16 Mar 2022, 7:29 pm
16 Mar 2022, 8:12 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Will Alex Jones still be able to rant about gay frogs?What will the tadpoles think?
Yes...
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
16 Mar 2022, 8:18 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Will Alex Jones still be able to rant about gay frogs?What will the tadpoles think?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.16 Mar 2022, 8:36 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Will Alex Jones still be able to rant about gay frogs?What will the tadpoles think?
How stupid.
16 Mar 2022, 8:39 pm
16 Mar 2022, 9:03 pm
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Will Alex Jones still be able to rant about gay frogs?What will the tadpoles think?
How stupid.
16 Mar 2022, 9:06 pm
Misslizard wrote:
What does rainbow colours got to do with gay frogs?
16 Mar 2022, 9:49 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Mar 2022, 10:42 pm
16 Mar 2022, 11:16 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
What is wrong with being aware of gayness? I mean growing up in the 90's I got hetro relationship shoved down my throat basically every disney movie was girl getting with guy, don't think it would have been harmful to see gay depictions. Maybe I would have become open minded sooner...but for a time I certatainly was anti-gay and bought into thinking it was some sinful evil thing...but that is stupid, religion is stupid, so I am glad I got out of it.
I think you may be missing the point.
Pushing heterosexuality is unwarranted in kindergarten also.
Well, it is in my book.
I am still working out if this is the case with those who created the bill.
It is all about "Parental Rights in Education".
I don't have a problem with that.
Don't be fooled by the "Don’t say gay" title that the hard left has created.
They have politicised the issue to their advantage.
The Oracle of Truth has spoken.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia
16 Mar 2022, 11:22 pm
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Indeed, instructors should present ideas dispassionately.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
Religion is taught to children these days to primarily give them a sense of comfort, imo.
Later on, when they are more intellectually capable of coping, the horrors of our existence can be tackled better.
"The Garden of Eden" is a metaphor for the childish state of mind.
The discovery of sexuality casts them out of that naive paradise.
Some continue to clutch onto the fantasy of a benevolent creator, however.
C'est la vie.
No one is teaching children religion with the intent that they will later grow out of it.
Besides, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that could give it an AO rating.
16 Mar 2022, 11:33 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Indeed, instructors should present ideas dispassionately.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
Religion is taught to children these days to primarily give them a sense of comfort, imo.
Later on, when they are more intellectually capable of coping, the horrors of our existence can be tackled better.
"The Garden of Eden" is a metaphor for the childish state of mind.
The discovery of sexuality casts them out of that naive paradise.
Some continue to clutch onto the fantasy of a benevolent creator, however.
C'est la vie.
No one is teaching children religion with the intent that they will later grow out of it.
Besides, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that could give it an AO rating.
There is no way you can support that statement.
It is self-evidently faulty.
I know of people who have used religion to teach their children a moral code.
The question is, how prevalent is it?
I dare say more so here in Australia than in a more religious country like Ammmuuuria.
And the "AO" section in the Bible is generally devoted to the Old Testament, which is largely ignored these days.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia
16 Mar 2022, 11:48 pm
Lost_dragon wrote:
Quote:
The bill's supporters say it strengthens parental rights by preventing teachers and school staffers from withholding information about gender issues from parents. (An earlier version of the bill went even further, requiring principals to tell parents if a student came out as other than straight. That provision was pulled last month.)
Well, I'm certainly glad that provision was pulled, because that is horrifying. Not everyone is fortunate enough to come from an accepting home and to out a student against their will to a family that could potentially throw them out of their house is awful.If they've been proposing things like that then let's not pretend that any part of this bill is apolitical or about keeping politics out of the classroom. The bill is very political and very much about forcing a certain brand of politics into the classroom.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia
16 Mar 2022, 11:54 pm
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Indeed, instructors should present ideas dispassionately.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
Religion is taught to children these days to primarily give them a sense of comfort, imo.
Later on, when they are more intellectually capable of coping, the horrors of our existence can be tackled better.
"The Garden of Eden" is a metaphor for the childish state of mind.
The discovery of sexuality casts them out of that naive paradise.
Some continue to clutch onto the fantasy of a benevolent creator, however.
C'est la vie.
No one is teaching children religion with the intent that they will later grow out of it.
Besides, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that could give it an AO rating.
There is no way you can support that statement.
It is self-evidently faulty.
I know of people who have used religion to teach their children a moral code.
The question is, how prevalent is it?
I dare say more so here in Australia than in a more religious country like Ammmuuuria.
And the "AO" section in the Bible is generally devoted to the Old Testament, which is largely ignored these days.
Go into any church, mosque or synagogue and ask them if their beliefs are for children only. They want lifelong adherents.
17 Mar 2022, 12:46 am
Pepe wrote:
I think you may be missing the point.
Pushing heterosexuality is unwarranted in kindergarten also.
Well, it is in my book.
I am still working out if this is the case with those who created the bill.
It is all about "Parental Rights in Education".
I don't have a problem with that.
Don't be fooled by the "Don’t say gay" title that the hard left has created.
They have politicised the issue to their advantage.
The Oracle of Truth has spoken.
I get that the bill doesn't have the word "gay" in it, but it DOES say things about "not allowing LGBT discussion in classroom" and leaving that entierly up to parents, including the socially conservative ones who have beliefs that lead to them shaming their kids for their sexuality and what not. Either that or they influence their kids to think in delusional, bigoted ways, which will leave the country with just as many of those types of people as we do now. And being a young LGBT individual will continue to be a challenge, especially if their parents are the type to shame them for that.Pushing heterosexuality is unwarranted in kindergarten also.
Well, it is in my book.
I am still working out if this is the case with those who created the bill.
It is all about "Parental Rights in Education".
I don't have a problem with that.
Don't be fooled by the "Don’t say gay" title that the hard left has created.
They have politicised the issue to their advantage.
The Oracle of Truth has spoken.
And yes, again, in Florida LGBT discussion may be allowed in grades 4-12, but there's other states that might wanna go further than that. It certainly is bad enough that we have governers in this country who pander to parents who wanna indoctrinate their kids into their religion and all that's bad about it.
17 Mar 2022, 12:52 am
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Indeed, instructors should present ideas dispassionately.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.
Religion is taught to children these days to primarily give them a sense of comfort, imo.
Later on, when they are more intellectually capable of coping, the horrors of our existence can be tackled better.
"The Garden of Eden" is a metaphor for the childish state of mind.
The discovery of sexuality casts them out of that naive paradise.
Some continue to clutch onto the fantasy of a benevolent creator, however.
C'est la vie.
No one is teaching children religion with the intent that they will later grow out of it.
Besides, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that could give it an AO rating.
There is no way you can support that statement.
It is self-evidently faulty.
I know of people who have used religion to teach their children a moral code.
The question is, how prevalent is it?
I dare say more so here in Australia than in a more religious country like Ammmuuuria.
And the "AO" section in the Bible is generally devoted to the Old Testament, which is largely ignored these days.
Go into any church, mosque or synagogue and ask them if their beliefs are for children only. They want lifelong adherents.
You are an Australian and you haven't seen how few people go to church these days compared to 50 years ago?
"Interesting".
