Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
haven, where they can get an education,
without being a target of bigtory.
"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message news:<j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam>...
> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> haven, where they can get an education,
> without being a target of bigtory.
Some thoughts I had on this...
(1) How are kids these days so much more enlightened about themselves
than adolescents throughout history who traditionally have no idea who
they are during their teen years? Aren't these the formative years?
(2) This is segregation. It's a self-identified group of people who
are effectively removing themselves from mainstream America. Gays only
- no others need apply. What now ... school for blacks only? School
for Jews only? School for whites only? School for
people-with-no-special-characterisitics-just-plain-generic only? How
about a school for heterosexual kids only? I'd like to see 'em try
that one.
(3) Special interest? Instead of the gay community striving for
integration and acceptance, they want to support a special school for
gays only...and that's not special interest?
(4) The bottom line on NYC's Mayor Bloomberg: he supports government
dollars for a school that segregates people.
Heard on a radio talk show: these kids get picked on in regular high
schools, that's why they need their own place to learn.
Of course they get picked on! Everybody gets picked on in high school
!!! That's part of growing up, kids perceive you as the slightest bit
different and they pick on you. Kids are mean! Get over it! Unless
you're an athlete or a rebel type - someone who can kick the ass of
anyone who picks on you - you are likely going to suffer some verbal
abuse, maybe more. It's been happening for centuries. For crying out
loud, being gay doesn't make you superior. What about geeks,
traditionally the highest percentage of POKs (Picked On Kids) in
school? How about a school for geeks only? And yes, I know that there
are techie schools that attract geeks, buy their acceptance is based
on achievment, not whether or not someone picks on you for eating your
boogers. Or maybe a high school for goths only; I know, they could
renovate an old cathedral! Maybe a high school for only beautiful
kids, so they don't have to associate with the other riff-raff.
If you follow the "logic" behind a school for gays only, you have to
go where that road leads - unless you're hypocritical. And that is
where I think the special interest group's track records speak
volumes.
In article <j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam>,
"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> haven, where they can get an education,
> without being a target of bigtory.
Meanwhile, strapping an already financially bankrupt city with an
additional $3.2 million... *AND* offering up more ammunition to the
anti-affirmative action crowd.
BTW, torres... Will you be shrieking, gnashing your teeth and wringing
your proletarian hands if a straight student applies for and is then
denied enrollment based upon their sexual orientation?
--
Emmi H
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:04:47 GMT, "torresD"
<torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
>Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>haven, where they can get an education,
>without being a target of bigtory.
>
>
Well sure, if our aim is to educate them, then it's also wise
to get our monies worth, so why not give them an environment
where they won't suffer "social distractions" from the main
objective which is learning? We've had all male schools, we've
had all girls schools. Further, I don't think that a "straight"
person who really wants to attend would be turned away unless
they were "uncool". I see no Biggie here although I know that
some will rant and rage about how their belief systems don't
allow them to tolerate what other people do. But then, that's
just such an ignorant position to take they destroy their own
credibility to issue the challenge.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
None draws the ire, none is a target for ridicule, abuse,
in the same way that homosexual kids are.
"Who Cares?" <whocares@no-spam> wrote in message
news:5VwVa.2060$Bg.1860@no-spam
>
> "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
> | Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> | haven, where they can get an education,
> | without being a target of bigtory.
>
> Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
> Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> education, without being a target of bigotry.
Jews have Yeshiva, Catholics have their, send your son
to our Catholic Schools at your own risk.
> Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> education, without being a target of bigotry.
They do, at least in NYC, Public Schools are dominated
by Minority Kids.
There is a program in the Bronx, where I refer kids to
that are having problems, it is all minority.
> Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
> It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
> are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
> time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
> each?
>
> But then again,
>
> Who Cares?
>
>
On 29 Jul 2003 08:21:18 -0700, dori_duz@no-spam (Dori) wrote:
>"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message news:<j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam>...
>> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>> haven, where they can get an education,
>> without being a target of bigtory.
>
>Some thoughts I had on this...
I have some thoughts on your thoughts...
>
>(1) How are kids these days so much more enlightened about themselves
>than adolescents throughout history who traditionally have no idea who
>they are during their teen years? Aren't these the formative years?
Yes they are formative years and it appears that this is the
way things formed for these kids. You, of course, realize that
not everything about you, yourself was a matter of your own
conscious choice? The "range" of the species is large and that
accounts not only for the great variety of cultures but other
proclivities besides.
>(2) This is segregation. It's a self-identified group of people who
>are effectively removing themselves from mainstream America.
No more than boys and girls only schools are segregation. It
has to do more with lessening tensions that are known to normally
exist between people of opposite sex and even varied sexual
preferences. Why shouldn't they be availed of the opportunity to
take that element out of the way of learning?
>Gays only - no others need apply. What now ... school for blacks only? School for Jews only? School for whites only? School for
>people-with-no-special-characterisitics-just-plain-generic only? How
>about a school for heterosexual kids only? I'd like to see 'em try
>that one.
I think your are "extrapolating" to far afield from what is
rationally possible. A more rational view is that this school is
mainly labeled for gays and does not mean that no one else will
be accepted. But, by being the school is labeled "for gays",
they can feel comfortable knowing it's mainly for them.
>(3) Special interest? Instead of the gay community striving for
>integration and acceptance, they want to support a special school for
>gays only...and that's not special interest?
But... By merely voicing you're opposition you are asking for
special preference, although you cleverly have avoided stating
for what special preference you'd rather opt. Do you find it
somehow intolerable that there now exists a school that is
primarily slated for gays? Perhaps then we should reconsider (to
steal a page from the playbook you're reading from) special
schools for the arts? Science? Technology? Couldn't we do the
same "extrapolating" with these categories that you've engaged in
above?
>(4) The bottom line on NYC's Mayor Bloomberg: he supports government
>dollars for a school that segregates people.
Which is an attempt to act totally clueless, there is a need to
"segregate" people that is clear and beneficial for all, since it
removes distracting "invidiously distinctive" characteristics
that can and do get in the way of learning for all. It is why
people with disabilities are often given facilities where they
can feel comfortably "normal" among people who are equally
challenged and with whom they can more easily relate.
I have not yet heard that there will be any draconianly imposed
mandates for entry/exclusion that you have hastened to conclude
will be the case. So why not relax, give others their space and
see what develops? Wouldn't you want your own "space" for what
you prefer?
>Heard on a radio talk show: these kids get picked on in regular high
>schools, that's why they need their own place to learn.
>
>Of course they get picked on! Everybody gets picked on in high school
>!!! That's part of growing up, kids perceive you as the slightest bit
>different and they pick on you. Kids are mean! Get over it! Unless
>you're an athlete or a rebel type - someone who can kick the ass of
>anyone who picks on you - you are likely going to suffer some verbal
>abuse, maybe more. It's been happening for centuries. For crying out
>loud, being gay doesn't make you superior. What about geeks,
>traditionally the highest percentage of POKs (Picked On Kids) in
>school? How about a school for geeks only? And yes, I know that there
>are techie schools that attract geeks, buy their acceptance is based
>on achievment, not whether or not someone picks on you for eating your
>boogers. Or maybe a high school for goths only; I know, they could
>renovate an old cathedral! Maybe a high school for only beautiful
>kids, so they don't have to associate with the other riff-raff.
Sure kids get picked on, but those with, ah, shall we say
non-mainstream characteristics get more than their share because
they are such easy targets and who could disagree with their
detractors? The problem you're failing to see is that there is a
social and cultural barrier that society has yet to be able to
cross. So, then, why should these children be forced to wait
until that happens before they can peacefully persue learning?
To think of your offers you'd think that perhaps it'd be a good
thing to force every kid to absorb lots of good healthy abuse
during the school year? Do not worry, even in an all gay school,
I'm more than certain they will still get theirs, perhaps it
won't be quite as cutting as you seem to think it should be, but
it will be there never-the-less.
>If you follow the "logic" behind a school for gays only, you have to
>go where that road leads - unless you're hypocritical. And that is
>where I think the special interest group's track records speak
>volumes.
I think that the road logically leads to a more open and
tolerant society, say like Denmark? Sweden? Turkey? Ha ha, and
you thought America was the most advanced culture on earth,
didn't you? You really need to read more of what's going on
outside U.S. boarders. Falwell, Robinson and Rush aren't the
only sane voices on earth ya know. Hahaha!
Regards
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
news:tOxVa.7104$SX.2965@no-spam
> None draws the ire, none is a target for ridicule, abuse,
> in the same way that homosexual kids are.
>
>
> "Who Cares?" <whocares@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:5VwVa.2060$Bg.1860@no-spam
> >
> > "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
> > | Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> > | haven, where they can get an education,
> > | without being a target of bigtory.
> >
> > Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> > Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
> Jews have Yeshiva, Catholics have their, send your son
> to our Catholic Schools at your own risk.
>
the difference of course, is that these are private schools.
that NYC is actually creating a public school system where kids are
segregated on account of sexual orientation is chilling, to say the least.
it's amazing
whit
>
> > Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
> They do, at least in NYC, Public Schools are dominated
> by Minority Kids.
> There is a program in the Bronx, where I refer kids to
> that are having problems, it is all minority.
>
> > Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> > It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
> > are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
> > time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
> > each?
> >
> > But then again,
> >
> > Who Cares?
> >
> >
>
>
"Emmi H" <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@no-spam> wrote in message
news:hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122-33368C.08220229072003@no-spam
> In article <j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam>,
> "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> > haven, where they can get an education,
> > without being a target of bigtory.
>
> Meanwhile, strapping an already financially bankrupt city with an
> additional $3.2 million... *AND* offering up more ammunition to the
> anti-affirmative action crowd.
>
> BTW, torres... Will you be shrieking, gnashing your teeth and wringing
> your proletarian hands if a straight student applies for and is then
> denied enrollment based upon their sexual orientation?
> --
> Emmi H
it's seperate but equal all over again.
good intentions do not make good results (or constitutionality).
it friggin amazing that NYC is now creating a segregated public school
system based on orientation.
this is also an issue excellently facilitated by vouchers. we need more
school choice, and vouchers help that. we do not need the state creating a
segregated school system.
i would be the first time a straight kid is denied admission to the gayh
school that the ACLU et al would jump all over that case. as they should.
whit
Whoopsssie... I almost missed the part where you seem to
suggest that you fear that these kids might miss out on their
share of the natural abuse they need to develop properly...
Hahaha, really? That's about as absurd as suggesting that all
kids will need to be divided according to just about any
distinction that can be imagined, of course no such proposal was
suggested. This is simply a special project to remediate a need
caused by bigoted sexual distinction run rampant.
Then there is the matter of choices, people do have the right
to choose. While public funds provides other children the option
of choosing schools that meet their desires, such as science,
technology, arts... Where there is a learning environment
specifically designed to focus and foster an atmosphere for
learning without the distractions of "dilution" that would be
present in less focused schools. Why shouldn't the public offer
gays a school they can go to where they don't need to focus on
the cultural/social aspects of being gay?
How many whites have applied for admission to high schools in
Harlem? Would they be admitted if they did? Of course they
would, since I hardly think they'd be enrolling there to promote
white supremacy (although with the intelligence level of white
supremacists being what it is, I can easily imagine them trying.)
You want stupid? I heard on the news one night that a young
adult white male had been shot in Detroit by an unknown young
Black assailant. Later we learn that the victim and his friends
had been returning from a White Supremacist concert in the
Dakotas. Well, once in Detroit (of all places) the victim
decides it's time to prove the point. He goes into a
convienience store and unprovoked, he begins villifying, berating
and pummeling a black youth he finds there. Needless to say the
Black youth was "packing" as Black youths in Detroit are wont to
do.
The White Supremacist winds up catching a rather deadly hunk
of hot lead in his chest, for his efforts, proving that you
really should know who you're picking on before you bite off more
than you can chew. In any event, his friends were very scared,
being in a very Black area and having been party to this kind of
stupidity so they had to wait for the police to arrive.
After the Police satisfied themselves that they had a good
understanding of what went on, they assisted the survivors in
their efforts to return to their hometowns. Assurances were
given that the case remains open, but since nobody could give a
useful discription of the shooter, all the police could do was
leave the investigation open.
Isn't that an example of some really smart thinking? Take your
white supremacist friends into a black nabe where poverty and few
socio-economic choices have made the place incredibly dangerous
to begin with, then start spewing hate and throwing blows at
total strangers selected because of their skin color. It's a
wonder any of them got out of their alive! And they call
themselves Supremacists, obviously that description doesn't
extend to methods of thinking! Go figure.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
<whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
>| Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>| haven, where they can get an education,
>| without being a target of bigtory.
>
>Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
>Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
>Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
>Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>education, without being a target of bigotry.
>
>It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
>are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
>time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
>each?
>
>But then again,
>
>Who Cares?
>
Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
have a care to devine.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3v2div0sb2aud61jf8hhtd5c039nv8mri3@no-spam
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
> <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
> >| Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> >| haven, where they can get an education,
> >| without being a target of bigtory.
> >
> >Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> >Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> >Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> >Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >
> >It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
> >are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
> >time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
> >each?
> >
> >But then again,
> >
> >Who Cares?
> >
> Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
> little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
> a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
> have a care to devine.
>
> Obwon
the issue is not of compassion and understanding. it is of segregation,
'seperate but equal' etc.
apparently, segregation and seperate but equal are "ok" when it is for a
'good cause'?
what a load of shite.
whit'
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
[..]
> it's seperate but equal all over again.
>
> good intentions do not make good results (or constitutionality).
>
> it friggin amazing that NYC is now creating a segregated public school
> system based on orientation.
So on the one hand, you're outraged over the possibility of
segregation...
> this is also an issue excellently facilitated by vouchers. we need more
> school choice, and vouchers help that. we do not need the state creating
> a segregated school system. [..]
...but on the other hand, you *approve* of the segregation you decried
above, and in fact want the state to *fund* segregated schools, as long
as they don't *run* them.
whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BVzVa.7132$Sg.5995@no-spam
> > "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bg6gsi$l5l2q$1@no-spam
> >
> > Gay/Homosexual Children are subject to ridicule, verbal and physical
> > abuse by their peers, on a daily basis.
>
> sure they are. it doesn't justify seperate but equal, nor does it justify
> segregation.
>
> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in a
> public school.
It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:k3qcivs1it13lb3dv27i87po1ksjoe6756@no-spam
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:04:47 GMT, "torresD"
> > <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > >education, without being a target of bigtory.
> >
> > Well sure, if our aim is to educate them, then it's also wise to get
> > our monies worth, so why not give them an environment where they won't
> > suffer "social distractions" from the main objective which is learning?
> > We've had all male schools, we've had all girls schools. Further, I
> > don't think that a "straight" person who really wants to attend would be
> > turned away unless they were "uncool". I see no Biggie here although I
> > know that some will rant and rage about how their belief systems don't
> > allow them to tolerate what other people do. But then, that's just such
> > an ignorant position to take they destroy their own credibility to issue
> > the challenge.
>
> the issue is that these are PUBLIC schools.
>
> public schools should not be able to discriminate based on sexual
> orientation. that's ridiculous.
Who says they would discriminate based on sexual orientation?
If the school is labeled 'the gay school,' would you want to go there if
you weren't?
The fact is that having a 'gay school' solves the problem about as much
as racial quotas do. Ie, it doesn't, since gay students *are not the
problem.* But as a solution, it alleviates the problem in a way that's
respectful of the bigotry of bigots, and that's what America is all
about, isn't it? We're the country of gay bashings, school shootings,
lynchings, the highest rate of incarceration however you measure, and
the most murders per capita in the industrialized world. So giving up
and running off to a little island of sanity called 'the gay school'
makes the most sense. Except that *then* people who don't understand the
problem complain that it would be an unfair bias toward those who are
already victimized. Which makes zero sense.
So here's the choice: Do you solve the problem of bigotry by admitting
it's a multifaceted issue that lives inside the mind of your very own
child, who's in school taunting gay kids? Do you address your own
attitudes that made it OK for your kid to pick on queers? Of course not.
That would require effort, and no one wants to go to effort. So you make
the other choice: You begrudgingly deign to allow the gay kids to go to
their own little ghetto-ized school where they can hold hands and sing
Kum Ba Yah, even though you believe it discriminates against kids *who
aren't gay.* The gay kids who aren't accepted anywhere else, by and
large, simply because they're being themselves. Yeah, those kids...
They're victimizing your poor maligned bully child by finding a solution
where they won't get bullied, while still maintaining your bully child's
ability to find some other poor sap to bully. Boo fuckin' hoo. What a
horrible situation.
"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cPxVa.7105$wI.4599@no-spam
|
| "Emmi H" <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@no-spam> wrote in message
| news:hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122-33368C.08220229072003@no-spam
| > In article <j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam>,
| > "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
| >
| > > Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
| > > haven, where they can get an education,
| > > without being a target of bigtory.
| >
| > Meanwhile, strapping an already financially bankrupt city with an
| > additional $3.2 million... *AND* offering up more ammunition to
the
| > anti-affirmative action crowd.
| >
| > BTW, torres... Will you be shrieking, gnashing your teeth and
wringing
| > your proletarian hands if a straight student applies for and is
then
| > denied enrollment based upon their sexual orientation?
| > --
| > Emmi H
|
| The school is for Homosexual kids.
Having a school for *just* homosexual kids is segregationist and I am
sure could/would be ruled unconstitutional. How about a school for
just white kids? Or just black kids? Maybe one just for Islamic
kids? Or tall kids? Or red haired kids? Or kids with silly names?
But then again,
Who Cares?
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
| whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
|
| > "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
| > news:BVzVa.7132$Sg.5995@no-spam
| > > "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote in message
| > > news:bg6gsi$l5l2q$1@no-spam
| > >
| > > Gay/Homosexual Children are subject to ridicule, verbal and
physical
| > > abuse by their peers, on a daily basis.
| >
| > sure they are. it doesn't justify seperate but equal, nor does it
justify
| > segregation.
| >
| > it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last
several
| > decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no
place in a
| > public school.
|
| It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
| developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
To a large extent they are, at least in the school districts I am
familiar with. Teachers are now forced to "educate" those kids with
sub 70 IQs in the same class room with everyone else.
What do you propose after highschool? Segregated colleges?
Segregated workplaces? Special stores for gay people to shop? Maybe
we could just create an "Island of Lesbo" and move all of them there
so they can live free of any ill will...
But then again,
Who Cares?
Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
> | whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
[..]
> | > it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last
> | > several decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no
> | > place in a public school.
> |
> | It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
> | developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>
> To a large extent they are, at least in the school districts I am familiar
> with. Teachers are now forced to "educate" those kids with sub 70 IQs in
> the same class room with everyone else.
My point in bringing it up is that education is about *education,* and
if a kid spends their day getting abused (as is the case with any
outsider, be they gay or developmentally disabled), it's hard to get
educated. If you'd argue that everyone's needs would be better met by
separating those with special needs, within public school systems, then
why would you argue that gay kids, often the victims of taunting and
assault, shouldn't be similarly separated?
> What do you propose after highschool? Segregated colleges? Segregated
> workplaces? Special stores for gay people to shop? Maybe we could just
> create an "Island of Lesbo" and move all of them there so they can live
> free of any ill will...
You really aren't familiar with gay culture, are you?
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyv57l.iwgb1v246ra5N%usenet@no-spam
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > it's seperate but equal all over again.
> >
> > good intentions do not make good results (or constitutionality).
> >
> > it friggin amazing that NYC is now creating a segregated public school
> > system based on orientation.
>
> So on the one hand, you're outraged over the possibility of
> segregation...
>
yes
> > this is also an issue excellently facilitated by vouchers. we need more
> > school choice, and vouchers help that. we do not need the state
creating
> > a segregated school system. [..]
>
> ...but on the other hand, you *approve* of the segregation you decried
> above, and in fact want the state to *fund* segregated schools, as long
> as they don't *run* them.
when the segregated schools are not STATE run, and there is choice as to
which school to go to, i have no problem. but most private schools are not
segregated in the sense of the above mentioned public school. they are
segregated on the criteria of performance, not IDENTITY.
the state should not be in the interest of segregations, and the state
should not make decisions in regards to identity politics.
do you or do you not think the NYC gay-only school is 1) constitutional 2)
just/fair/good idea?
whit
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyv614.xjh5in1vj0f5eN%usenet@no-spam
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:k3qcivs1it13lb3dv27i87po1ksjoe6756@no-spam
> > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:04:47 GMT, "torresD"
> > > <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> > > >education, without being a target of bigtory.
> > >
> > > Well sure, if our aim is to educate them, then it's also wise to get
> > > our monies worth, so why not give them an environment where they won't
> > > suffer "social distractions" from the main objective which is
learning?
> > > We've had all male schools, we've had all girls schools. Further, I
> > > don't think that a "straight" person who really wants to attend would
be
> > > turned away unless they were "uncool". I see no Biggie here although
I
> > > know that some will rant and rage about how their belief systems don't
> > > allow them to tolerate what other people do. But then, that's just
such
> > > an ignorant position to take they destroy their own credibility to
issue
> > > the challenge.
> >
> > the issue is that these are PUBLIC schools.
> >
> > public schools should not be able to discriminate based on sexual
> > orientation. that's ridiculous.
>
> Who says they would discriminate based on sexual orientation?
>
> If the school is labeled 'the gay school,' would you want to go there if
> you weren't?
>
> The fact is that having a 'gay school' solves the problem about as much
> as racial quotas do. Ie, it doesn't, since gay students *are not the
> problem.* But as a solution, it alleviates the problem in a way that's
> respectful of the bigotry of bigots, and that's what America is all
> about, isn't it? We're the country of gay bashings, school shootings,
> lynchings, the highest rate of incarceration however you measure, and
> the most murders per capita in the industrialized world. So giving up
> and running off to a little island of sanity called 'the gay school'
> makes the most sense. Except that *then* people who don't understand the
> problem complain that it would be an unfair bias toward those who are
> already victimized. Which makes zero sense.
>
> So here's the choice: Do you solve the problem of bigotry by admitting
> it's a multifaceted issue that lives inside the mind of your very own
> child, who's in school taunting gay kids? Do you address your own
> attitudes that made it OK for your kid to pick on queers? Of course not.
> That would require effort, and no one wants to go to effort. So you make
> the other choice: You begrudgingly deign to allow the gay kids to go to
> their own little ghetto-ized school where they can hold hands and sing
> Kum Ba Yah, even though you believe it discriminates against kids *who
> aren't gay.* The gay kids who aren't accepted anywhere else, by and
> large, simply because they're being themselves. Yeah, those kids...
> They're victimizing your poor maligned bully child by finding a solution
> where they won't get bullied, while still maintaining your bully child's
> ability to find some other poor sap to bully. Boo fuckin' hoo. What a
> horrible situation.
that's wonderful, but it is still an example of state-sponsored
segregation/discrimination/seperate but equal.
kids have always been bullied at public schools for everything from
perceived weakness, fatness, skinniness, dorkiness, etc. that sux. it does
not justify seperate but equal, and it does not justify the state sponsoring
of identity politics. it is also a classic example of the soft bigotry of
low expectations.
whit
whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fyv614.xjh5in1vj0f5eN%usenet@no-spam
[..]
> > So here's the choice: Do you solve the problem of bigotry by admitting
> > it's a multifaceted issue that lives inside the mind of your very own
> > child, who's in school taunting gay kids? Do you address your own
> > attitudes that made it OK for your kid to pick on queers? Of course not.
> > That would require effort, and no one wants to go to effort. So you make
> > the other choice: You begrudgingly deign to allow the gay kids to go to
> > their own little ghetto-ized school where they can hold hands and sing
> > Kum Ba Yah, even though you believe it discriminates against kids *who
> > aren't gay.* The gay kids who aren't accepted anywhere else, by and
> > large, simply because they're being themselves. Yeah, those kids...
> > They're victimizing your poor maligned bully child by finding a solution
> > where they won't get bullied, while still maintaining your bully child's
> > ability to find some other poor sap to bully. Boo fuckin' hoo. What a
> > horrible situation.
>
> that's wonderful, but it is still an example of state-sponsored
> segregation/discrimination/seperate but equal.
...*if* the schools discriminate based on sexual preference. It hasn't
been established that they will.
> kids have always been bullied at public schools for everything from
> perceived weakness, fatness, skinniness, dorkiness, etc. that sux. it
> does not justify seperate but equal, and it does not justify the state
> sponsoring of identity politics. it is also a classic example of the soft
> bigotry of low expectations.
Do you advocate that parents of gay kids have a choice? Or do you
advocate that they not? This is aside from your pet issue of vouchers;
parents can already move their kids out of public school if they want.
Sending their kid to the 'gay' school is yet one *more* option.
Would you agree that giving parents of gay kids a choice like is an
imperfect solution to a real problem?
Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fyv9c0.1x43ffh1agqanvN%usenet@no-spam
[..]
> | My point in bringing it up is that education is about *education,* and
> | if a kid spends their day getting abused (as is the case with any
> | outsider, be they gay or developmentally disabled), it's hard to get
> | educated. If you'd argue that everyone's needs would be better met by
> | separating those with special needs, within public school systems, then
> | why would you argue that gay kids, often the victims of taunting and
> | assault, shouldn't be similarly separated?
>
> If we extend the privildge to gay kids, we need to extend it to ALL kids
> that are impeded in the learning process by anything - religion, skin
> color, appearance, income, whatever.
And the problem with that is? If the point of going to school is for
learning to occur, then why is removing obstacles to learning such an
unthinkably bad thing?
> The gay students I am familiar with receive no more taunting than many
> other kids.
So?
> | > What do you propose after highschool? Segregated colleges?
> | > Segregated workplaces? Special stores for gay people to shop? Maybe
> | > we could just create an "Island of Lesbo" and move all of them there
> | > so they can live free of any ill will...
> |
> | You really aren't familiar with gay culture, are you?
>
> I have chosen not to immerse myself in it, if that is what you mean. So
> what is your rebuttal to my statement(s)?
Those things you list are the kinds of things many gay people end up
doing in order to deal with the bullshit bigotry that follows them out
of school. They form communities within towns and cities, they hire each
other, they open up GLBT bookstores...
Here's your essay question: Why do you think this bullshit bigotry
follows them out of school?
On 7/29/03 12:04 AM, in article
j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam "torresD"
<torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> haven, where they can get an education,
> without being a target of bigtory.
Would you like to segregate the minorities that are the targets of bigotry
too?
On 7/29/03 12:13 PM, in article bg6gsi$l5l2q$1@no-spam
"whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> "Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3v2div0sb2aud61jf8hhtd5c039nv8mri3@no-spam
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
>> <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
>>> | Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>>> | haven, where they can get an education,
>>> | without being a target of bigtory.
>>>
>>> Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>>> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>>>
>>> Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>>> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>>>
>>> Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>>> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>>>
>>> Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>>> education, without being a target of bigotry.
>>>
>>> It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
>>> are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
>>> time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
>>> each?
>>>
>>> But then again,
>>>
>>> Who Cares?
>>>
>> Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
>> little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
>> a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
>> have a care to devine.
>>
>> Obwon
>
> the issue is not of compassion and understanding. it is of segregation,
> 'seperate but equal' etc.
>
> apparently, segregation and seperate but equal are "ok" when it is for a
> 'good cause'?
>
> what a load of shite.
This is the conservative "disease." We tend to think in black and white and
liberals think they can break the rules because they know best.
On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> "torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:BVzVa.7132$Sg.5995@no-spam
>>> "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:bg6gsi$l5l2q$1@no-spam
>>>
>>> Gay/Homosexual Children are subject to ridicule, verbal and physical
>>> abuse by their peers, on a daily basis.
>>
>> sure they are. it doesn't justify seperate but equal, nor does it justify
>> segregation.
>>
>> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
>> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in a
>> public school.
>
> It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
> developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school that
meets their (special) needs.
"Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB4C992B.3384%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
> On 7/29/03 12:04 AM, in article
> j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam "torresD"
> <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> > haven, where they can get an education,
> > without being a target of bigtory.
>
> Would you like to segregate the minorities that are the targets of bigotry
> too?
Is drow^Wsegregating bigots an option?
Jim
"Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB4C9B40.3388%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
<...segregation for whom...>
> This is the conservative "disease." We tend to think in black and white and
> liberals think they can break the rules because they know best.
You exhibit the conservative "disease" yourself by implying (wrongly) that there
are "rules."
Jim
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
> On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> > whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
[..]
> >> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
> >> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in
> >> a public school.
> >
> > It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
> > developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>
> Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school that
> meets their (special) needs.
So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
of your plan.
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvpcz.13jmhd41fevctgN%usenet@no-spam
> Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> > > whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> [..]
> > >> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
> > >> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in
> > >> a public school.
> > >
> > > It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
> > > developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
> >
> > Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school that
> > meets their (special) needs.
>
> So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
> of your plan.
Sure it is. "Proper learning environment" means getting rid of the darkies, the
faggots and the tards.
What stone you been livin' under, son?
Jim
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvezz.1pkcbs51tlkr0iN%usenet@no-spam
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1fyv57l.iwgb1v246ra5N%usenet@no-spam
> [..]
> > > ...but on the other hand, you *approve* of the segregation you decried
> > > above, and in fact want the state to *fund* segregated schools, as
long
> > > as they don't *run* them.
> >
> > when the segregated schools are not STATE run, and there is choice as to
> > which school to go to, i have no problem.
>
> A parent can send their kid to a school full of bullies, or a school
> full of kids like their kid. How is this restricting choice?
O.k., where's the Highschool for fat kids?
The Highschool for ugly kids?
The Highschool for geeky kids?
The Highschool for redheaded kids?
The Highschool for skinny kids?
This is just plain silly.
But I like it..
When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the populace
the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are force-fed.
Nice job Lefties,
-keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
-Cap
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
On 7/29/03 9:53 PM, in article bg7j03026qp@no-spam "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB4C992B.3384%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
>> On 7/29/03 12:04 AM, in article
>> j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam "torresD"
>> <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>>> haven, where they can get an education,
>>> without being a target of bigtory.
>>
>> Would you like to segregate the minorities that are the targets of bigotry
>> too?
>
> Is drow^Wsegregating bigots an option?
You mean after they bus everyone else to their specialized school, they will
have segregated themselves?
What happens when the different groups at the new high school start picking
on each other?
On 7/29/03 9:56 PM, in article viejvind38kec7@no-spam "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB4C9B40.3388%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
>
> <...segregation for whom...>
>
>> This is the conservative "disease." We tend to think in black and white and
>> liberals think they can break the rules because they know best.
>
> You exhibit the conservative "disease" yourself by implying (wrongly) that
> there
> are "rules."
"When in doubt, I whip it out. Got me a rock-and-roll band, it's a
free-for-all."
On 7/29/03 10:08 PM, in article 1fyvpcz.13jmhd41fevctgN%usenet@no-spam
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
>>> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> [..]
>>>> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
>>>> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in
>>>> a public school.
>>>
>>> It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
>>> developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>>
>> Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school that
>> meets their (special) needs.
>
> So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
> of your plan.
Meeting every special need? No.
On 7/29/03 10:19 PM, in article vielant1t4k8d8@no-spam "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fyvpcz.13jmhd41fevctgN%usenet@no-spam
>> Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
>>>> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>> [..]
>>>>> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
>>>>> decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in
>>>>> a public school.
>>>>
>>>> It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
>>>> developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>>>
>>> Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school that
>>> meets their (special) needs.
>>
>> So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
>> of your plan.
>
> Sure it is. "Proper learning environment" means getting rid of the darkies,
> the
> faggots and the tards.
>
> What stone you been livin' under, son?
What the hell is wrong with you?
"Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB4CB56B.33C3%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
> On 7/29/03 9:53 PM, in article bg7j03026qp@no-spam "Clave"
> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:BB4C992B.3384%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
> >> On 7/29/03 12:04 AM, in article
> >> j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam "torresD"
> >> <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> >>> haven, where they can get an education,
> >>> without being a target of bigtory.
> >>
> >> Would you like to segregate the minorities that are the targets of bigotry
> >> too?
> >
> > Is drow^Wsegregating bigots an option?
>
> You mean after they bus everyone else to their specialized school, they will
> have segregated themselves?
>
> What happens when the different groups at the new high school start picking
> on each other?
Then I guess people like you can start taking bets.
Jim
Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
[..]
> This is just plain silly.
>
> But I like it..
>
> When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the populace
> the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
>
> See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
> See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
> See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are force-fed.
>
> Nice job Lefties,
> -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
heart.
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
> On 7/29/03 10:08 PM, in article 1fyvpcz.13jmhd41fevctgN%usenet@no-spam
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
> >> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> >>> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> > [..]
> >>>> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last
> >>>> several decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no
> >>>> place in a public school.
> >>>
> >>> It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
> >>> developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
> >>
> >> Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school
> >> that meets their (special) needs.
> >
> > So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
> > of your plan.
>
> Meeting every special need? No.
Why not?
You advocate giving them a voucher to meet every special need, but you
don't advocate meeting every special need in public school. What's the
difference?
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvwa3.1uwn7w51l1kxeqN%usenet@no-spam
> Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > This is just plain silly.
> >
> > But I like it..
> >
> > When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the
populace
> > the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
> >
> > See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
> > See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
> > See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are
force-fed.
> >
> > Nice job Lefties,
> > -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
>
> Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
> heart.
And how exactly would a gay school contribute to a kids well-being?
Now I could see sending them to a reprogramming type facility.
(Heheh, that ought to piss off the ARTD-L kooks)
Well Paul, once again you disappoint. -I was hoping you would have enough
knowledge of gay culture to at least answer a few of the questions.
-Cap
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvwa3.1uwn7w51l1kxeqN%usenet@no-spam
> Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
> [..]
> > This is just plain silly.
> >
> > But I like it..
> >
> > When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the
populace
> > the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
> >
> > See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
> > See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
> > See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are
force-fed.
> >
> > Nice job Lefties,
> > -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
>
> Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
> heart.
>
God knows that if homosexual students attend school only with other
homosexuals, they will get a superior education without the distraction of
all those *shudder* heterosexual kids. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvldc.zkhsv21bj75h4N%usenet@no-spam
| Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
|
| > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
| > news:1fyv9c0.1x43ffh1agqanvN%usenet@no-spam
| [..]
| > | My point in bringing it up is that education is about
*education,* and
| > | if a kid spends their day getting abused (as is the case with
any
| > | outsider, be they gay or developmentally disabled), it's hard to
get
| > | educated. If you'd argue that everyone's needs would be better
met by
| > | separating those with special needs, within public school
systems, then
| > | why would you argue that gay kids, often the victims of taunting
and
| > | assault, shouldn't be similarly separated?
| >
| > If we extend the privildge to gay kids, we need to extend it to
ALL kids
| > that are impeded in the learning process by anything - religion,
skin
| > color, appearance, income, whatever.
|
| And the problem with that is? If the point of going to school is for
| learning to occur, then why is removing obstacles to learning such
an
| unthinkably bad thing?
|
| > The gay students I am familiar with receive no more taunting than
many
| > other kids.
|
| So?
|
| > | > What do you propose after highschool? Segregated colleges?
| > | > Segregated workplaces? Special stores for gay people to shop?
Maybe
| > | > we could just create an "Island of Lesbo" and move all of them
there
| > | > so they can live free of any ill will...
| > |
| > | You really aren't familiar with gay culture, are you?
| >
| > I have chosen not to immerse myself in it, if that is what you
mean. So
| > what is your rebuttal to my statement(s)?
|
| Those things you list are the kinds of things many gay people end up
| doing in order to deal with the bullshit bigotry that follows them
out
| of school. They form communities within towns and cities, they hire
each
| other, they open up GLBT bookstores...
|
| Here's your essay question: Why do you think this bullshit bigotry
| follows them out of school?
Because people have the freedom to choose what
ethnic/religious/sexual/gender/etc. life styles they want to accept or
reject. Sorry Paul, always has been that way, always will be that
way. Why do you think there are tribal wars in so many countries?
Tribes are either formed by family units -usually sharing the same
values- or by cultural units - once again sharing the same values.
While I do not approve of anyone treating anyone else badly, or
taunting them, or ridiculing them, it will continue to happen. It is
the curse of humanity. I know the solution, but I would be ridiculed
if I mentioned it here. Go figure.
But then again,
Who Cares?
Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fyvldc.zkhsv21bj75h4N%usenet@no-spam
[..]
> | Those things you list are the kinds of things many gay people end up
> | doing in order to deal with the bullshit bigotry that follows them out
> | of school. They form communities within towns and cities, they hire
> | each other, they open up GLBT bookstores...
> |
> | Here's your essay question: Why do you think this bullshit bigotry
> | follows them out of school?
>
> Because people have the freedom to choose what
> ethnic/religious/sexual/gender/etc. life styles they want to accept or
> reject. Sorry Paul, always has been that way, always will be that way.
> Why do you think there are tribal wars in so many countries? Tribes are
> either formed by family units -usually sharing the same values- or by
> cultural units - once again sharing the same values. While I do not
> approve of anyone treating anyone else badly, or taunting them, or
> ridiculing them, it will continue to happen. It is the curse of humanity.
> I know the solution, but I would be ridiculed if I mentioned it here. Go
> figure.
So you're saying that bigotry against gays is justified.
That makes you a bigot.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:50:33 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:BVzVa.7132$Sg.5995@no-spam
>>
>> "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:bg6gsi$l5l2q$1@no-spam
>>
>>
>> Gay/Homosexual Children are subject to ridicule, verbal and physical
>> abuse by their peers, on a daily basis.
>>
>
>sure they are. it doesn't justify seperate but equal, nor does it justify
>segregation.
Well, their right to a good education takes precedence over
your views. The right to a good education is the
Constitutional mission and mandate of gov't! That means they
have the right to override things that interfere with that
mission since it is a Constitutional mandate!
While you cry about "separate but equal" you are failing to
consider that they aren't considered equal in the schools where
they were, separate sure, but equal not a chance. So, unless you
can come up with a more effective remedy, if you really are
concerned that a few of your fellow citizens aren't being availed
of a good education under the existing system, then it behooves
you to desist in your claims or present a better more workable
solution. That is, unless you are really just bent upon denying
there is any problem (which I don't see how you can after
reviewing your earlier writtings on the matter), which would mean
that your actual agenda is to keep these kids suffering and
deficient. Not good!
>it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last several
>decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no place in a
>public school.
>
>whit
No, it isn't against everything we've learned in the last
several decades -- read Brown -v- Board of Education to see just
what we have learned in the last several decades, about fairness,
equality and justice. Are you trying to say that "Brown", has no
place in a public school?
Your arguments are getting just a wee bit suspicious!
>
>> Sometimes rejected by their own families.
>>
>> Gay/Homosexual kids tend to want to fade out,
>> to shrink, to become invisible, in order not to get
>> beat up.
>>
>> In order to escape this torture, some Homosexual Teens,
>> have killed themselves.
>>
>> Kids can be very mean and they are especially nasty
>> to "different" and nobody is fits the "different" category
>> more than Homosexual Kids.
>>
>> I think it's fantastic that NYC is going to provide a safe haven
>> for them, where they can learn, receive an education
>> and be respected, treated with dignity and receive
>> all the rights and privileges that is their due.
>>
>> Why anyone would have a problem with that,
>> is beyond me?
>>
>> You want kids to be abused, ridiculed, poked fun at,
>> even beaten up, because they are gay?
>>
>> Physical abuse, verbal abuse is the standard in any
>> school where hetersexuals dominate.
>>
>> When I was going to school, in Dobbs Ferry, New York,
>> there was one guy in particular, who was the 'swishy'
>> type.
>>
>> He was very girlish, his walk, way of moving, everything.
>>
>> His life was made miserable.
>>
>> He walked home from school, so that he didn't have to ride
>> the school bus.
>>
>> No one I knew spoke to him, everyone talked about
>> him behind his back, when they saw him coming.
>>
>> It was horrible.
>>
>> I should have just sat down next to him in the lunchroom,
>> or spoken to him or something.
>>
>> I'm ashamed to say, that I shunned him along with everyone else.
>>
>> I just didn't know any better, and my friends, wouldn't have
>> have understood.
>>
>> I mean no one spoke to him.
>>
>> I still wonder about him today.
>> I wish I could have suggested that he go to
>> Greenwich Village in NYC, where there is a homosexual
>> community and he would have been accepted.
>>
>> But I never heard of Greenwich Village, at that time,
>> didn't know it existed and believed what I was told,
>> that homosexuals were 'strange'.
>>
>> That was wrong and I really regret it.
>>
>> Hurray for NYC, that they will have a school,
>> where the homosexuals are in charge and they
>> where bigtory, shunning, name calling, all those
>> ugly things, just will not be allowed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
In article <BVzVa.7132$Sg.5995@no-spam>, torresD30
@no-spam says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and
foaming at the mouth!
In article <E%yVa.7120$6U.4315@no-spam>, torresD30
@no-spam says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and
foaming at the mouth!
> Gay/Homosexual Children are subject to ridicule, verbal and physical
> abuse by their peers, on a daily basis.
So lets paint a target on their foreheads!
>
> Sometimes rejected by their own families.
> Gay/Homosexual kids tend to want to fade out,
> to shrink, to become invisible, in order not to get
> beat up.
Again, so lets paint a target on their foreheads!
>
> In order to escape this torture, some Homosexual Teens,
> have killed themselves.
> Kids can be very mean and they are especially nasty
> to "different" and nobody is fits the "different" category
> more than Homosexual Kids.
> I think it's fantastic that NYC is going to provide a safe haven
> for them, where they can learn, receive an education
> and be respected, treated with dignity and receive
> all the rights and privileges that is their due.
Again, again, so lets paint a target on their foreheads! It's amazing
that NYC would even consider this.
>
> Why anyone would have a problem with that,
> is beyond me?
The Gay community should consider the welfare of these children! It is
an irresponsible act & sacrifice to make on behalf of making a
statement.
>
> You want kids to be abused, ridiculed, poked fun at,
> even beaten up, because they are gay?
> Physical abuse, verbal abuse is the standard in any
> school where hetersexuals dominate.
No I wouldn't. But I wouldn't seperate them to STAND out even more.
**BIG snip, snip on the hypocricy**
> Hurray for NYC, that they will have a school,
> where the homosexuals are in charge and they
> where bigtory, shunning, name calling, all those
> ugly things, just will not be allowed.
So I guess if you place an all black school in the middle of K.K.K
village they'll really be in charge huh? In charge of what?? Arming
themselves & requiring SPECIAL security on a day to day basis?
I think this is the worst idea I have ever heard of.....I thought we
were supposed to teach our children "harmony" and getting along with
others. NYC is known for it's label as the "Melting Pot" it appears
contradictory of that philisophy to create separitism....I am by no
means anti-gay whatsover, but I think this particular issue is not being
looked at rationally and it most definitely endangering the welfare of
minors. For those that are for it, I can understand the issues
surrounding it that we all need to "just get along" but do you really
think the prejudices of others will really change or that it can be
controlled....I think not.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:40:26 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
>that's wonderful, but it is still an example of state-sponsored
>segregation/discrimination/seperate but equal.
>
>kids have always been bullied at public schools for everything from
>perceived weakness, fatness, skinniness, dorkiness, etc. that sux. it does
>not justify seperate but equal, and it does not justify the state sponsoring
>of identity politics. it is also a classic example of the soft bigotry of
>low expectations.
>
>whit
>
Yeah, but until society catches up with the idea that gays are
entitled to equal treatment and not there to be singled out
merely on the basis of their sexual preference, this solution
satisfies the need to educate them quite nicely. Or should they
get inferior educations while waiting for society to change?
Should Blacks have had to wait until society was ready to
accept them before they got to go to good schools? If you admit
the problem then you also admit to the need for a solution of
that problem. Changing society takes time, that is not the main
or immediate mission of the educational system, educating all
students in their care is!
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:00:33 -0400, "James Hall" <jhall@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>"torresD" ...
>
>> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>> haven, where they can get an education,
>> without being a target of bigtory.
>
>Until the school day is over, that is.
>
>Bigots/racists/hatemongers and asshole juveniles
>are more into the end of days rather than mornings.
>
>JHall.
>
Which is even more reason to locate the children away from
those who would abuse them. I don't see hetero kids coming to
the village just to harass kids getting out of the gay school.
Most especially since they'd expect to be woefully out numbered
and in a community where there's widespread acceptance of gays
besides. Most bullies don't ever want to face a level playing
field and they certainly won't appreciate the Police Dept's.,
positions on equality in the village much either.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lcjfivguk2hfjalvbcl6gincvvfft6b5ge@no-spam
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:11:14 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:k3qcivs1it13lb3dv27i87po1ksjoe6756@no-spam
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:04:47 GMT, "torresD"
> >> <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> >> >haven, where they can get an education,
> >> >without being a target of bigtory.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Well sure, if our aim is to educate them, then it's also wise
> >> to get our monies worth, so why not give them an environment
> >> where they won't suffer "social distractions" from the main
> >> objective which is learning? We've had all male schools, we've
> >> had all girls schools. Further, I don't think that a "straight"
> >> person who really wants to attend would be turned away unless
> >> they were "uncool". I see no Biggie here although I know that
> >> some will rant and rage about how their belief systems don't
> >> allow them to tolerate what other people do. But then, that's
> >> just such an ignorant position to take they destroy their own
> >> credibility to issue the challenge.
> >>
> >> Obwon
> >
> >the issue is that these are PUBLIC schools.
> >
> >public schools should not be able to discriminate based on sexual
> >orientation. that's ridiculous.
> >
> >imo, all male public schools, or all female public schools, are also
wrong.
> >and recall the VMI debacle, for that matter.
> >whit
>
> All male or female schools are less of an issue than this all
> gay school idea is. Now why is that?
>
> While you say that public schools shouldn't be able to
> discriminate, and I could agree with you there except for the
> special circumstance that gays are discriminated against within
> and by the general populations of the "normal" public school.
>
so are fat kids. so are white kids in predominantly black schools. so are
black kids in predominantly white schools. so are black and white kids in
schools in hawaii, which are predominantly "local" (ie mix of asian and
pacific islander). so, shoudl we set up - fat kid only schools, white only
schools, black only schools, etc. ON THE PUBLIC dime? of course.
it does not justify these MEANS.
> It is indeed unfortunate that this is so, but you do recognize
> it as a problem? It does drive some kids to suicide, it's no fun
> being considered an outcast is it? Can you agree that something
> so substantial in it's effects has a great and negative impact on
> these kids obtaining a good education within a system that fails
> to recognize and ameliorate the problem?
>
of course there is a problem. but in the case of publically instituted
segregation, the solution is far worse than the problem, and not even
constitutional imo.
> Or would you rather force these kids to just continue to deal
> with the added problems they face and risk them committing
> suicide or suffering other dibilitating psychological problems
> just to obtain the education they're entitled to and that the
> state is obligated to provide?
>
i would rather none of that happened. but i don't resort to
unconstitutional/unjust/unamerican/segregated means in an attempt to solve
the problem.
and again, has anybody who is FOR these schools posted comparative stats
regarding these incidents?
> If not, then this gay school idea is just the thing that's
> needed until society catches up with the idea that all people are
> created equal and entitled to fairness and justice and all. Once
> it is no longer so easily socially acceptable for heterosexual
> kids to single other kids out for abuse, no longer "justifiable"
> to mistreat and ostracize these kids and no longer acceptable to
> encourage others to do the same, then segregation is the only way
> for the State to fulfil it's Constitutionally mandated mission in
> a fair and equitable way.
>
> So then, explain why it's wrong for the state to attempt to
> fulfil it's Constitutionally mandated mission by taking specially
> indicated actions in a special and indicated case? You wouldn't
> be trying to use claims of justice, equality and fairness along
> with the Constitution as a way of continuing to deprive gays of
> the education they deserve would you?
>
> Obwon
no. and i would not institute blatantly
discriminatory/balkanizing/unconstitutional/segregationist means to 'solve'
a problem. imo, these schools will enforce identity politics, when what is
needed is people to learn to cooperate and get along.
it is a far worse solution than the present problem. it is neither
proportional, nor just.
whit
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:02hfivc2mmd70nc1q6jfh08tnd753dpo85@no-spam
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:13:58 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:3v2div0sb2aud61jf8hhtd5c039nv8mri3@no-spam
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
> >> <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
> >> >| Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> >> >| haven, where they can get an education,
> >> >| without being a target of bigtory.
> >> >
> >> >Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >
> >> >Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >
> >> >Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >
> >> >Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >
> >> >It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
> >> >are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
> >> >time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
> >> >each?
> >> >
> >> >But then again,
> >> >
> >> >Who Cares?
> >> >
> >> Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
> >> little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
> >> a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
> >> have a care to devine.
> >>
> >> Obwon
> >
> >the issue is not of compassion and understanding. it is of segregation,
> >'seperate but equal' etc.
>
> If you read what I was responding to you see a distinct lack of
> compassion for these gays! The separate but equal is another
> problem that I've addressed elsewhere already.
>
> >apparently, segregation and seperate but equal are "ok" when it is for a
> >'good cause'?
>
> No, not just for "a good cause", but for necessary purposes.
> You do see the difference don't you? If not, here let me provide
> you with a little help. Firstly you must acknowledge what
> everybody already knows, that heterosexuals can and often do
> subject gays to various extraordinary social "punishments".
>
> Now that wouldn't be the problem for the state funded
> educational system, except for this one little factoid: The State
> is charged with a duty to provide these kids with a good
> education.
that's wonderful, but nobody has provided statistical evidence that there
are examples of gay kids being victimized to the extent that it would
justify FORCED PUBLIC SEGREGATION. what are the victimization rates as
compared to
1) white kids in predominantly black schools
2) black kids in predominantly whiet schools
3) fat kids
4) pimply, nerdy kids
etc.?
do you know? or do you just knee jerk approve to this 'solution' based on
sentiment?
>
> So, if the state finds that certain prevalent social mores are
> interfering with it's mission, it has a duty to use it's powers
> to remediate that problem.
>
it first must establish a compelling case sufficient to justify "seperate
butequal". that is an immense burden of evidence. so where is it?
do you know, or do you just agree with this proposal based on a sentiment?
> >
> >what a load of shite.
> >
> >whit'
> >
>
> Hmmm... By your expletive I take it to mean that you are upset
> that the Constitution can't be used to perpetuate unfairness?
again, where's the stats?
> My, my, do you not realize that the Constitution is written to
> protect us all from the same? That is why we have a court
> system, so that the Constitution can't be used to work harms.
>
> Not even by such well intended people such as yourself!
>
> Cheerio
> Obwon
fwiw, i have no doubt that most proponents of these schools are well
intentioned. of course they are.
imo, they have not presented a compelling case, nor have you.
whit
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fywjbd.ttgtb818goy4sN%usenet@no-spam
| Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
|
| > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
| > news:1fyvldc.zkhsv21bj75h4N%usenet@no-spam
| [..]
| > | Those things you list are the kinds of things many gay people
end up
| > | doing in order to deal with the bullshit bigotry that follows
them out
| > | of school. They form communities within towns and cities, they
hire
| > | each other, they open up GLBT bookstores...
| > |
| > | Here's your essay question: Why do you think this bullshit
bigotry
| > | follows them out of school?
| >
| > Because people have the freedom to choose what
| > ethnic/religious/sexual/gender/etc. life styles they want to
accept or
| > reject. Sorry Paul, always has been that way, always will be that
way.
| > Why do you think there are tribal wars in so many countries?
Tribes are
| > either formed by family units -usually sharing the same values- or
by
| > cultural units - once again sharing the same values. While I do
not
| > approve of anyone treating anyone else badly, or taunting them, or
| > ridiculing them, it will continue to happen. It is the curse of
humanity.
| > I know the solution, but I would be ridiculed if I mentioned it
here. Go
| > figure.
|
| So you're saying that bigotry against gays is justified.
|
| That makes you a bigot.
I am saying it is allowed, not justified. You are free to
hate/dislike anyone you want. One is a bigot only if one is bigoted.
I am not.
But then again,
Who Cares?
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvfhs.163os95pc9xzuN%usenet@no-spam
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1fyv614.xjh5in1vj0f5eN%usenet@no-spam
> [..]
> > > So here's the choice: Do you solve the problem of bigotry by admitting
> > > it's a multifaceted issue that lives inside the mind of your very own
> > > child, who's in school taunting gay kids? Do you address your own
> > > attitudes that made it OK for your kid to pick on queers? Of course
not.
> > > That would require effort, and no one wants to go to effort. So you
make
> > > the other choice: You begrudgingly deign to allow the gay kids to go
to
> > > their own little ghetto-ized school where they can hold hands and sing
> > > Kum Ba Yah, even though you believe it discriminates against kids *who
> > > aren't gay.* The gay kids who aren't accepted anywhere else, by and
> > > large, simply because they're being themselves. Yeah, those kids...
> > > They're victimizing your poor maligned bully child by finding a
solution
> > > where they won't get bullied, while still maintaining your bully
child's
> > > ability to find some other poor sap to bully. Boo fuckin' hoo. What a
> > > horrible situation.
> >
> > that's wonderful, but it is still an example of state-sponsored
> > segregation/discrimination/seperate but equal.
>
> ...*if* the schools discriminate based on sexual preference. It hasn't
> been established that they will.
>
true. but if they set it up as the 'de facto' gay school it will still be
problematic. will gay kids be given preference? that's just as bad. it's
still discrimination based on sexual orientation. and that is wrong. if
there is no preference, then how will the school be a haven for gays?
> > kids have always been bullied at public schools for everything from
> > perceived weakness, fatness, skinniness, dorkiness, etc. that sux. it
> > does not justify seperate but equal, and it does not justify the state
> > sponsoring of identity politics. it is also a classic example of the
soft
> > bigotry of low expectations.
>
> Do you advocate that parents of gay kids have a choice? Or do you
> advocate that they not?
i advocate that EVERYBODY have a choice. that's why i support vouchers.
This is aside from your pet issue of vouchers;
> parents can already move their kids out of public school if they want.
> Sending their kid to the 'gay' school is yet one *more* option.
>
yes, it gives THEM an option. it's still wrong to segregate or set up a
'seperate but equal" school system
> Would you agree that giving parents of gay kids a choice like is an
> imperfect solution to a real problem?
i agree that it is done with good intentions and is seen as a possible
solution. i do not think it is just/constitutional and i find it immensely
unamerican and wrong.
it is just plain wrong. i am pretty hopeful and confident the courts will
strike it down. that's my hope. either that, or the public outcry will be
immense enough to make bloomberg or whomever, seriously rethink this
atrocity.
whit
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fyvezz.1pkcbs51tlkr0iN%usenet@no-spam
> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1fyv57l.iwgb1v246ra5N%usenet@no-spam
> [..]
> > > ...but on the other hand, you *approve* of the segregation you decried
> > > above, and in fact want the state to *fund* segregated schools, as
long
> > > as they don't *run* them.
> >
> > when the segregated schools are not STATE run, and there is choice as to
> > which school to go to, i have no problem.
>
> A parent can send their kid to a school full of bullies, or a school
> full of kids like their kid. How is this restricting choice?
>
it restricts choice if straight kids are discriminated AGAINST in the newly
created 'gay school'.
because the gay kids will have choice of two public schools whereas the
straights will have one. if the school is = in regards to access for both
groups, then the school will not end up predominantly gay, which was the
whole point.
if there is no preference given to kids based on sexual orientation, then
it will not be discriminatory.
> > but most private schools are not segregated in the sense of the above
> > mentioned public school. they are segregated on the criteria of
> > performance, not IDENTITY.
>
> Actually, some, if not most, *are* segregated on identity, as much as,
> if not more than, performance. And I only disclaimer that because it's
> been a while since I looked at the statistics... IIRC, most private
> schools are religious schools.
>
that does not mean they necessarily discriminate on account of religion.
they MAY, but i am not sure that most, or even a significant percentage DO
this.
> And anyway. What I say still holds: You want the state to *fund*
> segregated schools, but you don't want the state to *run* them.
>
no, i don't. when the parent is given free choice, it is not an issue of
state sponsorship. the scotus ruled thusly, and i agree with them,.
when the school is a state RUN school, the issue is entirely different.
> > the state should not be in the interest of segregations,
>
> Well, there goes the voucher system, then. Farewell.
>
no, because the STATE is not in the business. and frankly, most of the
private schools don't EITHER, but even if they do, that is not a STATE
sponsorship. the scotus agrees, btw. since, the parents have free choice
among private institutions, the state is not an agent.
> > and the state should not make decisions in regards to identity politics.
>
> Yeah, bigoted school bullies should be the ones setting that agenda.
>
no, bigoted school bullies should get their ass-kicked by other kids.
that's what i would hope for. and that goes for all bullies.
> > do you or do you not think the NYC gay-only school is 1) constitutional
2)
> > just/fair/good idea?
>
> I think it's a better idea than the alternative, which is doing nothing
> about a very real problem.
>
there is plenty being done. there are all sorts of awareness classes,
detentions and expulsions of violent kids, etc.
> I also think it's constitutional if it doesn't discriminate based on
> sexual orientation, which is how it seems to be set up. It should really
> be called the 'no bullies school.'
'no bullies' school is a pipe dream. and i also see it entirely likely that
in a school full of gay kids, some gay kids will still bully other kids
based on all sorts of criteria. kids are cruel. gay kids are not immune
from this.
but, if the school does not discirminate, it sounds ok to me, so it's a moot
point. assuming this is true.
whit
On 7/30/03 12:17 AM, in article bg7res02gnt@no-spam "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
> "Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB4CB56B.33C3%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
>> On 7/29/03 9:53 PM, in article bg7j03026qp@no-spam "Clave"
>> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>> "Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:BB4C992B.3384%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
>>>> On 7/29/03 12:04 AM, in article
>>>> j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam "torresD"
>>>> <torresD30@no-spam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>>>>> haven, where they can get an education,
>>>>> without being a target of bigtory.
>>>>
>>>> Would you like to segregate the minorities that are the targets of bigotry
>>>> too?
>>>
>>> Is drow^Wsegregating bigots an option?
>>
>> You mean after they bus everyone else to their specialized school, they will
>> have segregated themselves?
>>
>> What happens when the different groups at the new high school start picking
>> on each other?
>
> Then I guess people like you can start taking bets.
On when someone's going to propose schools for each of gender confused
groups?
On 7/30/03 1:08 AM, in article 1fyvwef.1ylel9h1gbf134N%usenet@no-spam
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
> Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/03 10:08 PM, in article 1fyvpcz.13jmhd41fevctgN%usenet@no-spam
>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>> Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/03 3:33 PM, in article 1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
>>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote:
>>>>> whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>>> it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the last
>>>>>> several decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it has no
>>>>>> place in a public school.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that the
>>>>> developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And if they flunk out, they should take their voucher to school
>>>> that meets their (special) needs.
>>>
>>> So creating a proper learning environment in the first place isn't part
>>> of your plan.
>>
>> Meeting every special need? No.
>
> Why not?
>
> You advocate giving them a voucher to meet every special need, but you
> don't advocate meeting every special need in public school. What's the
> difference?
That's not the way government should work. You have a special need for a
road from your house to the public library, but that wouldn't be a very
efficient expenditure. So instead the government builds roads (or meets the
needs) of the largest population segment. Could the government give you a
voucher to pave a dirt road that connects your house to the thoroughfare?
Could the government give a mentally disabled kid a voucher to go to a
private school to meet his needs? Yes, if they can afford it.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:52:03 GMT, "whitster" <whit@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:02hfivc2mmd70nc1q6jfh08tnd753dpo85@no-spam
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:13:58 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3v2div0sb2aud61jf8hhtd5c039nv8mri3@no-spam
>> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
>> >> <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> >news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
>> >> >| Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
>> >> >| haven, where they can get an education,
>> >> >| without being a target of bigtory.
>> >> >
>> >> >Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
>> >> >
>> >> >Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
>> >> >
>> >> >Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
>> >> >
>> >> >Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
>> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
>> >> >
>> >> >It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of us)
>> >> >are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the first
>> >> >time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
>> >> >each?
>> >> >
>> >> >But then again,
>> >> >
>> >> >Who Cares?
>> >> >
>> >> Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
>> >> little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
>> >> a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
>> >> have a care to devine.
>> >>
>> >> Obwon
>> >
>> >the issue is not of compassion and understanding. it is of segregation,
>> >'seperate but equal' etc.
>>
>> If you read what I was responding to you see a distinct lack of
>> compassion for these gays! The separate but equal is another
>> problem that I've addressed elsewhere already.
>>
>> >apparently, segregation and seperate but equal are "ok" when it is for a
>> >'good cause'?
>>
>> No, not just for "a good cause", but for necessary purposes.
>> You do see the difference don't you? If not, here let me provide
>> you with a little help. Firstly you must acknowledge what
>> everybody already knows, that heterosexuals can and often do
>> subject gays to various extraordinary social "punishments".
>>
>> Now that wouldn't be the problem for the state funded
>> educational system, except for this one little factoid: The State
>> is charged with a duty to provide these kids with a good
>> education.
>
>that's wonderful, but nobody has provided statistical evidence that there
>are examples of gay kids being victimized to the extent that it would
>justify FORCED PUBLIC SEGREGATION. what are the victimization rates as
>compared to
>
>1) white kids in predominantly black schools
>2) black kids in predominantly whiet schools
>3) fat kids
>4) pimply, nerdy kids
>etc.?
>
>do you know? or do you just knee jerk approve to this 'solution' based on
>sentiment?
Well, now we're getting somewhere! The answer is no, I don't
know the answers to these questions, I haven't yet had cause to
look. That hardly indicates that I've been giving the solution
"knee jerk" approval as you so derisively phrase it (poor choice
of words perhaps? I won't dwell on it, it's not important to me,
but merely hoping for you to note the "flavor" of word choices so
as to perhaps get a better handle on it. After all, the task is
to debate a subject, not to impugn each other.)
But, I think that if the problem is worthy of being addressed
in this way, we should be able to trust that it has been found to
be a problem worthy of this solution. Now that you've admitted
that: If the problem is really significant enough, this solution
might just pass muster with you. Fine. That's all I was hoping
for. If I come across the stats you're seeking I'll be certain
to post them, or perhaps one of our other readers will. Then we
can take another look at the matter. Who knows, maybe, just
maybe I will then have to say that the solution isn't as
justifiable as I thought it was. I have no problem with that, we
took a long enough time to get to the consensus that if
remediation of this type is necessary, would it be justified.
Now that we agree that it could be, we will see if it actually
is.
>
>>
>> So, if the state finds that certain prevalent social mores are
>> interfering with it's mission, it has a duty to use it's powers
>> to remediate that problem.
>>
>
>it first must establish a compelling case sufficient to justify "seperate
>butequal". that is an immense burden of evidence. so where is it?
>do you know, or do you just agree with this proposal based on a sentiment?
I agree that a compelling case sufficient to justify "separate
but equal" must be made. But that wasn't the issue before now.
Before we got to this point the issue was the judgement that it
wasn't right-out-of-hand.
>
>> >
>> >what a load of shite.
>> >
>> >whit'
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm... By your expletive I take it to mean that you are upset
>> that the Constitution can't be used to perpetuate unfairness?
>
>again, where's the stats?
>
>> My, my, do you not realize that the Constitution is written to
>> protect us all from the same? That is why we have a court
>> system, so that the Constitution can't be used to work harms.
>>
>> Not even by such well intended people such as yourself!
>>
>> Cheerio
>> Obwon
>
>fwiw, i have no doubt that most proponents of these schools are well
>intentioned. of course they are.
>
>imo, they have not presented a compelling case, nor have you.
>
>whit
Well, as far as the "compelling case", we'll just have to look
into the matter and see what kind of case they have actually
made. I'm almost certain that we're not the only ones who saw
that there were two sides to the issue, and potent ones they are.
I would find it hard to believe that they somehow missed these
issues and the needed justifications and just took this decision
to go ahead without looking.
Do you really think that they did? I mean, I do know that they
sometimes goof up, but given the stakes here, I don't think so.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:foqhivgtm7f7j39aka6os2recm2k3i1fhg@no-spam
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:52:03 GMT, "whitster" <whit@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:02hfivc2mmd70nc1q6jfh08tnd753dpo85@no-spam
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:13:58 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >news:3v2div0sb2aud61jf8hhtd5c039nv8mri3@no-spam
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Who Cares?"
> >> >> <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:j0pVa.969$Rf5.826@no-spam
> >> >> >| Homosexual teen-agers should have a safe
> >> >> >| haven, where they can get an education,
> >> >> >| without being a target of bigtory.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Vegetarian teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get
an
> >> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Religious teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get
an
> >> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Minority teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Short teen-agers should have a safe haven, where they can get an
> >> >> >education, without being a target of bigotry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It will never happen. Unfortunately teen-agers (like the rest of
us)
> >> >> >are human and tend to pick on each other. What will happen the
first
> >> >> >time the black gays start picking on the white gays? A school for
> >> >> >each?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But then again,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who Cares?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Obviously you don't care, otherwise you might just have found a
> >> >> little bit of human compassion and understanding for children and
> >> >> a society struggling with a more complex set of problems than you
> >> >> have a care to devine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obwon
> >> >
> >> >the issue is not of compassion and understanding. it is of
segregation,
> >> >'seperate but equal' etc.
> >>
> >> If you read what I was responding to you see a distinct lack of
> >> compassion for these gays! The separate but equal is another
> >> problem that I've addressed elsewhere already.
> >>
> >> >apparently, segregation and seperate but equal are "ok" when it is for
a
> >> >'good cause'?
> >>
> >> No, not just for "a good cause", but for necessary purposes.
> >> You do see the difference don't you? If not, here let me provide
> >> you with a little help. Firstly you must acknowledge what
> >> everybody already knows, that heterosexuals can and often do
> >> subject gays to various extraordinary social "punishments".
> >>
> >> Now that wouldn't be the problem for the state funded
> >> educational system, except for this one little factoid: The State
> >> is charged with a duty to provide these kids with a good
> >> education.
> >
> >that's wonderful, but nobody has provided statistical evidence that there
> >are examples of gay kids being victimized to the extent that it would
> >justify FORCED PUBLIC SEGREGATION. what are the victimization rates as
> >compared to
> >
> >1) white kids in predominantly black schools
> >2) black kids in predominantly whiet schools
> >3) fat kids
> >4) pimply, nerdy kids
> >etc.?
> >
> >do you know? or do you just knee jerk approve to this 'solution' based
on
> >sentiment?
>
> Well, now we're getting somewhere! The answer is no, I don't
> know the answers to these questions, I haven't yet had cause to
> look. That hardly indicates that I've been giving the solution
> "knee jerk" approval as you so derisively phrase it (poor choice
> of words perhaps? I won't dwell on it, it's not important to me,
> but merely hoping for you to note the "flavor" of word choices so
> as to perhaps get a better handle on it. After all, the task is
> to debate a subject, not to impugn each other.)
>
i agree. but imo, coming out in support of radical and arguably
unconstitutional (and inarguably divisive and balkanizing) legislation
without reams of statistical data in support of the 'need' is (imo) classic
knee jerk.
> But, I think that if the problem is worthy of being addressed
> in this way, we should be able to trust that it has been found to
> be a problem worthy of this solution.
no, we don't. that's ludicrous. knee-jerk legislation is extremely common,
and often not supported by statistical need. i would never support
legislation like this without research of the highest order.
as opposed to emotion and sentimen t.
your faith in the powers that be, that they have done the research sounds
crazy to me. there has been a lot of terrible kneejerk legislation when
there are little or no facts. tryptophan would be a good example.
Now that you've admitted
> that: If the problem is really significant enough, this solution
> might just pass muster with you. Fine. That's all I was hoping
> for. If I come across the stats you're seeking I'll be certain
> to post them, or perhaps one of our other readers will. Then we
> can take another look at the matter. Who knows, maybe, just
> maybe I will then have to say that the solution isn't as
> justifiable as I thought it was. I have no problem with that, we
> took a long enough time to get to the consensus that if
> remediation of this type is necessary, would it be justified.
> Now that we agree that it could be, we will see if it actually
> is.
>
the stats would have to be incredibly overwhelming. kids have picked on
other kids for time immemorial. no other 'victim group' has ever
demonstrated a compelling need for segregated and seperate but equal. i
find it telling that many in this ng would support THIS legislation without
looking at the facts.
> >
> >>
> >> So, if the state finds that certain prevalent social mores are
> >> interfering with it's mission, it has a duty to use it's powers
> >> to remediate that problem.
> >>
> >
> >it first must establish a compelling case sufficient to justify "seperate
> >butequal". that is an immense burden of evidence. so where is it?
> >do you know, or do you just agree with this proposal based on a
sentiment?
>
> I agree that a compelling case sufficient to justify "separate
> but equal" must be made. But that wasn't the issue before now.
> Before we got to this point the issue was the judgement that it
> wasn't right-out-of-hand.
>
i am saying that when such a thing is proposed (or implemented) the burden
is on the pr