| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| The ACLU http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4564 |
Page 3 of 3 |
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Nintendoid wrote: InterruptorJones wrote: King Nintendoid, I really wish you'd stop posting in the R&P forum. Even when you agree with people you somehow manage to diminish their arguments. And other people DON'T?  Compared to you? No, they don't. I'm not trying to be mean, but your posts just don't contribute anything to the discussion. |
|
| Author: | King Nintendoid [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We could debate about this, but such a thread would have a very short lifespan and would spiral down into flaming. *cough* I think I DID contribute to threads here. Looksie around some more. EDIT: Could it perchance have anything to do with that I'm not a christian? [sarcasm]I ish sending the ACLU on ya [/sarcasm]
|
|
| Author: | seamusz [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
InterruptorJones wrote: So why didn't you link to or mention any of those sources when posting your long passages or, for that matter, why didn't you post passages from the respectable sources instead?
Some of them were from the Washington Times, but you have to pay to get into the archives. I wasn't aware that the source of the information would distract from the discussion. I am at work, and I have limited amounts of time to compile posts. |
|
| Author: | racerx_is_alive [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Nintendoid wrote: We could debate about this, but such a thread would have a very short lifespan and would spiral down into flaming.
*cough* I think I DID contribute to threads here. Looksie around some more. EDIT: Could it perchance have anything to do with that I'm not a christian? [sarcasm]I ish sending the ACLU on ya [/sarcasm]Oh please. If there's anything I've learned from IJ's posts in the R&P forum, he's tolerant of every view (even the ones he disagrees with), at least in the sense that he lets you say or argue whatever you choose. And IJ shutting you up because you aren't a christian? That's the 3rd most unreasonable thing you've said in this forum. |
|
| Author: | DanBo [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is there even a religious card? Like you can pull the race card, the sex card, but I've never heard of the Christian card. Wait, actually, my younger cousin was just in a car accident. He was in the right lane, these four middle-aged ladies in the van in the left lane. They pulled sharply into the right lane, hitting my cousin. When the police came to see what had happened, the ladies said something on the lines of "We were on our way to a church meeting/get-together when he suddenly pulled into our lane." All the ladies agreed and proceeded to tell the police where he hit the car by showing their van, which was elaborately decorated with crosses and Christian bumper stickers. My cousin contested, but who will the police believe...a young, male driver, or four church-going ladies? Well, evidently, a nearby store owner had caught the accident on a security camera. Sure enough, the ladies were lying. Goes to show. If religion is your trump card, than expect to lose face in my eyes. It's actions that I judge you upon. The reason IJ is telling you that you aren't contributing, it's just that, not because your religious preferences. |
|
| Author: | Shippinator Mandy [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Nintendoid wrote: Asbstincence is bullcrap to begin with. I don't think the government OR learning institutions should promote such a thing.
Why shouldn't they? Give me one good reason why abstinence is "bullcrap". Really, I think it's a good idea. If you're determined to have sex as a teenager, then yes, you should use a condom (which, of course, can break, but it's better than nothing). But I see no reason why abstinence shouldn't be promoted. |
|
| Author: | DanBo [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, I agree. Abstaining from sex as a teen just makes sense. There are too many risks. However, I think what Nintendoid was talking about was the blanketing of sexual education by the abstinence message. Por ejample, there are many school districts, located mostly in the Bible Belt, that skip over large parts of sex education lessons and basically say "abstain from sex." Many don't include lessons on why prophylactics are used, or how they are used. While thie abstinence message may be a good one, it does nothing to address teens who are going to have sex regardless of what a teacher tells them. It's better to prevent the whole issue, but sometimes, you can't control everything. Teaching kids about prophylactics doesn't push them to have sex. The thing that does that is their hormones. |
|
| Author: | King Nintendoid [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shippinator Mandy wrote: But I see no reason why abstinence shouldn't be promoted.
So you want to raise a generation of horribly inexperienced angsty and hormone-rush teens? |
|
| Author: | DanBo [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Nintendoid wrote: Shippinator Mandy wrote: But I see no reason why abstinence shouldn't be promoted. So you want to raise a generation of horribly inexperienced angsty and hormone-rush teens? Promoted is different than what you're probably thinking. Look at my post earlier. I give reasons for both arguments. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Nintendoid wrote: Shippinator Mandy wrote: But I see no reason why abstinence shouldn't be promoted. So you want to raise a generation of horribly inexperienced angsty and hormone-rush teens? Nintendoid, I don't see how you can claim to be contributing to this conversation when you don't even bother to read entire posts. DanBo clearly stated that he thinks abstinence should be promoted as the safest practice for teenagers, but that safe sex (e.g. STDs, contraception, and so on) should also be thoroughly taught. |
|
| Author: | DESTROY US ALL! [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah just tell the guys about the clap...that gonna keep me abstinent |
|
| Author: | Shippinator Mandy [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DanBo wrote: Yes, I agree. Abstaining from sex as a teen just makes sense. There are too many risks.
However, I think what Nintendoid was talking about was the blanketing of sexual education by the abstinence message. Por ejample, there are many school districts, located mostly in the Bible Belt, that skip over large parts of sex education lessons and basically say "abstain from sex." Many don't include lessons on why prophylactics are used, or how they are used. While thie abstinence message may be a good one, it does nothing to address teens who are going to have sex regardless of what a teacher tells them. It's better to prevent the whole issue, but sometimes, you can't control everything. Teaching kids about prophylactics doesn't push them to have sex. The thing that does that is their hormones. Oh. I wasn't sure what he meant. (Actually, I'm STILL not sure I do. I mean, I understand what you said, but...) You're right, though. All options should be talked about, and nothing should be skipped over. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shippinator Mandy wrote: You're right, though. All options should be talked about, and nothing should be skipped over.
What people have to understand is that no matter what the fundamentalists say, nobody is advocating that we encourage teenagers to have sex. Wait, isn't this topic about the ACLU? Toast comma paint. |
|
| Author: | What's Her Face [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shippinator Mandy wrote: Oh. I wasn't sure what he meant. (Actually, I'm STILL not sure I do. I mean, I understand what you said, but...)
Oh I can understand that. 
*draws line* I think we can now return to what we were talking about originally. When we last left off, we were talking about whether the ACLU promoted paedophiles' freedom of movement at the expence of the safety of children. I'll put this: even if the ACLU supported curbing the movement of paedophiles, or just didn't do anything about it, then what good does that do? For one, monitoring every single paedophile day and night is impossible, and would involve investing money and manpower that I doubt the US government is willing to invest. Two: it doesn't matter how far away paedophiles live from a school, they'll find some way of getting to their victims. Three: paedophiles still have rights that you can't ignore because you want to, and it is the ACLU's duty to protect those rights - I'm not defending everything the ACLU does, but that what they're there for. We were also talking about Affirmative Action - any more thoughts on this? Anything else ACLU-related (nothing else) - post here why not. *sighs, gets off soap box* |
|
| Author: | DanBo [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I really think that the ACLU has a very strategic impulse to protect without considering their social implications. Take for example the civil suit based on the University of Michigan student who was denied acceptance, not because he wasn't qualified, but because he was white. At UM, being black or any other racial minority excluding Asian counted for "more points" than being an overqualified white male or female. To have a perfect SAT score on your transcript was a tally of 16 points. Being African-American was an additional 20 points. So, basically, this is an example of when A.A. goes wrong. Anyone have an idea of who the ACLU-type organizations supported? (Quiz time  )
|
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DanBo wrote: Anyone have an idea of who the ACLU-type organizations supported? (Quiz time
)This thread is about the ACLU, not "ACLU-type organization." If the ACLU itself wasn't involved, it's not relevant to this discussion. |
|
| Author: | DanBo [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
InterruptorJones wrote: DanBo wrote: Anyone have an idea of who the ACLU-type organizations supported? (Quiz time )This thread is about the ACLU, not "ACLU-type organization." If the ACLU itself wasn't involved, it's not relevant to this discussion. But it does, my friend. The ACLU is civil-liberty protecting organization. This time, a sub-organization against the ACLU's Affirmative Action plan, the Center for Individual Rights, took the side against the UM's Affirmative Action. Yet CIR isn't against the ACLU, often siding with it on cases of religious or racial discrimination or just plain "over-PC" (like the boy in NJ who was suspended for wearing a "You Might Be a Redneck" shirt to school because it might upset rednecks). However, the CIR went against the ACLU stand for Affirmative Action, thereby demonstrating the rift that American's have for the definition of "civil liberties." Yes minorities have less of a chance for good education. But what do you use to determine the difference? How strict should the regulations be for non-minorities? Should they be different at all? Should people focus more on mobilizing social change in areas where education has lapses instead? Or should we aim for change at a higher education level? This twirled the ACLU's head around faster than a blender. Just because it wasn't directly involved doesn't mean that the case didn't have an impact on the ACLU. The ACLU lost face after Grutter v. Bollinger. Because the nature of Affirmative Action and it's razor-thin margin of success, the ACLU is banking too much by supporting it, instead of supplementing it with a different plan for social change. |
|
| Author: | What's Her Face [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DanBo wrote: Because the nature of Affirmative Action and it's razor-thin margin of success, the ACLU is banking too much by supporting it, instead of supplementing it with a different plan for social change.
Agreed. And if you are to eradicate any kind of prejudice, it needs to start with the people, not with some lofty organisation which thinks it knows best. What the ACLU fails to realise that Affirmative Action and over-sensitised attitudes defeats the principal they seek to defend - EQUALITY, EQUALITY, EQUALITY. Discrimination is everywhere, and we must all be vigilant. Take a look at this: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,1423288,00.html We've got a long way to go before we end cases like Laura Spence's and others. But you can't get there by stuffing Affirmative Action down everyone's throats - people will only conclude that the ACLU are a bunch of busy-bodies, and all the good work to achieve real equality will be undone. |
|
| Page 3 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|