Public Education Discrimination...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by train, Jul 28, 2003.

  1. Lotus Mox New Member

    That was awesome, it kinda summed up what I think about many people and their Gods, I just never found the right words.
    OTOH I find it kind of funny that you regard Greek philosophy so highly, yet see homosexuality as a degeneration. ;)
  2. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I too have know plenty - I'm arguing that they should allow this school to be open - but allow anyone to attend it - if it's going to be "Public"... Don't use public funds for it if it's not going to be public...

    "Romans had their "hay days" with homosexuality also..."

    "Catholics anyone?..." - This coming from a former catholic - so I can speak on the topic without prejudice from another religion...
  3. Aku Necromancer Headlights off

    As DUke pointed out before…many of them, if given the choice would rather be straight…
    Trust me on this…my friend didn’t tell anyone he was gay for four years because he feared backlash, he stayed in the comfort zone for that time until he told a few close friends, one being a roommate who then kicked him out of the apartment. Doesn’t sound like fun huh….

    Is it any wonder why so many of them keep it a secret? Have you ever tried to keep something to yourself? Or be true to thyself? It isn't easy and not a lot of fun.

    Oh…also, Homosexuality is one large reason why so many young teens commit suicide…

    Your struggles were not the same…yours weren't permanent

    Idea good….approach bad,

    Documented
  4. EricBess Active Member

    Spiderman - I agree, kids will experiement regardless. However, in general, there is a level of respect that will help determine to what degree they experiment. For example, a child who's father gives him a cigarrette at age 12 is far more likely to end up smoking pot than the child who is taught the harmful effects of smoking. The later child may or may not end up trying a cigarrette, but will likely not go beyond that. Granted, each case is different, but in general...

    Duke - I said "...their Lord..." because The Lord is the same for everyone, regardless of whether or not their is a belief system in place. My point, however, was that their circumstances could mitigate in whether or not what they did was "wrong" by their understanding.

    I don't believe in Dogma. Rather, I believe that, if you look for it, you can see the hand of God in everything that surrounds you. How miraculous is life? The fact that a bunch of apparently random particles that come together based on genetic coding (where did that come from?) to form an entity that not only has the ability to move around, but free will and a sence of self and identity.

    Regardless, assume for a moment Duke that there is a God and that God created this earth and everything on it. Do you think you could put that much creative energy into something and not care what becomes of it? Can you imagine a father that raises a child and then decides when the child turns 15 that he's going to ignore it for the rest of his life?

    That brings me to TICM - Assuming that God is the literal Father of our spirits, consider that all people on this earth are given some sort of internal "guide" that teaches them right from wrong. Call it conscious, call it "the Light of Christ", call it what you will, but if God is literally our Father, doesn't it make sense that he would want to give us some sort of guidance? Something that wouldn't completely negate faith, but rather that would encourage it?

    Spiderman - What is and is not acceptable behavior within the bonds of marriage is between the couple and (based on the above) what they are personally comfortable with. I personally would say that if something is not comfortable (on more of an emotional level than a physical one), then perhaps you already know for yourself. :D

    Back to Duke - perhaps you feel life is a huge coincidence. Perhaps you think God created us for a collosal joke. Perhaps you don't really worry about what to believe, but just like stirring the pot (that's my guess :D). There will come a day when you will know, though, same as me. At any rate, I certainly respect you, but I think you have a nasty little habit of twisting what is said just a bit :D
  5. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I've been avoiding this topic for a while, because it hits REALLY close to home. I've been avoiding this for a while because I know how homophobic so many of you are, but here goes:

    I'm gay.

    I just figured this out a few months ago and it's forced me to totally re-evaluate my life and most of the ways I look at things. I don't consider myself unnatural. I don't consider myself immoral. I'm in no hurry to have casual, unprotected sex w/ countless partners. I'm not even attracted to any one particular male figure. I just know that I'm not into women. It's just not me.

    Should gay schools be open - especially with public funds? No. Neither should public schools that discriminate any other groups (race, religion, gender, etc).

    Should gay relationships be acknowledged by the state and society as acceptable? Why not? If two people are in love w/ each other and just happen to be of the same gender why is it so bad? They're happy. Why can't you be? Does our "alternative lifestyle" scare you? Is it so different from your pre-conceived point of view that you must shun it? Has President Bush, the Pope, and Dr. Laura influenced you so much that you can't think for yourself?

    ...I already know what's coming. There's going to be quotes from the Bible telling me how wrong it is. There will even be quotes from the Koran (Kuran, Quran, Quaker Oatmeal, etc) telling me how wrong it is. All this will do is prove how you can't formulate your own opinions, but would rather hide behind ancient predjudices...

    -Ferret

    "Why can't ignorance be painful?"
  6. Aku Necromancer Headlights off

    Ferret....

    Don't worry, I actually think the majority of the board are modern thinkers....I for one feel that love is love. Period. And no one in the world has a right to say who can love whom....I am willing to bet my soul most others feel the same

    :)
  7. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    First, Lotus Mox - I never ever mentioned that I was fond of the Greeks...or their philosophy. I was simply stating the fact that society has been shaped by what they believed. Additionally, just because I think homosexuality is a form of degeneration doesn't at all mean I think it's "bad." Like I previously stated, all my friends are either homosexual or bisexual. I generally find them to be higher on the intellectual scale, more spirited, more passionate about life, and better people in general. That doesn't make it "natural." I don't believe that men were desirous to interact sexually with other men way in the past, but I do believe that men have always had the capacity to pay reverence to what is beautiful, including beautiful men.

    Homosexuality as a sexual interaction between two men or two women, now here we begin to reach muddy grounds.

    ...it might seem like I'm trying to enforce a "higher order" or some "divine purpose" - but again, I don't speak from there. I believe this way because I believe something along the way caused men to want to interact sexually with other men. Having reverence for beauty is completely different than actually sleeping with men...although I can understand how this can easily be misunderstood, especially here in America...maybe in the entire West.
    I never said such a thing. What I said was that homosexuals are homosexuals beyond choice – there is no “preference” about it, so the term “sexual preference” is incorrect. I have never in my life encountered a homo or bisexual who desired to be "straight." Most of the one's I know, seeing as how they are generally around 40, love being who they are. And I'm not using the term "love" to mean "accept." No, I mean they worship their sexuality. There is no regretting, wishing, and hoping...
    I don't feel the same. In fact, I disagree. It's really slavish to think this way: "what I feel is right and no one has any power over it...yet I have the power over what others should feel, or how others should go, or that Christianity is 'good.'" I don't even believe in "love." I believe there is a sense of insecurity, fear of loneliness, and in all cases not wanting to discover one's self. That's what I gather from love after my "The Immoralities of Love" ethics paper.

    Now to Eric...if and when you read this, you must not take anything personally (trust me, what're you about to read is downright offending). You know I like you - what I'm speaking about are religious men as I have experienced them...not Christians, not Muslims...just religious men of all ages and types. Please do not take it personally. :)

    How is it that you say their Lord yet you mean the one and only divine Lord? :) But this is being too picky...

    How do you say the Lord is the same for everyone yet you proudly call yourself a "Christian"? Shouldn't you be more, say, universal? Since the Lord is the same, why be a Christian? Fine. You say Christianity is what tied you to your Lord, but you're done now. You've found the Lord - why remain a Christian? Should your story now revolve around you and your Lord, and not still be in need of something as temporal as Christianity?

    You've found the Lord. What a noble man this makes you for so little of a price. You still enjoy and seek the pleasures of this life, you desire your best interest still, and secretly you desire illness on those who thwart your mission to happiness. Or, if you're completely poisoned with Christianity, you might even be all-forgiving - as in you suppress your anger and rage, you try to silence it, and then it grows inside of you as a cancerous belief. It really gives you broad unconscious. Let me tell you one thing: you don't learn to be a Christian. You don't become a Christian. You don't become anything. The mere fact that you are so close to your Christianity means you strive to become what you are not. What you originally lack you try to learn through Christianity. Here's the deal: you do not learn above and beyond your Nature. You are what you are. You don't become. When someone who lacks attempt to become something else, they become suppressive and abusive to themselves. For example, you might tolerate and consider different people, you might even forgive them out of your Christianity, and not out of your Nature - meaning you go against yourself. But there is no such thing as "going against one's self" - there is no defying one's desires: what you actually do when you do the "right thing" out of Christianity or Religion, as in forgiveness and tolerance, you are merely suppressing what you instinctively feel. It really gives you a nice surface though - a noble man's surface - but it defiles your inside - it gives you a "psychology." It gives you an unconscious. It...divides your mind. It divides your body. It divides you as a whole.

    You become a Holy Man, but not a Wholly man. Holiness as I understand it, it means sickness - multi-mindedness, unconsciousness, and self deception: it means cheating one’s self from what one is and striving to become what one is not. That you tell me you’re so fond of Christianity, still after you’ve found your divine Lord, it only means that you’ve sought and sought for all your life until you became who you are today, out of compulsion, out of necessity, perhaps out of fear and trembling, out of weakness, self-inefficiency, and retardation in general. You didn't become "noble" out of willingness, out of Nature, out of heart. Your Nature is wretched, thus you need to “cure” it. But here I am, and tell you: there is no cure, only suppression, reformation of what you are. If it is filth, wretchedness, and lustfulness is what you are, than that is what you will remain - you might it suppress it (reform it), you might delay it, you might sincerely try to change...but there is no overruling your Nature, no going beyond one's desires. You are your desires. And if you needed Christianity at a point in time, it means that you discovered yourself to be an inferior type of human beings, a lower animal who needs to be cured. You don’t lose your intolerance, hatred, violence, and resentment, rather you only conceal it behind what you call “divine.” You shield yourself away from examination because you have degenerated that far. To the point that our modern societies value your types as normal human beings, giving them the "right" and "freedom" they so desire, enabling the wretched to the exclusive freedom that is only earned through one's Nature, and not attained. These types of men are so dangerous in a democratic society, because their voices are “equally heard” when they deserve no attention whatsoever. They are, in any case, the lower species of humanity. I have a special name for those…

    Noble men exist, I assure you, but they are by Nature tolerant, accepting, striving, thoughtful, and spiritual too. There is no compulsion about it, no learning, no waiting for a reward. They don’t learn it. They don’t consider out of their God, but out of their being. They are by Nature great human beings.

    Just because they are not random doesn't mean there is a God. It only means one thing: they are not random. Randomness, chaos, and order are human valuations. What is random? What is chaos? You are bound to answer such questions with what your human eyes see. There is no randomness whatsoever, only to the human being and their interpretation. And even in such valuations, you only interpret what affirms you, and not what denies you. Order is that which says Yes to you. Chaos is that which opposes you. It's that simple. Evil is that which thwarts your happiness. Good is that which makes you happy. All your valuations, including moral and political, are merely based on what you physiologically and psychologically need. You can't do otherwise - there is no "objectivity" about your being. As long as you are alive, your desires are your only horizons. Conceal them all you want behind words like “reason,” “objectivity,” “love for others,” and “divine purpose.” It will not change a thing. Even your Heaven is appealing to you because it gives you a certain sense of satisfaction and comfort, it alleviates you as you escape your responsibility to think, and instead, choose to adapt to what is “good” and “happy,” or in your language, what is “divine.”
    Fine. Let us assume that there is a God. You should know, just for the record, that I'm nowhere near being an atheist - I'm trapped in a trinity of belief, disbelief, and as the leader of this trinity I have my desires. But...let us assume that there is a certain belief, that there is this God who has created Heaven and Earth out his spirit. Let's venture so deep so as to fly beyond the search for God. Now, we are believers. But what matters! What matters is our belief! What matters is God? You are an animal on this Earth. You have an obligation to live, and therefore to be responsible about your life. But since you're a believer, you live a life of resignation, a life that proudly says: "what matter is this life and my spirit, my passion, my desires...if God has a plan for me in another, better life?" - you live your life neglecting life! The terrible selfishness in which you go about your days is quite monstrous too - you live this life but resign from the responsibility of living it to the end...you neglect and ignore serious issues, or people who do not posses your beliefs…because, at the end, "nothing matters but your so-called 'faith' and 'Lord.'" And if I be so kind here today to suggest that such a man must commit his suicide since he is of no use to those who care about this life and this heavenly Earth, you would tell me that your God is not fond of suicide! Because God wants you to live this life too. And the next. And all lives possible. You want all lives possible, don't you? How convenient and easy. You fight so hard to keep your freedom, you even choose sides if needed to be, but when it comes to fairness, for example, you don’t bother with that – “what matters?” you say. Because you want your happiness first. See, you still live this life, but you live it with a spice of deception in it, an extra-sugary sensation of super selfishness that only a religious man can be capable of emitting. Again I ask, what matters is God? You are living this life. Be responsible for this life. Care and strive for and in this life...and that is what you do anyway. You merely use "God" to escape the greater responsibility of not choosing sides, but being your own person. No gaining freedom, but being free if you are, indeed, free. All you want your God for is safety, security, and fulfillment of your desires. That's it. That's faith. That's all faith ever was and that's what faith will remain.
    No I don't. What I do is pull out your feelings based on what you say. Every religious man is naturally paranoid and uncomfortable with his beliefs, they all hesitate before actually speaking about themselves - what I do is try to trip them even more so as to have them slip out what they only want to keep for themselves. I like to hear the whole truth...not just the sugery parts...
  8. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Cool. I just hope that more people can have the courage you do to admit that it's okay to accept gay folks... :D

    -Ferret

    "...can't wait to see everyone else's replies..."
  9. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    I forgot to mention one more thing, Eric - you didn't take me up on my challenge - to read Philosophy in the Bedroom. I've sent so many stuff through mail in the past...and Sade is usually a hard author to find. I am willing to send you an anthology, all on me...just as you promise to read Philosophy in the Bedroom. I want someone religious to share his thoughts with me after going through such debauched pages. :)

    And another thing...

    Where is Chaos Turtle? I did write all that stuff for him...
  10. Aku Necromancer Headlights off

    But you did say,
    I am not entirely positive I interpreted it correctly or….

    If you were to encounter a homosexual or bisexual person in their youth...I am fairly confident that he or she regrets being that way...them and the people around them are not very mature and being in the minority puts a lot of hell on them...however by the time people grow older and trash the high school thinking, they usually grow a heart and ditch the mouth

    Believe it or not we are all seeking love in validating our being. We are born to love and to feel loved. That is what keeps us going. Our sense of purpose if fulfilling love…it's what separates us humans from all other beings…
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    DUke: Evolution: If you read the rest of what I wrote, then you can see that I'm not contradicting myself. In fact, though I thought it was pretty clear even in the two statements you quoted from me, perhaps I need to go through it again.

    Evolution is NOT the same as affecting the gene. As I said, it was the ability to adapt to the environment, of which a gene might help. A "skin color" gene helps a moth to survive. A "homosexuality" gene does not, in today's world, especially reproductive-wise - what helps is society's general attitude towards gay people, which enables them to feel more comfortable (hopefully) and declare themselves, in which case their numbers will increase. All of which I mentioned before. But like the moth, which I said "to my knowledge, was not affected by the factories directly so their genes didn't change, it was all their environment", the homosexuality gene is NOT affected by today's science aside from going in and splicing it or whatever, but by today's societal acceptances; the tide could easily turn, there could be a backlash (already is with the Congressional or Executive push to outlaw gay marriages), and gays could go right back in the "closet" again, thus diminishing their numbers publicly.

    But there is no way philosophy/psychology materially affects the gene, they are immaterial by nature. That is the point I'm trying to make. I think we are ending up talking about the same things except for this one sticking point. You are talking more about enviromental pressures which affect evolution, but not the gene.

    School of thought: I can accept that it's been around awhile. But I do not accept that it is the "correct" one, for reasons already stated - by your use of "you misunderstand".

    EricBess: Kids experimenting: I agree that it's usually case by case, but I don't think it's as general as you put it. A kid in a smoking family can choose to smoke because that's the enviroment he knows, or hate smoking because of the smell or whatever (such as my wife). Parental influence can help, but it's also other factors such as peer pressure or what they develop thinking on their own.

    Bedroom behavior: The point I was trying to make is that if sex is solely for procreation, there is no reason for other acts except for intercourse. If sex is for intimacy, there is no reason why gay people cannot experience it along with heteros.

    train: I think since the "government" or school board has the duty to educate, I don't see anything wrong with setting up a separate school using public funds, especially if current schools are failing that subset of kids right now.

    Ferret: So is this the crisis you alluded to earlier this year? I don't think any less of you, if that helps. Oddly enough though, I've known two gay guys (one openly, one suspect but from his actions everyone tells me he was gay) and they both have hit on me, which made me uncomfortable and pretty much ended any association with them (one was "stalking/hitting on, the other was just really an acquaintance and I moved out of the area some time after that). But it was more to them as people, not as the gay community as a whole.
  12. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Ferret: So is this the crisis you alluded to earlier this year? I don't think any less of you, if that helps. Oddly enough though, I've known two gay guys (one openly, one suspect but from his actions everyone tells me he was gay) and they both have hit on me, which made me uncomfortable and pretty much ended any association with them (one was "stalking/hitting on, the other was just really an acquaintance and I moved out of the area some time after that). But it was more to them as people, not as the gay community as a whole. [/B][/QUOTE]

    In a nutshell: yes, this was my crisis - still is. But, the crisis is not because I'm gay, but because of how it's affecting other people around me. I'm comfortable w/ myself, but a lot of people have had to learn to deal w/ it and I guess some people would rather just ignore something like this than have to deal w/ it. In all honesty, hardly anyone I know has brought up the topic since I first "came out". And, you know what?

    I like it that way. I don't think a person's sexual orientation should be a topic of discussion (unless there's a relationship involved), a political argument, or basis for a religious debate. It's just another aspect of a person. It's the same as their height, weight, eye colour, etc.

    Perhaps, we should set aside these annoying labels and look at them for what they are: people. People that deserve to be taken on a person by person basis and not just categorized and hated before you get to know them. :)

    -Ferret

    "Maybe the reason that those guys were hitting on you is because you're just too darned cute! :D"
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Very true. Unfortunately, easier to say than it is in real life :( Which is why I don't have a problem with the schools.

    Was reading headlines in yesterday's Washington Post and saw that because Texas struck down the sodomy law, support for gay marriage has actually gone down now that people perceive it may very well become a reality, instead of a pipe dream. :(

    I don't think I'm cute.... :eek:

    :)
  14. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Some of the folks on this board have figured this out already. Others might be somewhat surprised, since I don't really advertise it much, though I occasionally drop a hint. But just to avoid any confusion as to where I'm coming from...

    I am gay.

    And I don't care who knows it. I also don't care who doesn't.
    I've enjoyed varying levels of acceptance from family, friends, and society, and it took many years of soul-searching (and one disastrous marriage) to finally come to grips with my genetic lot. It seems some homosexuals and liberal thinkers feel I'm doing "my people" a disservice when I declare my opinions on such topics as special treatment for gays and lesbians, since I generally feel that such favoritism actually harms the chances of society's ever accepting that gays and lesbians (and bisexuals) are just as ordinary as anyone else.

    As for the religious side of the topic, I was once a devout Christian, raised Baptist and converted to Mormonism. I spent a good many years believing that I was being tested/tormented by Satan with homoerotic thoughts and images. I inflicted a great deal of mental and physical pain on myself in an utterly fruitless effort to bring it under control.

    Even when I stopped attending church, I did not give up my beliefs entirely (my reasons for leaving were not related to sexuality, in the main, but to hypocrisy and general illogic). In time, I decided to form my own relationship with God, without any more interference from other mortals. It's a work in progress.

    A quick aside...
    DÛke, what did you write for me? I don't usually read your longer posts unless I see something in them clearly intended for me (my nickname or a quote from me). You already responded to the one and only thing I wrote to you regarding your claim that the general population (in the US at least) would be mostly homosexual, and even predicted an openly gay President around 2167 and complete acceptance before the turn of the century.

    As I said then, those are baseless assertions, and nothing you said in the following post gave any rationale whatsoever for them. They are guesses, and I expect they are not very accurate ones. Now, if you know a seer or fortune-teller who has given you this information, you would at least have a basis for that argument, though I would not likely find it any more credible. ;)

    Well okay, I think that's all I had to say for now.

    (If I don't post more than once or twice on a topic, by the way, the reason is that I usually say all I want to the first time, and only reply to clarify my position or to respond directly to other points or questions that have been raised. I find drawn-out exchanges where people write several paragraphs of stuff that simply restates what he or she already has written -- usually accompanied by thinly-veiled insults like "you obviously still don't understand me" -- to be very dull and pointless.)

    Cheers.
  15. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...
    You say a “homosexuality gene” does not help reproduction wise. Alright. Why do you assume that reproduction is the strive of the species? How do you know, exactly, what is the drive behind reproduction? Could reproduction be a side-effect of sexual pleasure, and not the aim behind intercourse? Could it be a consequence, and not a reward? We can’t exactly know because we are being our own being, we can’t think outside of our being-ness, so we will have to judge our being by the means of our own being, which at the end is useless. A dog can’t judge itself. It sees itself as the “end of the universe.” It doesn’t think man is more intelligent or divine. Each animal is the end of itself, and man thinks the same thing of itself – he only sees himself through himself, and not through the eye of someone higher, someone above and divine.

    You say the moths genes didn't change because of factories, but it was all their environment that eventually changed them. But isn't that what I actually said about homosexuality? I said science didn't affect their genes - in fact, it did not do anything to their genes at all. It was the environment as a whole. And what has always been the environment in the past 2000 or so years? And who knows what exactly the environment was about 10,000 years ago? What was the "strive" for? You also say that psychology and philosophy are immaterial to man's nature, yet you seem to be willing to accept the materiality and necessity of science. Do you mind telling me by what reason you have to declare science as, basically, material, while dismissing philosophy and psychology as immaterial? I, for example, don't make such a distinction - I simply say that all is material...in fact, all is very material. But this materiality, at the end, is the sole reason of the changes that occur in man.

    You and I don't and can't know what exactly is material and immaterial. A dog doesn't think of its nutrition and its "healthiness." They simply obey their instincts. There is no "reason" about their existence. They live out of desire. And so does man, as I have mentioned it over and over again while speaking with Eric. You don't expect to find that taming materiality, that perfect balance in which man can thrive, because we can't look at ourselves as if we were someone above ourselves. We can "fix" dogs and cats, we can tame them, but we cannot tame ourselves. We are only being our being - without control over it. My assertion that all is material is because at a point in time we needed it. We cannot have come to what we are today without the single individual Plato or Socrates. We simply couldn't have. Or without the Greeks for that matter. They constitue all of our beliefs. Do you see that: all of it. Yet you say it's immaterial. You say the foundation and building blocks of society are immaterial, which is downright unacceptable by anyone who's gone to a university for at least 2 years. Many will disagree about the intensity of its affect and its history, of course, but no one says it's "immaterial." You're actually being very radical here. :) And without basis either. :D

    Chaos Turtle, alright. I just thought you wanted to read a little more than just the replies concerning you - it might reveal basis of my assertions, especially the dominance of homosexuality. But...oh well.
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think you went off your own tangent there, unless you're meshing my discussion with EricBess. Homesexuals, by definition, cannot have children and reproduce. They would need some outside intervention, aided by science, in order to be able to pass their genes on. Prior to the 20th century, that was impossible.

    Beats the heck out of me. Like I've said, it's hard to follow your words.

    You better explain again, in different words, how exactly the environment affected their genes. 'Cause I don't see it. Like I've said before, I could see the environment being kinder to gays and enabling them to come out and be counted, but the number of gays remains the same number, whether known or not. Enviroment doesn't change their absolute "numbers".

    I did not say philosophy and psychology was immaterial to man's nature, I said they were immaterial to their genes. There's a difference.
  17. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    I believe you'll understand where I'm heading eventually. You're actually heading there...you're just taking the long way home. :)

    Let me focus on the important parts. You say that "genes" and "nature" are different. Explain please.
  18. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Ferret - Still interested in meeting you sometime and being able to play a great game of Magic...(same with Spidey, if we ever get to DC...)

    Chaos Turtle - Ditto - especially if you're coming through Texas and it's viable...

    Personal views on the subject matter - I hope for everyone that is gay or straight or likes animals for that matter... that happiness is what they experience... it's their life, and they have a right to be happy... :cool:

    Glad to hear that coming from someone with a perspective on the view...

    Spidey - I understand failing the subset of kids, but I think the cause of that failing is not the schools alone, but the moral values of the society in which those schools are harnessed... I don't think it wrong to set up a separate school with those funds - Every school could be tougher when protecting civil liberties...
    I just think the school should say -
    "This is a public school. Anyone wanting to attend here is able to, taking into account the school's student capacity. We will defend any student's civil rights more assertively than most schools. Be aware that most of your classmates may have a different sexual orientation/preference than you do. If you can't bear the thought of that, then you don't need to attend here. The curriculum at this school will be the same as every other school in the (district, region, etc...) and any problems that may arise will be remedied immediately, through any and all legal measures available. This does include criminal charges for violations of civil rights..."

    Can't we all just get along?...
    :)

    *facing reality...*

    "Sadly, no...":(
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    DUke: Genes are the starting blocks, the raw materials that one possesses when they come into the world. One's nature is what develops as one experiences the world, which may or may not develop those genes.

    train: Then there's not much difference between the "gay" school and regular school when you make that announcement. And regular school's are already failing in that respect; moral values have some effect but it's like that from day one: kids have their cliques and likes/dislikes and no matter what the announcement, it's not going to get rid of it. It can alleviate it some to the point where they can walk freely and whatnot, but until that point happens, this new school is an alternative.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Spiderman: but why are you separating genes from nature? It is in nature. Why are you percieving it apart from everything that it is interrelated with - and that would be everything? Why do you try to say "nature is this here," and the unnature is that there? Everything here is nature.
    As long as people like me are alive, and hopefully they will keep on being born, I will not stop at getting along.

    I believe in an order of rank. I believe of castes. I believe in inferiors, superiors, masters, and above all, I believe in slaves.

    As I face the real world, however, I realize that I'm living a fantasy. People are general weak and pathetic. They are weary and all too emotional. I don't like that. I used to be quite a sentimental freak, but no longer do I live like that. I've grown out of it. I have matured.

    It is immature to want to get along with many. One needs respect for one's self, to distance one's self - to strive and work to separate one's self from the good and quite old majority.

    I hate to say this, but we are getting along already...and I don't like it. I believe in superiority, and this superiority is being gained on the basis of material worth, as in money. It's sad when wealth speaks of how "well" a human being has turned out. Or it is being gained by intimidation. It's not gained by passion for life, by intellectual endeavor, by talent. No. The world is made to get "along."

    I don't like that. And I will change it. I’m 20. I will dream, and my dream is to create the order of rank. I'm young and still ignorant to many subjects and issues...but I have my life ahead of me. I will recreate the order of rank, and let any God be my witness.

    And be sure to know that I am not the only one. Why, just another member of the CPA - Duel - is working to create the order of rank. We have huge philosophical disagreements, of course, but our goal is one: order of rank. A way in which "you" and "I" are no longer under the same "right." No. I see the coming of new philosophers who will shake up this world like no others have before...and Duel is one of them.

    Come to think of it, if Duel was here, he could explain my weird language to those here who think I'm confusing. He reads me quite perfectly

    His goal: to bring the downfall of Americanism. My goal: to bring the downfall of the subspecies. The difference: he believes in a "free will," I believe in fatality.

    And more like us will be born posthumously.

Share This Page