Re: Guber is so cool -- Boston Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:36:57 03/02/03 Sun
Author: juri
Subject: Re: Guber is so cool
In reply to: Wakener 's message, "Re: Guber is so cool" on 17:52:56 03/01/03 Sat

> But, in the words of Han Solo, that's the real
>trick, isn't it? Publicly condoning one person or
>group's beliefs is *always* going to impinge on the
>freedoms of others in some way or other. You say that
>a GSA or presumably some other sexuality program in a
>public format--an acceptable one being school-run is
>necessary to combat STDs. Well, why are such formats
>always so opposed to teaching abstinence? And suppose
>a parent wants to emphasize abstinence to their child
>as the only method of combatting STDs and other
>consequences of sexual activity that is compatible
>with the beliefs they wish to uphold in their
>household? Why is it right to deny them that
>particular freedom? If someone wants to teach about
>condoms, why is it okay to force THAT teaching down
>the throat of others, but it is wrong to teach
>abstinence?

Personally, I'm all for teaching about abstinence and birth control. I've always been to private schools that have emphasized abstinence though. *shrugs* Granted that's not really the case here... I believe what I was trying to make a point of, is that we shouldn't ignore educating young adults about controversial things just to spare people's feelings if these are things that are just going to come up later in life. Granted, education should be secular in public schools, which is where we get into a problem, but if you're broad enough nobody's toes get stepped on... But that's always been the problem with public schools and the government in general, ne?

>Just for perspective, if the mass media were treating
>teenage sexuality they way they are treating teenage
>smoking, people would be calling them fascists, and
>vice versa. You don't see anyone saying "Well, since
>the kids are going to smoke anyway, let's teach them
>about filters." Ever wonder why? Both actions can have
>negative repercussions, and both can be said "no" to.
>But smoking should be eradicated, and sexual activity
>among minors should be accommodated.

I'm not codoning smoking, but... I think a lot more teenagers have sex than smoke, but granted this is just based on the people I know *shrugs* Also, a lot of attitudes about sex are left over from Victorian society, while it's only recently that smoking has been looked on as a bad thing. But yes, double standards are such a problem in this society.

>Pick the other side, see what the other side's
>representative says when he or she comes up in the
>story (in the case of the most recent episode, people
>from the swim team would be one group, and the
>concerned parents would be another group critical of
>sexuality discussion groups. Neither of them serve as
>a positive example, but is there a case to be made
>that could be made by someone who was not presented as
>inherently negative?) See if you can come up with a
>better argument for their side than they can--and it
>should be one based on facts, rather than emotions. If
>you lack the facts, you might want to look them up,
>especially if the issue is important enough--and how
>controversial could it be if it were not important?

Yes, I would like to see an episode like that... I'd love to hear a good arguement for some of things I disagree with. If someone could give me a good, factual arguement against homosexuality, I'd respect them a lot more than people have emotional arguements...

> Oh, and as for the genius girl . . . I am rather
>tired of seeing the same "genius" stereotype year
>after year. It makes me wonder if any of these
>Hollywood types ever did any research with actual
>prodigies. Believe me, I've met many over the years--I
>was one myself--and I have yet to meet any like the
>ones on TV. You know, the ones who do nothing but
>discuss Sartre and Camus, play chess with older people
>and always win, quote various dead folks, and cry a
>lot about the plight of their abnormality. The ones in
>my circles had their areas of interest, sure, and some
>of us were nerdy, but geez! We were always more
>interested in coming up with creative new ways to goof
>off and make logically-consistent utter absurdities.
>Not a one of us was maudlin.

Lol. Well I am a nerd and I do play chess with older people and win (although recently I've been playing like crap, but under normal circumstances I can.) But, your right... I have met a few people who do fit that stereotype, but in general the child geniuses I know are more "eccentric" than anything else... They characterized her pretty well, even if she was stereotypical, she was unique enough, I thought.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]