I have had to deal with a similar problem. A student who claimed not to beleive in evolution (to get out of work). I SHOWED her evolution in action (easy with the right lab equipment) after which I had to deal with the parents. Sigh.
The question I have about ID is, what class does it belong in? Not science, because there is no science involved. Social studies perhaps? I imagine if the educators were smart enough to realize this, and shipped the discussion of ID to a "religion" class, they could end this for good.
If you have directv, there is an extra channel called History International (at least there was a few months ago). I don't have the dish anymore, but I bet it's still showing.
"We stamp things out. This is the nature of America as far back as the Puritans. We do not encourage. We do not foster. If something new springs up in America, it's because we didn't see it coming fast enough to ban it"
You mean like the US itself? Because, you know, it sprang up. I don't recall us trying to stamp it out.
Then of coures there's women's suffrage, income tax, Social Security, and countless other examples of things that "sprang up" yet seem to have avoided being "stamped out"
I doubt we missed seeing any of these things coming.
"I fight for the extreme because I know what the other extreme wants: the right to kill homosexuals on sight"
Youare an imbecile. I have no idea why you would post such an idiotic statment.
"If "civil unions" with legal rights and benefits identical to those afforded opposite-sex couples were available to same-sex couples, I probably wouldn't argue. Unfortunately, the majority of those strongly fighting against same-sex marriage don't even want that much. The majority of those opposed to same-sex "marriage" -- at least those with political clout -- want to deny any legal protection available to same-sex couples, and in some cases (like Kansas and Virginia) deny even the existing options available"
Yes, but that's not ME, so why bring it up in a conversation about what I think?
"And why is this the case? Can you offer something more than BISS?"
Answer my question first. Why shouldn't straight couples be allowed to have a unique ceremony?
"So, I ask you, have you been successful in moving your education or business organization from MS Office to OpenOffice"
Nope. My facility had 5 old computers that were being replaced, so I got them put in my classroom.
I asked my supervisor about installing such products. I was asked
"Who will support it when you install it?"
Um, me.
"That's not your job, you're a teacher. Can't the IT department do it?"
So I asked them, and they said,
"We're starting to use some of that Linux stuff (?) but we're not allowed to install or support it."
I have yet to receive an answer as to why that is, but I have heard that someone in IT is afraid of the GPL. I find it difficult to believe that anyone in my company's IT department has READ the GPL, let alone understands it's intracacies.
Regardless, the idea got squished. No open source in the classroom, and no real reason why.
Gender is not a protected class. Neither is sexual activity (which is what homosexuaility is)
You despit your attempts to obfuscate, you cannot have inequality where PERFECT EQUALITY exists. What those people WANT is not relevant.
You didn't refute my argument, you just spouted your lame taking points. Again?
"which is that people should be allowed to marry WHO THEY WANT TO (within the bounds of consensual adult relationships)"
Why qualify it? Why not three? Ten? Children? You're discriminating based on age, to use your own twisted logic. Why can't a 12 year old marry if they want to?
"That's why it IS an equality issue"
Either you're trying to be obtuse, or you don't know what equality is. Deny it all you want, you're wrong, and I've proved it.
And now we're done.
Is a car a camel? Why not? You can get into specifics, but ultimately the reason is they are different.
A gay couple is not the same as a straight couple. the differences, some subtle, some glaringly obvious, are important. So important, that I believe they deserve different distinctions. Not because I think one is better or worse, but because good marriages deserve to be recognized as special. I don't believe expanding the definition at the outcry of any group is a good idea. Marriage has a place in our society that is too fundamental, too important, to be diluted by any group tacking it name on.
Gays deserve equal protection in every way. Civil unions or whatever you wish to call them, with all the ceremony (probably more fun too) and rights and responsibilities.
But marriage is a special ceremony reserved for straight couples. Why is that a bad thing, that a group gets to have something unique?
Ok,I would like you to listen.
Seriously. You and others have a misconception about gay marriage. It is NOT about equality. Listen, and I promise I'll explain. You can disagree, but my points are still reasonable.
Gays have equality as it rlates to marriage. I know you want to yell. Wait.
I can only marry a woman. A gay man can ALSO only marry a woman. The same is true for women.
Gay marriage would require the establishment of a new right/privelige. That of marrying a same sex partner. That is currently legal for no one.
Now I know, why would I want to marry a man? Not the point.
But the two men love each other and should be allowed to commit legally. ALSO not the point.
The point is that currently, the law allows for perfect equality in marriage. No special protections for anyone.
Now what you need to ask yourself (because I have taken time to read your posts) is WHY has the discussion been framed as an "equality" issue?
Why do the people you agree with have to engage in such intellectual dishonesty?
I am not against gays committing, legally equivalent to marriage. But it is not marriage. Gays should take the opportunity and say "Fuck the establishment" and creat their own ceremony. Then get it legalised. Like Kwanzaa. Why don't they?
"Nobody's fighting for protections for pro-gay-marriage people, but for actual gays"
You weren't reading the thread, or you're a retard.
The ACLU does. I'm a member, so I know.
More importantly, the ENTIRE POINT of the thread was minority "protections". That was ALL we talked about, and the context is crystal clear to anyone. Not gays, but MINORITY PROTECTIONS.
Nice try though. You fucked up, got caught, and tried to sneak one by. Silly boy, just admit you blew it and we'll both laugh it off.
Well just yesterday I told someone the Bible is a book of lies. It is. But because you said it, I must be christian.
No reason or logic, just lies and name calling. Did a priest touch your no-no when you were in church? Is that why the wittle baby is so pouty-wouty?
Sad, pathetic thing. You're a liar and a coward, and we see it. Every time you post you back it up. If you had looked like you claim to, you'd see very clearly that you were wrong. But you won't. Because you're only interested in adding to others' misery to make you temporarily forget your pathetic, go nowwhere do nothing life.
And I got in to MS early and quintupled my money. Eat it browneye.
"If the two chix are deeply devoted to each other and spend the rest of their lives together (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...), that's not a marriage?"
Nope,sucks for them, but they're stuck with it.
"Well, if it was possiable to get equal rights in any other way, then it probably wouldn't be the issue it is. Separate but equal has been tried, and it failed pretty miserably"
Works fine in Vermont. The fact that something failed previously is THE worst excuse for not trying it again.
"It varies from state to state, but there are still huge differences between marriages and civil unions. As long as the wording is different, they can be treated differently"
They ARE different. Two men is not sociologically, physically, mentally or emotionally the same as a man and a woman. They should be treated differently. What's wrong with that?
Aren't we supposed to be "celebrating our differences"? Unless of course they prevent us from getting what we WEEEELY WEEEEELY want.
I'm an atheist. I'm also the unfortunate beneficiary of a large insurance settlement. I have had a vasectomy because I have no desire to have children.
In short, you were completely wrong with your knee jerk reaction.
You on the other hand are a pathetic little person who resorts to name calling and lying to browbeat others into agreeing with you.
And the proof of that is right there on the screen for everyone to see.
Slashdot Mirror
I have had to deal with a similar problem. A student who claimed not to beleive in evolution (to get out of work). I SHOWED her evolution in action (easy with the right lab equipment) after which I had to deal with the parents. Sigh.
The question I have about ID is, what class does it belong in? Not science, because there is no science involved. Social studies perhaps? I imagine if the educators were smart enough to realize this, and shipped the discussion of ID to a "religion" class, they could end this for good.
If you have directv, there is an extra channel called History International (at least there was a few months ago). I don't have the dish anymore, but I bet it's still showing.
You know, I like that.
From now on, instead of calling those who object to antennas "luddites" I'll call them art students. Wonderful euphemism.
Amazingly, you have written an entire post critical of alternative energy sources, yet provided NO alternatives of your own.
"I'm all for alternative fuels"
Doesn't sound like it. Sounds more like you're a typical reactionary who's more interested in getting attention than solving anything.
"He states over and over and over, that he is not trying to persuade anyone. He states this incessantly"
Well, sounds like he persuaded you that he's not trying to persuade anyone...
I had no idea there was a shortage of Natural Stupidity. We must begin conservation efforts immediately.
No more soviet russia, overlord, or virii references in any of your posts please.
Are you doing your part?
"We stamp things out. This is the nature of America as far back as the Puritans. We do not encourage. We do not foster. If something new springs up in America, it's because we didn't see it coming fast enough to ban it"
You mean like the US itself? Because, you know, it sprang up. I don't recall us trying to stamp it out.
Then of coures there's women's suffrage, income tax, Social Security, and countless other examples of things that "sprang up" yet seem to have avoided being "stamped out"
I doubt we missed seeing any of these things coming.
So you offer your unsubstantiated opinion as proof? Exactly what I expect from you people.
AND NO I'M NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN SO DON'T TRY TO RESPOND WITH SOME IDIOTIC ANTI-REPUBLICAN TRIPE.
I'll probably agree with it.
I'm making an ass of myself?
How so? By name calling? Well YOU did it too, so what does that make you, ASS?
How do people like you get so stupid?
I imagine someone of your limited intellect has personal experience with "making an ass of yourself"
Now shut up and let the big boys chat.
"I fight for the extreme because I know what the other extreme wants: the right to kill homosexuals on sight"
Youare an imbecile. I have no idea why you would post such an idiotic statment.
"If "civil unions" with legal rights and benefits identical to those afforded opposite-sex couples were available to same-sex couples, I probably wouldn't argue. Unfortunately, the majority of those strongly fighting against same-sex marriage don't even want that much. The majority of those opposed to same-sex "marriage" -- at least those with political clout -- want to deny any legal protection available to same-sex couples, and in some cases (like Kansas and Virginia) deny even the existing options available"
Yes, but that's not ME, so why bring it up in a conversation about what I think?
"And why is this the case? Can you offer something more than BISS?"
Answer my question first. Why shouldn't straight couples be allowed to have a unique ceremony?
Because YOU said so? Gays say so?
"So, I ask you, have you been successful in moving your education or business organization from MS Office to OpenOffice"
Nope. My facility had 5 old computers that were being replaced, so I got them put in my classroom.
I asked my supervisor about installing such products. I was asked
"Who will support it when you install it?"
Um, me.
"That's not your job, you're a teacher. Can't the IT department do it?"
So I asked them, and they said,
"We're starting to use some of that Linux stuff (?) but we're not allowed to install or support it."
I have yet to receive an answer as to why that is, but I have heard that someone in IT is afraid of the GPL. I find it difficult to believe that anyone in my company's IT department has READ the GPL, let alone understands it's intracacies.
Regardless, the idea got squished. No open source in the classroom, and no real reason why.
Gender is not a protected class. Neither is sexual activity (which is what homosexuaility is) You despit your attempts to obfuscate, you cannot have inequality where PERFECT EQUALITY exists. What those people WANT is not relevant. You didn't refute my argument, you just spouted your lame taking points. Again? "which is that people should be allowed to marry WHO THEY WANT TO (within the bounds of consensual adult relationships)" Why qualify it? Why not three? Ten? Children? You're discriminating based on age, to use your own twisted logic. Why can't a 12 year old marry if they want to? "That's why it IS an equality issue" Either you're trying to be obtuse, or you don't know what equality is. Deny it all you want, you're wrong, and I've proved it. And now we're done.
Is a car a camel? Why not? You can get into specifics, but ultimately the reason is they are different.
A gay couple is not the same as a straight couple. the differences, some subtle, some glaringly obvious, are important. So important, that I believe they deserve different distinctions. Not because I think one is better or worse, but because good marriages deserve to be recognized as special. I don't believe expanding the definition at the outcry of any group is a good idea. Marriage has a place in our society that is too fundamental, too important, to be diluted by any group tacking it name on.
Gays deserve equal protection in every way. Civil unions or whatever you wish to call them, with all the ceremony (probably more fun too) and rights and responsibilities.
But marriage is a special ceremony reserved for straight couples. Why is that a bad thing, that a group gets to have something unique?
Ok,I would like you to listen. Seriously. You and others have a misconception about gay marriage. It is NOT about equality. Listen, and I promise I'll explain. You can disagree, but my points are still reasonable. Gays have equality as it rlates to marriage. I know you want to yell. Wait. I can only marry a woman. A gay man can ALSO only marry a woman. The same is true for women. Gay marriage would require the establishment of a new right/privelige. That of marrying a same sex partner. That is currently legal for no one. Now I know, why would I want to marry a man? Not the point. But the two men love each other and should be allowed to commit legally. ALSO not the point. The point is that currently, the law allows for perfect equality in marriage. No special protections for anyone. Now what you need to ask yourself (because I have taken time to read your posts) is WHY has the discussion been framed as an "equality" issue? Why do the people you agree with have to engage in such intellectual dishonesty? I am not against gays committing, legally equivalent to marriage. But it is not marriage. Gays should take the opportunity and say "Fuck the establishment" and creat their own ceremony. Then get it legalised. Like Kwanzaa. Why don't they?
Nice try, but BS. You crossed one of my lines.
DO NOT EVER ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK. EVER.
I asked a RIGHTS queston. Nothing more. You attempted to attribute a position to me, and then knocked it down. What logical fallacy is that again?
You deserve a personal attack. You deserve several for attempting to engage in such intellectual dishonesty.
They should. I never claimed anywhere that they shouldn't.
But you assumed because I have reservations about gay marriage, that I hate gays.
Oops.
Oh, and by the way, you fucked up. Just admit it, I got the better of this one.
"Nobody's fighting for protections for pro-gay-marriage people, but for actual gays"
You weren't reading the thread, or you're a retard.
The ACLU does. I'm a member, so I know.
More importantly, the ENTIRE POINT of the thread was minority "protections". That was ALL we talked about, and the context is crystal clear to anyone. Not gays, but MINORITY PROTECTIONS.
Nice try though. You fucked up, got caught, and tried to sneak one by. Silly boy, just admit you blew it and we'll both laugh it off.
Because you did fuck up. And we all saw it.
Typical. Instead of reason, you get snottiness. You people wonder why you lost the last election.
(No, I Didn't veote for Bush)
Um, sorry to burst your overly critical and factually incorrect bubble, but there was no analogy in there.
Why should I attempt to have a conversation with someone who twists reality to suit their argument?
"Also, assuming that everyone who advocates for gay rights must be gay just reveals your ignorance"
I didn't assume that. I inferred FROM HIS POST that he was pro gay marriage. That puts him in the... wait for it...
MINORITY!
Funny how you tried to chastise me for assuming, but I didn't and you did. Ha! Funny right?
Why isn't a car a camel? The answer is the same for your question.
Well just yesterday I told someone the Bible is a book of lies. It is. But because you said it, I must be christian.
No reason or logic, just lies and name calling. Did a priest touch your no-no when you were in church? Is that why the wittle baby is so pouty-wouty?
Sad, pathetic thing. You're a liar and a coward, and we see it. Every time you post you back it up. If you had looked like you claim to, you'd see very clearly that you were wrong. But you won't. Because you're only interested in adding to others' misery to make you temporarily forget your pathetic, go nowwhere do nothing life.
And I got in to MS early and quintupled my money. Eat it browneye.
"If the two chix are deeply devoted to each other and spend the rest of their lives together (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...), that's not a marriage?"
Nope,sucks for them, but they're stuck with it.
"Well, if it was possiable to get equal rights in any other way, then it probably wouldn't be the issue it is. Separate but equal has been tried, and it failed pretty miserably"
Works fine in Vermont. The fact that something failed previously is THE worst excuse for not trying it again.
"It varies from state to state, but there are still huge differences between marriages and civil unions. As long as the wording is different, they can be treated differently"
They ARE different. Two men is not sociologically, physically, mentally or emotionally the same as a man and a woman. They should be treated differently. What's wrong with that?
Aren't we supposed to be "celebrating our differences"? Unless of course they prevent us from getting what we WEEEELY WEEEEELY want.
Frustrating. Like having a conversation with a five year old.
DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG. MORALLY. EVEN IN RECOMPENSE FOR PREVIOUS DISCRIMINATION.
The fact that you REFUSE to acknowledge that illustrates that you are willing to twist the definition of moral to suit your uses.
Wrong is wrong. And you CAN'T support affirmative action morally, because then you're a hypocrite. There are no other choices.
It's sad that your moral compass is so fucked up that you think discrimination is acceptable.
Come back with some proof.
I'm an atheist. I'm also the unfortunate beneficiary of a large insurance settlement. I have had a vasectomy because I have no desire to have children.
In short, you were completely wrong with your knee jerk reaction.
You on the other hand are a pathetic little person who resorts to name calling and lying to browbeat others into agreeing with you.
And the proof of that is right there on the screen for everyone to see.