like he could of just said no.. that someday he hopes to be. A 4th grade student does not understand this escecially if his parents are not for it. He planted a seed of contention possibly with this child and his parents and should of known this was possible. The news is all over this so is the ACLU. If the child would of asked Do you believe in Hell and the teacher would of said Yes and he said why and the teacher would of said what his beliefs were then all the non believers would of said this teacher was spreading religion in school. Which also i believe a quiick short answer of I just do would suffice. But if that teacher would of been fired for saying that it would not be in the news except maybe in a negative conotation if the teacher complained and anyone listened.. The only reason this is in the news at all is him being Gay and everyone hates the Gay people. This is a form of brain washing our children and has no place for the ACLU or anyone else to be making a big deal out of this except to brainwash the public and send a clear message. Do anything to a Gay person and u will pay for it buddy..Huh? Shalom....Miles =================================== In Oregon it was just on the news they were interviewing a 4th grade teacher that had been fired. This teacher says the only reason he was fired is because he is gay. ==================================== Was fired for being gay, doesn't mean it had any religious influence. Some people may not want their kids taught by a homosexual teacher. They may feel it's teaching their children immoral social behavior for a lot of people regardless of religious preference don't like homosexuality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- =================================== BEAVERTON, Ore. -- A student teacher who was fired at a Beaverton school after letting students know he was gay told KGW in an exclusive interview that the district discriminated against him =================================== Same as previous mentioning. The parents may have felt uncomfortable for a homosexual teacher teaching their children, regardless of religious preference. Same with all your examples...... it's all revolved around teachers and homosexuality. Same as if a teacher with a record of murder or any other immoral action. Still nothing specifically towards religious preference. What reasons could any parent have to feel any more uncomfortable with a gay or lebian teacher versus a heterosexual one? And where do you think those ideas may have come from? I'm only asking becasue most of the misconceptions that people have about homosexuals, come from Christian extremist groups. [quote}For the simple fact of where the category "gay" comes from in sexual orientation. Gay means strange, out of the usual. So therefore having a homosexual teacher is gay, out of the ordinary. So by that logic a parent could be uncomfortable have a teacher in a wheelchair teaching their children and should then be dismissed by school district - right? Is bald considered out of the ordinary too? I wonder how out of the ordinary it is for a female teacher to have one breast - you know not all women do the fake breast think after loosing one to cancer. I supppose that could make parents uncomfortable too - I mean the teacher might have to say "breast" or "cancer" to a fourth grader. People have habits of consistency, when something is different or strange to them they fear it and or just feel uncomfortable. Thus homosexual teachers would make the parents feel uncomfortable teaching their children. And obviously this is outside of a religious belief "Christianity". So are all the things I listed above but the only one that REALLY gets fired is the one whose gay - so your reasoning doesn't hold up - wanna try again? Inside of Christianity belief, they would feel uncomfortable for children observe their surroundings and we simulate. That is why certain areas of say the USA are totally different then the other. For that certain area has simulated together. So parents fear their children will simulate with the adult figure they are taught about in school. They fear these teachers could be teaching their children that homosexuality is ok inadvertently. Un huh, I see - actually I don't care about what Christians do in thier own church or their privately funded schools - I just don't think they faith or how they want to practice is should be infringing on anyone's rights outside their secular circle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm...well it is a startling reality with all those deaths...everytime i heara bout them...i have to shake my head in disbeleif.
i can understand to a certain point how religion ties into it....but it was very broad i mean religion wasnt an apparent cause. what i see is you drawing your own conclusions which you, of course, have a right to do because this is your perspective and opinion. i believe (me not anyone else nor do i expect anyone else to believe as i do) that it is a tragedy but what must be done and is that these issues need to be addressed. there needs to be an understanding of people...of humanity....that we all have a right to live and not be discriminated against for any differences (real or percieved). what seems to be done alot of the time when such situations occur is...whose fault is it? ....people lookin for someone to point the finger at...someone to blame. when finger pointing gets nothing done. what should, and i would like to believe is being done is having these issues addressed and finding a way not to so much fix it (as put a band aid on it) but to find a way to PREVENT this from happening. bullying kills... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Oregon it was just on the news they were interviewing a 4th grade teacher that had been fired. This teacher says the only reason he was fired is because he is gay. He was fired he said when a 4th grade student of his asked him if he was married. here is the link and story... http://www.kgw.com/news/Beaverton-Student-Teacher-Booted-Speaks-Out-On-Camera-105158199.html BEAVERTON, Ore. -- A student teacher who was fired at a Beaverton school after letting students know he was gay told KGW in an exclusive interview that the district discriminated against him. Seth Stambaugh, 23, wanted to be a teacher his entire life. "It's the energy I get when I walk into a classroom. It's joyous beyond belief," said Stambaugh. He grew up in New Mexico, where he was bullied and felt sheer terror by the notion of "coming out." "When I came out at 16, I felt like it was a huge relief," he recalled. He visited Portland and felt the city was very welcoming of gays and lesbians. He couldn't wait to move here. The Lewis and Clark grad student felt compelled to teach students through a program for teaching education. But he never thought that he would be tossed out of a school after he said he just told a student the truth. It was September 10th, when a fourth grader asked him the question. "The student asked me if I was married, I responded 'no.' He asked 'why?' I said it was illegal for me to get married. I said 'it's because I want to marry a man.'" Days later, Stambaugh was fired and he said no one told him exactly why. He told KGW he suspected that it was because of his conversation with that 4th grader. "I felt extremely hurt and discriminated against. Everyone in the school is free to talk about their marital status as long as they are heterosexual," he said. In a statement, the Beaverton School District wrote, "We understand this action has resulted in the student teacher alleging discrimination. The concerns were about professional judgment and age appropriateness. While the details of this issue remain confidential, the district's policy and practice is non-discrimination." So what do parents say? "He or she should not be fired," said parent Paul Chen. "I don't think anybody should be fired for giving a well though-out articulate answer to a kids' question, " said parent Mike Speer. But some parents wonder why Seth would reveal his gay marital status to a 4th grader? "I think that 4th graders know that gays exist, they hear it on the playgrounds," Stambaugh said. "To say this guy, meaning me, came out and should disappear sends a negative [message] to a gay child who could be questioning their own sexuality." The superintendent was reviewing whether to reinstate Stambaugh. In the meantime, he's student teaching at a Portland Public School. .... personally i see this as another attempt to use sexuality for poor job performance. Why tell a 4th grade student about he is not because it is illegal for him to marry a man? Looks to me like he could of just said no.. that someday he hopes to be. A 4th grade student does not understand this escecially if his parents are not for it. He planted a seed of contention possibly with this child and his parents and should of known this was possible. The news is all over this so is the ACLU. If the child would of asked Do you believe in Hell and the teacher would of said Yes and he said why and the teacher would of said what his beliefs were then all the non believers would of said this teacher was spreading religion in school. Which also i believe a quiick short answer of I just do would suffice. But if that teacher would of been fired for saying that it would not be in the news except maybe in a negative conotation if the teacher complained and anyone listened.. The only reason this is in the news at all is him being Gay and everyone hates the Gay people. This is a form of brain washing our children and has no place for the ACLU or anyone else to be making a big deal out of this except to brainwash the public and send a clear message. Do anything to a Gay person and u will pay for it buddy..Huh? Shalom....Miles =================================== In Oregon it was just on the news they were interviewing a 4th grade teacher that had been fired. This teacher says the only reason he was fired is because he is gay. ==================================== Was fired for being gay, doesn't mean it had any religious influence. Some people may not want their kids taught by a homosexual teacher. They may feel it's teaching their children immoral social behavior for a lot of people regardless of religious preference don't like homosexuality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- =================================== BEAVERTON, Ore. -- A student teacher who was fired at a Beaverton school after letting students know he was gay told KGW in an exclusive interview that the district discriminated against him =================================== Same as previous mentioning. The parents may have felt uncomfortable for a homosexual teacher teaching their children, regardless of religious preference. Same with all your examples...... it's all revolved around teachers and homosexuality. Same as if a teacher with a record of murder or any other immoral action. Still nothing specifically towards religious preference. What reasons could any parent have to feel any more uncomfortable with a gay or lebian teacher versus a heterosexual one? And where do you think those ideas may have come from? I'm only asking becasue most of the misconceptions that people have about homosexuals, come from Christian extremist groups. Wow thats a hot one!I have to go to some Christian extremist group to find out about homosexuals! No it called the ability to read our bibles and understand why God destroyed a entire city because of sodomy and how he calls it a abomination. I will tell you why parents feel uncomfortable with a gay or lesbian teachers.It is because in their mind Christians are wrong and they will more likely push pro gay issues such as gay marriage and gay sex education which parents do not want their kids exposed to. most probally will not remember this from a few years ago. A high school actually refused a senior graduation because they did not answer on a test 1 question right. That question .. Is Homosexuality an alternative lifestyle? The HS would not graduate the senior and gave the person another chance to change thier answer to yes and when they refused they refused to graduate them. For goodness sake the parents filed a lawsuit and the HS backed down. Could you amagine the uproar if that same HS would of required a Yes answer to graduate if it said. Homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle? Wow we would of been at WAR.. Shalom...Miles Miles - so what was the correct answer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldn't homosexual sex fall in the catagory of population control? When rules and laws are made it isn't for the beneficiary of one person. It is a benefit for the entire population. Homosexual is against God's law for it isn't beneficiary in the simple fact sexual actions is for creation, creation, and oh yeah creation. Sex is for nothing more then gaining more population and making a family. Homosexuality benefits NOTHING. Not true. How does it benefit the world as a whole? Not individual benefits, but benefits for the entire planet? The same benefits as a heterosexual or bi sexual relationship does. People loving and enjoying their life together, raising children, whatever. All relationships can do the same exact things together. No, there is no creation in homosexual sex, so not the exact benefits of heterosexual sex. Sex is purely for creation. Other use then that it is lust, lustful desires, ect. Well, since homosexuals can't reproduce with their chosen parner at least we know it heterosexuals who are producing the homosexuals. That's one thing that can't be blamed on us...  Yes it can lol, homosexuality is just a choice, a decision. Well like everything else about your religion - that too is an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldn't homosexual sex fall in the catagory of population control? When rules and laws are made it isn't for the beneficiary of one person. It is a benefit for the entire population. Homosexual is against God's law for it isn't beneficiary in the simple fact sexual actions is for creation, creation, and oh yeah creation. Sex is for nothing more then gaining more population and making a family. Homosexuality benefits NOTHING. Not true. How does it benefit the world as a whole? Not individual benefits, but benefits for the entire planet? The same benefits as a heterosexual or bi sexual relationship does. People loving and enjoying their life together, raising children, whatever. All relationships can do the same exact things together. No, there is no creation in homosexual sex, so not the exact benefits of heterosexual sex. Sex is purely for creation. Other use then that it is lust, lustful desires, ect. Well, since homosexuals can't reproduce with their chosen parner at least we know it heterosexuals who are producing the homosexuals. That's one thing that can't be blamed on us... Yes it can lol, homosexuality is just a choice, a decision. Well like everything else about your religion - that too is an opinion. Wasn't speaking about a religion in specifics with that. Any form of action is a choice, a decision. We don't HAVE to DO anything if we don't wish to. And with that will be judged on. We will be judged on why we did this or that and why we did such an action. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Wed 10/20/10 12:25 AM
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research???? Wasn't it you who said that anyone would be able to find evidence to support whatever their claims may be? Well, I don't think that was me, do you have the example and context in which I made that claim? The context was one which you assumed only your opinion or facts are "unbiased". You somehow place your opinion higher than other's and use "religion" as a reason why someone else's is inferior. However, when confronted with the tough questions, you cried about staying on topic as to avoid dealing with your own bigotry and personal judgements. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/281688?page=17 "Of course if ALL you are looking for are the ‘facts’ that confirm your own bias, you will undoubtedly find it, but you will miss an opportunity to gain a lot of other knowledge, a lot people do that, especially when they read the Bible." OH – Yea I remember that thread. The one in which Creative asked you “Why a stop light ‘ought’ to be red”. You sure did try hard to answer that question – did you ever understand what he was really trying to show you? Anyway, regarding my comment in THAT post: POSTED by Creative: Majority opinion rules? That is so, so, not a way to prove an 'ought'. Let me use that very example in order to show the absurdity in the claim. Hitler. Need I say that it is a fact that the majority of Germans believed in Hitler's principles and rhetoric. Noiw we can then apply your reasoning to this... To which you replied: Yes, you need to say it and then prove it, or at least give me an idea of what to look for. I was enjoying following the conversation so I was trying to help you by providing a resource and explaining why some concepts or ideas do not lend themselves to a simple bullet format. To gain the full perspective of complex information – it is best to do some research. It also helps to do the research before providing an opinion about the topic for the simple fact that you can reference the source of your research so that others can read for themselves in order to gain fuller knowledge that would not come across in a bullet list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany The above is very brief but if it’s not the proof you wanted, it does offers a lot of other sources with over 87 references and a couple dozen, or so, other reading suggestions, not to mention all the internal links within the writing. Sometimes gaining knowledge is not as simple as listing bullet points or summaries of personal conclusions. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort and a lot research. Like trying to understand why first degree incest is considered harmful. It might also benefit you to read about the Treaty of Versailles, a fabulous read, and it’s necessary background to understand why the majority of German people genuinely supported Hitler and his ideology, and they did so without coercion. Then Creative posted: The majority of Germans under Hitler wanted to exterminate an entire race of people based upon rhetorical advertising, a distortion of Kantian ethics, and an equally distorted view of Darwinism. That is what *is*. To which you replied: Facts that I could verify? No facts about the extortion the Nazis perpetrated on their own people to get them to conform? Since your response seemed to indicate that you had not reviewed the source I have offered, I posted the following, which includes the comment I made that you have brought up. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the ‘rise’ of the Third Reich and what preceded it. You will find the facts that support the statement which Creative made through that history. Of course if ALL you are looking for are the ‘facts’ that confirm your own bias, you will undoubtedly find it, but you will miss an opportunity to gain a lot of other knowledge, a lot people do that, especially when they read the Bible. When a resource is given and deemed unacceptable, the reason should be stated. Since there was no reason provided for not accepting the resource, but the questions persisted, I did make that comment. However, since no one in this current thread has told me why my resources are unacceptable or presented ANY information from resources, which contradict the information I used, you cannot say that my resources were selected to confirm my own bias – no other resources were presented to the contrary. So I won't be spoon feeding you anything as you have already deemed my opinions as biased and hence, any contradictory evidence you would deem biased as well. Besides, the only "true" form of evidence would be testimony of the bullies themselves or direct eyewitnesses. Neither of which has been presented here. RESEARCH - they have surveyed bulllies and witnesses and targets - that's how we know as much as we do about bullies, their methods, their reasons and about targets, and about the passive participants. If you had done the research you would have known that. Red, there's no reason to rehash that thread, I remember it well. Unless of course you wish to address the topic you avoided. (incestuous or underage marriage) You assume I didn't do any research? I did, and still found no connection between the "evidence" that you presented and the current topic. The trend here seems to be, (yes, my opinion), that people form their opinions first, then search for corroborating data. These same people also seem to think that force-feeding others links will somehow convince them to accept their views. They also think that calling others names somehow boosts their own intelligence. A common theme is to equate the religious with somehow being less intelligent or bigoted, a tactic that allows an individual to casually dismiss any refuting evidence presented. Another tactic used is that a person will claim that their opinion is "objective" and somehow better than another's. "Objective opinion" is an oxymoron, is it not? I, on the other hand, try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them. I will openly challenge hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes", but that hardly ever happens, does it? You want me to post facts when you have already shown your bias against anyone religious? Why post facts that you'll dismiss? If I can get you to question your own conclussions, you'll do the research and convince yourself, no? A person is more likely to accept facts that they find for themselves, unless of course they don't desire to admit their faults... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. Everyone is born straight.Nobody is born gay. Proof, there it is....proof, there it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 10/20/10 07:16 AM
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. Everyone is born straight.Nobody is born gay. Proof, there it is....proof, there it is. noone has proven whether people are born this way or not, I personally dont think they are but thats besides the point,, whatever DESIRES or WANTS someone decides to act upon, once they decide to ACT upon some desire or want, they have made a choice noone knows my desires or wants until I share them with them in some way, either through talking or acting in a certain manner,, speech and action are also choices I do understand that we shouldnt treat people unfairly, but I contend that just as 'natural' as it is for someone to choose to have sex with a man or a woman or with noone at at all or with themself,,,,it is 'natural' for some things to be unattractive to us (from physical features to behaviors to speech patterns) and by US , I am including myself,,lol and when something is unattractive to us or unappealing to us it is also natural (in closed circles) to talk about it,,,but none of that would justify then going out and MISTREATING anyone for their choice in behavior or speech,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids
Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.) Just thought I would throw this out there... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.) Just thought I would throw this out there... Thanks - but until the study has been through the peer review process and is available, in full, for public scrutiny - it's wise to be skeptical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, on the other hand, try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them. I will openly challenge hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes", but that hardly ever happens, does it? Then let us use your method to try to get to the core of THE issue that leads to misunderstanding between us. Below I have presented two sections of information that I readily admit I are‘assumptions’. Within section 2 are assumptions which I have attempted to build upon in the subsequent section. These are not questions, they are assumptions and this is a discussion. For the discussion to progress it is important that a statement of disagreement is followed by a civil and thoughtful explanation for the disagreement and an alternative possible amendment suggested. After which, I will likewise have the opportunity to evaluate and respond. These are assumptions of which I am asking your opinion. This is not an argument, it is meant to be an interactive use of your own methodology to (“try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them.”) Below are MY assumptions for you to think about respond to. SECTION 1: Some basics - Individual human knowledge consists of – individually held knowledge which can be described as an accumulation of information which is accessible, and necessary, to the individual for thought processes. - Humans gain individually held knowledge through various means. - In part, individuals utilize their acquired knowledge to be ‘informed’ during decision making processes which influence personal behavior and beliefs. SECTION 2: Building on the basics - All information, to which an individual is exposed, regardless of the means of exposure, is uniquely perceived by that individual. - Individual perception is influenced by all previously processed information which forms the basis of individually defined realities. - Knowledge itself, (information) does not imply absolute (pertaining to all others’) truth and does not represent reality as defined by others’ perceptions. If you are interested in (“openly challeng(ing) hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes") then I invite you to be as ‘open’ about your own thought processes as those with whom you disagree. We can begin here with some assumptions that are open for assessment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 10/21/10 10:29 AM
|
|
I, on the other hand, try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them. I will openly challenge hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes", but that hardly ever happens, does it? Then let us use your method to try to get to the core of THE issue that leads to misunderstanding between us. Below I have presented two sections of information that I readily admit are‘assumptions’. Within section 2 are assumptions built upon those make in section 1. These are not questions, they are assumptions and this is a discussion. For the discussion to progress it is important that a statement of disagreement is followed by a civil and thoughtful explanation for the disagreement and an alternative possible amendment suggested. After which, I will likewise have the opportunity to evaluate and respond. These are assumptions of which I am asking your opinion. This is not an argument, it is meant to be an interactive use of your own methodology to (“try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them.”) Below are MY assumptions for you to think about respond to. SECTION 1: Some basics - Individual human knowledge consists of – individually held knowledge which can be described as an accumulation of information which is accessible, and necessary, to the individual for thought processes. - Humans gain individually held knowledge through various means. - In part, individuals utilize their acquired knowledge to be ‘informed’ during decision making processes which influence personal behavior and beliefs. SECTION 2: Building on the basics - All information, to which an individual is exposed, regardless of the means of exposure, is uniquely perceived by that individual. - Individual perception is influenced by all previously processed information which forms the basis of individually defined realities. - Knowledge itself, (information) does not imply absolute (pertaining to all others’) truth and does not represent reality as defined by others’ perceptions. If you are interested in (“openly challeng(ing) hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes") then I invite you to be as ‘open’ about your own thought processes as those with whom you disagree. We can begin here with some assumptions that are open for assessment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research???? Wasn't it you who said that anyone would be able to find evidence to support whatever their claims may be? Well, I don't think that was me, do you have the example and context in which I made that claim? The context was one which you assumed only your opinion or facts are "unbiased". You somehow place your opinion higher than other's and use "religion" as a reason why someone else's is inferior. However, when confronted with the tough questions, you cried about staying on topic as to avoid dealing with your own bigotry and personal judgements. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/281688?page=17 "Of course if ALL you are looking for are the ‘facts’ that confirm your own bias, you will undoubtedly find it, but you will miss an opportunity to gain a lot of other knowledge, a lot people do that, especially when they read the Bible." OH – Yea I remember that thread. The one in which Creative asked you “Why a stop light ‘ought’ to be red”. You sure did try hard to answer that question – did you ever understand what he was really trying to show you? Anyway, regarding my comment in THAT post: POSTED by Creative: Majority opinion rules? That is so, so, not a way to prove an 'ought'. Let me use that very example in order to show the absurdity in the claim. Hitler. Need I say that it is a fact that the majority of Germans believed in Hitler's principles and rhetoric. Noiw we can then apply your reasoning to this... To which you replied: Yes, you need to say it and then prove it, or at least give me an idea of what to look for. I was enjoying following the conversation so I was trying to help you by providing a resource and explaining why some concepts or ideas do not lend themselves to a simple bullet format. To gain the full perspective of complex information – it is best to do some research. It also helps to do the research before providing an opinion about the topic for the simple fact that you can reference the source of your research so that others can read for themselves in order to gain fuller knowledge that would not come across in a bullet list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany The above is very brief but if it’s not the proof you wanted, it does offers a lot of other sources with over 87 references and a couple dozen, or so, other reading suggestions, not to mention all the internal links within the writing. Sometimes gaining knowledge is not as simple as listing bullet points or summaries of personal conclusions. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort and a lot research. Like trying to understand why first degree incest is considered harmful. It might also benefit you to read about the Treaty of Versailles, a fabulous read, and it’s necessary background to understand why the majority of German people genuinely supported Hitler and his ideology, and they did so without coercion. Then Creative posted: The majority of Germans under Hitler wanted to exterminate an entire race of people based upon rhetorical advertising, a distortion of Kantian ethics, and an equally distorted view of Darwinism. That is what *is*. To which you replied: Facts that I could verify? No facts about the extortion the Nazis perpetrated on their own people to get them to conform? Since your response seemed to indicate that you had not reviewed the source I have offered, I posted the following, which includes the comment I made that you have brought up. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the ‘rise’ of the Third Reich and what preceded it. You will find the facts that support the statement which Creative made through that history. Of course if ALL you are looking for are the ‘facts’ that confirm your own bias, you will undoubtedly find it, but you will miss an opportunity to gain a lot of other knowledge, a lot people do that, especially when they read the Bible. When a resource is given and deemed unacceptable, the reason should be stated. Since there was no reason provided for not accepting the resource, but the questions persisted, I did make that comment. However, since no one in this current thread has told me why my resources are unacceptable or presented ANY information from resources, which contradict the information I used, you cannot say that my resources were selected to confirm my own bias – no other resources were presented to the contrary. So I won't be spoon feeding you anything as you have already deemed my opinions as biased and hence, any contradictory evidence you would deem biased as well. Besides, the only "true" form of evidence would be testimony of the bullies themselves or direct eyewitnesses. Neither of which has been presented here. RESEARCH - they have surveyed bulllies and witnesses and targets - that's how we know as much as we do about bullies, their methods, their reasons and about targets, and about the passive participants. If you had done the research you would have known that. Red, there's no reason to rehash that thread, I remember it well. Unless of course you wish to address the topic you avoided. (incestuous or underage marriage) You assume I didn't do any research? I did, and still found no connection between the "evidence" that you presented and the current topic. The trend here seems to be, (yes, my opinion), that people form their opinions first, then search for corroborating data. These same people also seem to think that force-feeding others links will somehow convince them to accept their views. They also think that calling others names somehow boosts their own intelligence. A common theme is to equate the religious with somehow being less intelligent or bigoted, a tactic that allows an individual to casually dismiss any refuting evidence presented. Another tactic used is that a person will claim that their opinion is "objective" and somehow better than another's. "Objective opinion" is an oxymoron, is it not? I, on the other hand, try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them. I will openly challenge hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes", but that hardly ever happens, does it? You want me to post facts when you have already shown your bias against anyone religious? Why post facts that you'll dismiss? If I can get you to question your own conclussions, you'll do the research and convince yourself, no? A person is more likely to accept facts that they find for themselves, unless of course they don't desire to admit their faults... Holy crap! When did you take a smart pill? I keed I keed.. Seriously though, I wish more people did all that. Hell, I wish ALL people did that. Good post. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. Everyone is born straight.Nobody is born gay. Proof, there it is....proof, there it is. noone has proven whether people are born this way or not, I personally dont think they are but thats besides the point,, whatever DESIRES or WANTS someone decides to act upon, once they decide to ACT upon some desire or want, they have made a choice noone knows my desires or wants until I share them with them in some way, either through talking or acting in a certain manner,, speech and action are also choices I do understand that we shouldnt treat people unfairly, but I contend that just as 'natural' as it is for someone to choose to have sex with a man or a woman or with noone at at all or with themself,,,,it is 'natural' for some things to be unattractive to us (from physical features to behaviors to speech patterns) and by US , I am including myself,,lol and when something is unattractive to us or unappealing to us it is also natural (in closed circles) to talk about it,,,but none of that would justify then going out and MISTREATING anyone for their choice in behavior or speech,,, Neal Bortz has a good way to prove that no one chooses to be a homosexual. If it's a choice, simply ask a straight person at what point in their life did they deceide to be straight. If one can't deceide to be straight, one can't deceide to be gay, either. And seriously, does anyone really think some teenage boy wakes up one day and says to himself, "Penis! I think I'll try some penis. That's what I should do today. Try some penis."? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldn't homosexual sex fall in the catagory of population control? When rules and laws are made it isn't for the beneficiary of one person. It is a benefit for the entire population. Homosexual is against God's law for it isn't beneficiary in the simple fact sexual actions is for creation, creation, and oh yeah creation. Sex is for nothing more then gaining more population and making a family. Homosexuality benefits NOTHING. Not true. How does it benefit the world as a whole? Not individual benefits, but benefits for the entire planet? The same benefits as a heterosexual or bi sexual relationship does. People loving and enjoying their life together, raising children, whatever. All relationships can do the same exact things together. No, there is no creation in homosexual sex, so not the exact benefits of heterosexual sex. Sex is purely for creation. Other use then that it is lust, lustful desires, ect. Well, since homosexuals can't reproduce with their chosen parner at least we know it heterosexuals who are producing the homosexuals. That's one thing that can't be blamed on us... Yes it can lol, homosexuality is just a choice, a decision. Well like everything else about your religion - that too is an opinion. Wasn't speaking about a religion in specifics with that. Any form of action is a choice, a decision. We don't HAVE to DO anything if we don't wish to. And with that will be judged on. We will be judged on why we did this or that and why we did such an action. It would be so probable, if there were a god or gods, on judgment day god said " I meant for humans to love each other regardless to different sex or same sex and all those who spoke out against homosexuality and bi sexuality, even the writers of the bible went against my wishes and now you all must pay". Can you imagine the shocked faces on that day!!?? It would be more probable that a god would want men and women to love each other no matter what than the other way around. That is why religion is bad for you, it teaches you not to love certain people for certain reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. Everyone is born straight.Nobody is born gay. Proof, there it is....proof, there it is. noone has proven whether people are born this way or not, I personally dont think they are but thats besides the point,, whatever DESIRES or WANTS someone decides to act upon, once they decide to ACT upon some desire or want, they have made a choice noone knows my desires or wants until I share them with them in some way, either through talking or acting in a certain manner,, speech and action are also choices I do understand that we shouldnt treat people unfairly, but I contend that just as 'natural' as it is for someone to choose to have sex with a man or a woman or with noone at at all or with themself,,,,it is 'natural' for some things to be unattractive to us (from physical features to behaviors to speech patterns) and by US , I am including myself,,lol and when something is unattractive to us or unappealing to us it is also natural (in closed circles) to talk about it,,,but none of that would justify then going out and MISTREATING anyone for their choice in behavior or speech,,, Neal Bortz has a good way to prove that no one chooses to be a homosexual. If it's a choice, simply ask a straight person at what point in their life did they deceide to be straight. If one can't deceide to be straight, one can't deceide to be gay, either. And seriously, does anyone really think some teenage boy wakes up one day and says to himself, "Penis! I think I'll try some penis. That's what I should do today. Try some penis."? Excellent point. When I explained it to my children, I told them I wasn't gay because I did not look at a woman and feel sexually attracted to her and never have but there are women who find women sexually attractive and there is nothing wrong with it. I only want you to find someone who loves you and you love them and you treat each other well. My children are all heterosexual but were raised to know that being gay is just as natural as being heterorsexual. So obviously they were born heterosexual. Meaning homosexuality is born to us just the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOONE is born homosexual or heterosexual as we get older we decide what our preference is If that was true you would probably have a 50%/50% change being born gay or straight much like you have a 50%/50% chance being born male or female.We would also have to assume the animals are in the same scenario.Yet considering a very small minority in this country is gay I find this logic extremely flawed.There has never been any proof anyone was born gay. Everyone is born straight.Nobody is born gay. Proof, there it is....proof, there it is. noone has proven whether people are born this way or not, I personally dont think they are but thats besides the point,, whatever DESIRES or WANTS someone decides to act upon, once they decide to ACT upon some desire or want, they have made a choice noone knows my desires or wants until I share them with them in some way, either through talking or acting in a certain manner,, speech and action are also choices I do understand that we shouldnt treat people unfairly, but I contend that just as 'natural' as it is for someone to choose to have sex with a man or a woman or with noone at at all or with themself,,,,it is 'natural' for some things to be unattractive to us (from physical features to behaviors to speech patterns) and by US , I am including myself,,lol and when something is unattractive to us or unappealing to us it is also natural (in closed circles) to talk about it,,,but none of that would justify then going out and MISTREATING anyone for their choice in behavior or speech,,, Neal Bortz has a good way to prove that no one chooses to be a homosexual. If it's a choice, simply ask a straight person at what point in their life did they deceide to be straight. If one can't deceide to be straight, one can't deceide to be gay, either. And seriously, does anyone really think some teenage boy wakes up one day and says to himself, "Penis! I think I'll try some penis. That's what I should do today. Try some penis."? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Bortz has a good way to prove that no one chooses to be a homosexual. If it's a choice, simply ask a straight person at what point in their life did they deceide to be straight. If one can't deceide to be straight, one can't deceide to be gay, either. And seriously, does anyone really think some teenage boy wakes up one day and says to himself, "Penis! I think I'll try some penis. That's what I should do today. Try some penis."? If the norm is Hetero, then only homosexuals would need to make a choice to change from the norm. So Neal Bortz hasn't thought too deeply on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, on the other hand, try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them. I will openly challenge hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes", but that hardly ever happens, does it? Then let us use your method to try to get to the core of THE issue that leads to misunderstanding between us. Below I have presented two sections of information that I readily admit are‘assumptions’. Within section 2 are assumptions built upon those make in section 1. These are not questions, they are assumptions and this is a discussion. For the discussion to progress it is important that a statement of disagreement is followed by a civil and thoughtful explanation for the disagreement and an alternative possible amendment suggested. After which, I will likewise have the opportunity to evaluate and respond. These are assumptions of which I am asking your opinion. This is not an argument, it is meant to be an interactive use of your own methodology to (“try to get to the core of the issue by making one challenge their views and how they arrive at them.”) Below are MY assumptions for you to think about respond to. SECTION 1: Some basics - Individual human knowledge consists of – individually held knowledge which can be described as an accumulation of information which is accessible, and necessary, to the individual for thought processes. - Humans gain individually held knowledge through various means. - In part, individuals utilize their acquired knowledge to be ‘informed’ during decision making processes which influence personal behavior and beliefs. SECTION 2: Building on the basics - All information, to which an individual is exposed, regardless of the means of exposure, is uniquely perceived by that individual. - Individual perception is influenced by all previously processed information which forms the basis of individually defined realities. - Knowledge itself, (information) does not imply absolute (pertaining to all others’) truth and does not represent reality as defined by others’ perceptions. If you are interested in (“openly challeng(ing) hypocrisy, bigotry, lies, mis-information and bullying in the hopes that the perpertrators of these tactics will re-examine their "hypocritical thought processes") then I invite you to be as ‘open’ about your own thought processes as those with whom you disagree. We can begin here with some assumptions that are open for assessment. Ah, I see we do not think that differently. I pretty much agree with your assesments, except I may add intuition and instinct as a source of knowledge in section 1. Section 2 just affirms my belief that not one person actually knows absolute truth or reality, only their perception of it. So I take the entire premise of section 2 and realise that any one person could be right for any given situation. Also that any assesment of "facts" that I make is merely my own opinion. What would you say if I told you that 11=3? Would you call me a nutjob or would you assume that the statement could be correct in my reality? |
|
|
|
|
