Page 3 of 3

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:39 pm UTC
by Jessica
Yakk wrote:
H2SO4 wrote:Okay, true, the ACLU is not going around arresting people in a Gestapo-esque manner for their beliefs, but the lengths they go to to persecute people for not treating everyone else (except Christian people, oddly enough) in a utopian manner is very disturbing.
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
Spoiler:
... so, why am I talking to someone whose user name is "sulfuric acid", a foul-smelling toxic substance, again?
Because you haven't foed him.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:07 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:Orientation-based-bullying amongst students, however, is not being reported in the linked case. Not to say it doesn't go on, it just doesn't give the court any legal grounds to mandate it to the students. Taking action in the form of mandates before reports or witnesses of such action, or threats of such action, amongst the students is not right.

As it turns out, that article is inaccurate; the case ended by settlement rather than by court order.

H2SO4 wrote:No, it's not irrelevant. Why was Tinker an issue in the first place? Because the faculty of the school took action against the students who wanted to wear black armbands "for the safety of those students" before any other student even told those participating that they wouldn't so much as like them if they wore the armbands.

Are you or are you not contending that homophobic bullying is unlikely to be a problem in Vallejo City Unified School District?

H2SO4 wrote:Okay, true, the ACLU is not going around arresting people in a Gestapo-esque manner for their beliefs, but the lengths they go to to persecute people for not treating everyone else (except Christian people, oddly enough) in a utopian manner is very disturbing.

See, but that's my point. When you say things like "Thought Police" but mean "biased advocacy group," I have to concentrate on the relationship between your language and the issue instead of just looking at the issue.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:31 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:As it turns out, that article is inaccurate; the case ended by settlement rather than by court order.

Semantics may be different, the result is the same: Students (and staff, so I'm happy about that) have to take part in anti-harassment training that, while that specific article does not make it clear if this is the case (why would it? probably wasn't an issue at the time), parents reportedly have no option to withdraw their children from.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Are you or are you not contending that homophobic bullying is unlikely to be a problem in Vallejo City Unified School District?

I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'm just not saying it's likely. As far as we know, the students have no problem with other students being gay. To assume one way or the other is not within legal scope. There are no reports of bullying from students that have come to the same public light or even evidence to suggest such a thing except "the teachers do it, therefore the students must," which, let's face it, isn't exactly a rock-solid point, therefore "innocence" has to be assumed.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:41 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:Semantics may be different, the result is the same: Students (and staff, so I'm happy about that) have to take part in anti-harassment training that, while that specific article does not make it clear if this is the case (why would it? probably wasn't an issue at the time), parents reportedly have no option to withdraw their children from.

In context, I was responding to your claim that the court exceeded its authority.

H2SO4 wrote:I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'm just not saying it's likely. As far as we know, the students have no problem with other students being gay. To assume one way or the other is not within legal scope. There are no reports of bullying from students that have come to the same public light or even evidence to suggest such a thing except "the teachers do it, therefore the students must," which, let's face it, isn't exactly a rock-solid point, therefore "innocence" has to be assumed.

How do you distinguish homophobia from plagiarism?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:08 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:In context, I was responding to your claim that the court exceeded its authority.

Ah. Well, then you do have a point there.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:How do you distinguish homophobia from plagiarism?

I don't...? Not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Could just be that I'm seeing this at 2AM.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:59 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
You said that you don't have a problem with schools taking preemptive action against plagiarism, but your argument against the anti-bullying videos would apply equally to discussions of plagiarism. Compare:
I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'm just not saying it's likely. As far as we know, the students have no problem with plagiarism. To assume one way or the other is not within legal scope. There are no reports of plagiarism from students that have come to the same public light or even evidence to suggest such a thing except "the teachers do it, therefore the students must," which, let's face it, isn't exactly a rock-solid point, therefore "innocence" has to be assumed.

Why should this argument apply to bullying but not to plagiarism?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:37 pm UTC
by Arancaytar
Princess Marzipan wrote:So it just got good - a judge asked the pro-prop 8 lawyer "could the state of California reinstitute segregation?"


Ooh, that's going to leave a mark.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:02 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:You said that you don't have a problem with schools taking preemptive action against plagiarism, but your argument against the anti-bullying videos would apply equally to discussions of plagiarism. Compare:
I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'm just not saying it's likely. As far as we know, the students have no problem with plagiarism. To assume one way or the other is not within legal scope. There are no reports of plagiarism from students that have come to the same public light or even evidence to suggest such a thing except "the teachers do it, therefore the students must," which, let's face it, isn't exactly a rock-solid point, therefore "innocence" has to be assumed.

Why should this argument apply to bullying but not to plagiarism?

Because plagiarism *is* a recurring problem amongst students. It's just not taken to the extremes that cases involving orientation are, so we outside of Vallejo School District don't hear about it, let alone having it being taken up by the ACLU to any court.

Plagiarism technically is not citing sources, a "failure to act", not just copying your friend's answers. Middle school kids write research papers. Therefore, middle school kids, when they don't cite their sources in research papers, commit plagiarism.

Bullying, on the other hand, is an active thing. There is no situation that I can think of right off the top of my head where someone accidentally bullies another kid.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:26 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:Because plagiarism *is* a recurring problem amongst students.

Right. As is homophobia.

H2SO4 wrote:Bullying, on the other hand, is an active thing. There is no situation that I can think of right off the top of my head where someone accidentally bullies another kid.

I don't think you can accidentally perform the actions that amount to bullying, but I think it's definitely possible to do so without any conscious or deliberate awareness that you are bullying someone.

More importantly, though, why is the active/passive or intentional/unintentional distinction relevant to the school's decision to treat homophobia as a problem?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:44 am UTC
by Lucrece
Yeah, I've witnessed this in my brother, who's high school age and more of the Facebook generation, and TGB's point did seem to reflect on him. Past-times he and his friends (and children of similar age whom I tutor) had no problem gloating about how they exposed//maligned someone over Facebook, such as criticizing a picture because they thought the person had photoshopped to make himself look better, and it was their personal duty to bear cruel truth to him.

Sort of like their beloved reality TV programs, the behavior we deem as bullying has been highly normalized and made a staple of entertainment. And they become surprised when I call them out on it.

Similarly, one week my brother came and told me how he had blown off a guy hitting on him, because of his tacky shoes and him being a "ref" or however it's spelled. "Ref" is a nickname for a subset of Hispanics who are not fully Americanized-- and display antics like "Spanglish" and are usually deemed low class. And it was totally normal to my brother to a) be a classist pig, b) internalize xenophobia by separating himself as an American of European descent (not Hispanic, despite being born and lived half his life in Venezuela-- but Hispanics are low class ugly brown people you don't want to be labeled as a light-skinned blond), and c) feel perfectly OK expressing those prejudices in a cruel, dismissive way to the object of his repulsion.

Children are being aided and abetted in bullying behavior which they assimilate as normal, non-bullying behavior because it's against an individual and not a subset of people like the rules prohibit.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:56 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:More importantly, though, why is the active/passive or intentional/unintentional distinction relevant to the school's decision to treat homophobia as a problem?

Simple. Orientation-based bullying had not been shown to be going on amongst students, as far as the linked case is concerned. Because it is something that is an active thing and is very very hard to do unintentionally, it cannot be compared to plagiarism as far as rule-breaking is concerned. Therefore including it as a non-opt-outable part of the curriculum, while every other part (including sex ed day in health class), is able to be opted out of, is nothing more than a political ploy in schools, which is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. Preaching any political side in schools is terrible, and it's why it is considered bad taste for teachers to outright express their political leanings and have it influence what points they bring up in class, especially about issues that are fairly close to a current hot topic.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:08 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
H2SO4 wrote:Simple. Orientation-based bullying had not been shown to be going on amongst students, as far as the linked case is concerned. Because it is something that is an active thing and is very very hard to do unintentionally, it cannot be compared to plagiarism as far as rule-breaking is concerned. Therefore including it as a non-opt-outable part of the curriculum, while every other part (including sex ed day in health class), is able to be opted out of, is nothing more than a political ploy in schools, which is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. Preaching any political side in schools is terrible, and it's why it is considered bad taste for teachers to outright express their political leanings and have it influence what points they bring up in class, especially about issues that are fairly close to a current hot topic.
Homophobia and its opposition is not a political stance, but rather a moral one. With that in mind, do you oppose instructing our children that murder is wrong, even if our children are not actively engaged in murder?

I'm also not very clear on why you think bullying is hard to do unintentionally. I've been bullied unintentionally; I've bullied people unintentionally; I've watched others bully people unintentionally. It happens all the time; it's actually pretty much the standard operating procedure as far as bullying is concerned. Why on earth do you think otherwise?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:02 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:Simple. Orientation-based bullying had not been shown to be going on amongst students, as far as the linked case is concerned.

Ditto plagiarism.

H2SO4 wrote:Because it is something that is an active thing and is very very hard to do unintentionally, it cannot be compared to plagiarism as far as rule-breaking is concerned.

What. I asked you why the difference is relevant to educational policy and your reason is "because there's a difference"? I'm asking you to show me why intentionality means that bullying can't be compared to plagiarism, not only as far as rule-breaking is concerned, but as far as teaching people about rule-breaking is concerned. Simply pointing to some irrelevant difference does not invalidate a comparison.

H2SO4 wrote:Therefore

How does anything that you say after this word follow from anything that you say before it?

H2SO4 wrote:including it as a non-opt-outable part of the curriculum, while every other part (including sex ed day in health class), is able to be opted out of

Ha, no. You can't opt out of every part of a school curriculum. Sex ed is the exception rather than the rule.

H2SO4 wrote:[Anti-bullying curriculum] is nothing more than a political ploy in schools, which is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do.

"Nothing more" is a broad and untenable claim. Anti-bullying curricula prevent some amount of suffering and provide support for students who are the targets of bullying. Those benefits cannot be reasonably derided as political. And, as Hippo notes above, the politicization of human dignity does not the diminish the responsibility of those granted power to protect the dignity of the powerless.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:36 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGreatHippo wrote:Homophobia and its opposition is not a political stance, but rather a moral one.

There are no politics *not* based on morals. That being said, it's interesting to see each side complain about forcing morals on each other whilst forcing morals on each other.

TheGreatHippo wrote:With that in mind, do you oppose instructing our children that murder is wrong, even if our children are not actively engaged in murder?

Because orientation-based-bullying == murder.

Murder is an actual law. Making fun of someone because they are different is not.

TheGreatHippo wrote:I'm also not very clear on why you think bullying is hard to do unintentionally. I've been bullied unintentionally; I've bullied people unintentionally; I've watched others bully people unintentionally. It happens all the time; it's actually pretty much the standard operating procedure as far as bullying is concerned. Why on earth do you think otherwise?

Okay, if it's so obvious, give me a plausible situation where bullying happens that is unintentional.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Ditto plagiarism.

The case is not about plagiarism.

Again, plagiarism happens because of something a student *doesn't* do. Bullying happens because of what a student *does* do. I honestly don't see how you don't see the difference.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I'm asking you to show me why intentionality means that bullying can't be compared to plagiarism, not only as far as rule-breaking is concerned, but as far as teaching people about rule-breaking is concerned. Simply pointing to some irrelevant difference does not invalidate a comparison.

It's not irrelevant. An "irrelevant difference" between orientation-based bullying and plagiarism would be "plagiarism is for written documents." How is the fact that one action is an action from negligence and the other is an action from intent?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:How does anything that you say after this word follow from anything that you say before it?

Comparison of a non-opt-out-able curricula (plagiarism) to one that should be.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Ha, no. You can't opt out of every part of a school curriculum. Sex ed is the exception rather than the rule.

Slight exaggeration. In-class movie being used for educational purposes but rated R? Parents can opt their children out. Class using the Bible for literary purposes (as Biblical stories are alluded to quite frequently)? Parents can opt their children out. Indoctrinating students that unless they are sweetness and light 100% of the time to that student who they don't even know is gay that they are "homophobic" stains on society? Sorry, parents, you no longer have control of your child.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:"Nothing more" is a broad and untenable claim. Anti-bullying curricula prevent some amount of suffering and provide support for students who are the targets of bullying. Those benefits cannot be reasonably derided as political. And, as Hippo notes above, the politicization of human dignity does not the diminish the responsibility of those granted power to protect the dignity of the powerless.

It's not an anti-bullying video, it's an anti-orientation-based-bullying video.

At no time or place is it anyone's responsibility to force anything on anyone else, otherwise you are merely shifting the power and declaring that those who are now powerless need no protecting.

Okay, scratch the first little bit of that first statement, because I know you'll deliberately miss the point there, too. Okay, if the person with the responsibility is a police officer, there are situations where he can force stuff upon others.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:26 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
Fuck this quote-sniping bullshit. And while we're at it, fuck moral relativism too.

I'm perfectly fine with forcing my morals on you when your morality is clearly inferior. And any moral system that penalizes homosexuality is inferior. So yeah, I really don't care about the politics here; if you think homosexuality is a sin, you have shitty morals and I'm fully prepared to shove mine down your throat.

And as for your 'orientation-based bullying isn't murder' deal; okay? What about cutting in line? Or sharing? Important lessons that aren't a huge deal beyond a few outliers; we teach them because they're moral. Schools teach morality. Whether or not it's against the law is irrelevant; if we can all agree that it's moral, we can all agree it's probably something that schools should teach.

As for your question about 'unintentional bullying'... I'll just quote Lucrece from above:
Lucrece wrote:Yeah, I've witnessed this in my brother, who's high school age and more of the Facebook generation, and TGB's point did seem to reflect on him. Past-times he and his friends (and children of similar age whom I tutor) had no problem gloating about how they exposed//maligned someone over Facebook, such as criticizing a picture because they thought the person had photoshopped to make himself look better, and it was their personal duty to bear cruel truth to him.

Sort of like their beloved reality TV programs, the behavior we deem as bullying has been highly normalized and made a staple of entertainment. And they become surprised when I call them out on it.

Similarly, one week my brother came and told me how he had blown off a guy hitting on him, because of his tacky shoes and him being a "ref" or however it's spelled. "Ref" is a nickname for a subset of Hispanics who are not fully Americanized-- and display antics like "Spanglish" and are usually deemed low class. And it was totally normal to my brother to a) be a classist pig, b) internalize xenophobia by separating himself as an American of European descent (not Hispanic, despite being born and lived half his life in Venezuela-- but Hispanics are low class ugly brown people you don't want to be labeled as a light-skinned blond), and c) feel perfectly OK expressing those prejudices in a cruel, dismissive way to the object of his repulsion.

Children are being aided and abetted in bullying behavior which they assimilate as normal, non-bullying behavior because it's against an individual and not a subset of people like the rules prohibit.
There you go.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:25 am UTC
by Malice
The Great Hippo wrote:And as for your 'orientation-based bullying isn't murder' deal; okay? What about cutting in line? Or sharing? Important lessons that aren't a huge deal beyond a few outliers; we teach them because they're moral. Schools teach morality. Whether or not it's against the law is irrelevant; if we can all agree that it's moral, we can all agree it's probably something that schools should teach.


I think that at least the examples you used could be termed teaching social skills, not morality. Whether you tell the students "share because sharing is good," the intent is "share because that makes everybody happier and less prone to fist-fighting over control of the coolest toys." That's learning how to get along with other people, not how to get along with your soul or God or your conscience or whatever.

Hear-hear on forcing better morals down peoples' throats. As strange as that sounds.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:44 pm UTC
by 22/7
What's the old saying? Silence is concurrence or something? If I'm standing there laughing or even simply being quiet while some other kid cracks jokes about teh geyz then I'm (probably unintentionally) contributing not only to that instance of creation of a hostile environment (note that this is illegal if it's done at work) but to the whole cultural idea that anything non hetero is inferior, gross, wrong, etc. Unintentional bullying is, in my unresearched opinion far more prevalent and arguably more damaging long term than intentional bullying.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:20 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Hippo, you can have my quote-sniping rifle when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
H2SO4 wrote:The case is not about plagiarism.

Again, plagiarism happens because of something a student *doesn't* do. Bullying happens because of what a student *does* do. I honestly don't see how you don't see the difference.

First, the case is clearly not about plagiarism. However, you have indicated that this case is a problem while the case of educating against plagiarism is not. I am trying to get a clear statement from you as to why this case, but not the other, is problematic.

Second, I do see the difference, and I have acknowledged it. What I'm asking you for is an explanation of how that difference is relevant to the grounds on which you criticize the anti-bullying policy.

H2SO4 wrote:Comparison of a non-opt-out-able curricula (plagiarism) to one that should be.

"Therefore" does not mean "I'm about to make an unargued distinction."

H2SO4 wrote:Slight exaggeration. … Indoctrinating students that unless they are sweetness and light 100% of the time to that student who they don't even know is gay that they are "homophobic" stains on society? Sorry, parents, you no longer have control of your child.

:roll: Yeah, thanks for clearing up that exaggeration for me.

H2SO4 wrote:At no time or place is it anyone's responsibility to force anything on anyone else, otherwise you are merely shifting the power and declaring that those who are now powerless need no protecting.

I would argue this, but you're challenging the less important part of my claim. Maybe the school district doesn't have a responsibility to proactively protect its students. However, it has decided to do so in this case. Why should that decision be compromised by the political contention that gay students do not deserve such protection?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:19 am UTC
by H2SO4
The Great Hippo wrote:I'm perfectly fine with forcing my morals on you when your morality is clearly inferior. And any moral system that penalizes homosexuality is inferior. So yeah, I really don't care about the politics here; if you think homosexuality is a sin, you have shitty morals and I'm fully prepared to shove mine down your throat.

Don't be surprised, then, if people vote against you, as is what happened with Prop 8.

The Great Hippo wrote:As for your question about 'unintentional bullying'... I'll just quote Lucrece from above:
Lucrece wrote:Yeah, I've witnessed this in my brother, who's high school age and more of the Facebook generation, and TGB's point did seem to reflect on him. Past-times he and his friends (and children of similar age whom I tutor) had no problem gloating about how they exposed//maligned someone over Facebook, such as criticizing a picture because they thought the person had photoshopped to make himself look better, and it was their personal duty to bear cruel truth to him.

Sort of like their beloved reality TV programs, the behavior we deem as bullying has been highly normalized and made a staple of entertainment. And they become surprised when I call them out on it.

Similarly, one week my brother came and told me how he had blown off a guy hitting on him, because of his tacky shoes and him being a "ref" or however it's spelled. "Ref" is a nickname for a subset of Hispanics who are not fully Americanized-- and display antics like "Spanglish" and are usually deemed low class. And it was totally normal to my brother to a) be a classist pig, b) internalize xenophobia by separating himself as an American of European descent (not Hispanic, despite being born and lived half his life in Venezuela-- but Hispanics are low class ugly brown people you don't want to be labeled as a light-skinned blond), and c) feel perfectly OK expressing those prejudices in a cruel, dismissive way to the object of his repulsion.

Children are being aided and abetted in bullying behavior which they assimilate as normal, non-bullying behavior because it's against an individual and not a subset of people like the rules prohibit.
There you go.

That's not unintentional bullying, though. The person in each case is pretty deliberate. Whether or not bullying people has become normalized in a person does not mean they aren't intentionally doing it.


TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:First, the case is clearly not about plagiarism. However, you have indicated that this case is a problem while the case of educating against plagiarism is not. I am trying to get a clear statement from you as to why this case, but not the other, is problematic.

Second, I do see the difference, and I have acknowledged it. What I'm asking you for is an explanation of how that difference is relevant to the grounds on which you criticize the anti-bullying policy.

Because plagiarism will be a problem, unintentionally, if the schools don't teach it. Orientation-based-bullying, however, will not necessarily become a problem, much like fist-fights or theft will not necessarily become a problem if schools don't teach it.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I would argue this, but you're challenging the less important part of my claim. Maybe the school district doesn't have a responsibility to proactively protect its students. However, it has decided to do so in this case. Why should that decision be compromised by the political contention that gay students do not deserve such protection?

It's not the contention that gay students don't deserve the protection, just that parents deserve the right to decide what their child is taught, when, and in what manner more than some school. Does this mean that the school has to consult parents on each and every little point they will be teaching? Of course not. It just means that the parent reserves the right to pull their child out of school/class for whatever reason they want.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:26 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:Because plagiarism will be a problem, unintentionally, if the schools don't teach it. Orientation-based-bullying, however, will not necessarily become a problem, much like fist-fights or theft will not necessarily become a problem if schools don't teach it.

It's not a matter of whether orientation-based bullying will necessarily become a problem, but simply of whether it will become a problem. Research indicates that it will.

H2SO4 wrote:It's not the contention that gay students don't deserve the protection, just that parents deserve the right to decide what their child is taught, when, and in what manner more than some school. Does this mean that the school has to consult parents on each and every little point they will be teaching? Of course not. It just means that the parent reserves the right to pull their child out of school/class for whatever reason they want.

So you are contending that children shouldn't have to learn any particular component of the curriculum if their parents don't want them to?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:30 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
H2SO4 wrote:Don't be surprised, then, if people vote against you, as is what happened with Prop 8.
Yes, people have strong opinions about their shitty moral systems. This has never been surprising.
H2SO4 wrote:That's not unintentional bullying, though. The person in each case is pretty deliberate. Whether or not bullying people has become normalized in a person does not mean they aren't intentionally doing it.
The person in each case would not describe their actions as bullying. How is 'Oh, I didn't realize I was bullying that kid' effectively any different than 'Oh, I didn't realize I had to cite my sources'?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:26 am UTC
by H2SO4
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not a matter of whether orientation-based bullying will necessarily become a problem, but simply of whether it will become a problem. Research indicates that it will.

I say "necessarily" because I know you'd point out the obvious if I just said "will not become a problem."

So schools are the only places kids learn morals?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So you are contending that children shouldn't have to learn any particular component of the curriculum if their parents don't want them to?

Parents' want supersedes a school's want.

The Great Hippo wrote:The person in each case would not describe their actions as bullying. How is 'Oh, I didn't realize I was bullying that kid' effectively any different than 'Oh, I didn't realize I had to cite my sources'?

Again, one is an action, the other is non-action.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:06 pm UTC
by Azrael
H2SO4 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So you are contending that children shouldn't have to learn any particular component of the curriculum if their parents don't want them to?

Parents' want supersedes a school's want.

Not that curriculum is actually a 'want', but by what precedent can you make that claim? Because with any amount of thought, that statement is plainly demonstrated as false when within the school bounds. Curriculum, schedule, food, discipline, dress, behavioral standards, even attendance (etc etc) are all (and always have been in public education) regulated by the school, not the individual parent.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:28 pm UTC
by Belial
H2SO4 wrote:So schools are the only places kids learn morals?
If their parents object so strenuously to their children being taught that gay people are, like, human or something, then it's not like the kids are learning them at home.

H2SO4 wrote:Parents' want supersedes a school's want.
The school has to deal with them 8+ hours a day. Furthermore, the school, not the parents, is responsible for making sure that your kid's right to swing their fist ends at that other kid's face. To those ends, their wants do supercede your wants. You don't like it? Homeschool.
H2SO4 wrote:Again, one is an action, the other is non-action.
Man, this acid is really kicking in. It's almost like those goalposts are moving, man...

So what's the criteria for a behaviour mattering enough to prevent, in H2SO4-land? Is it intention? Or is it action vs inaction?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:06 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
H2SO4 wrote:I say "necessarily" because I know you'd point out the obvious if I just said "will not become a problem."

So you added some irrelevant smokescreen qualifier?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:31 pm UTC
by H2SO4
Azrael wrote:by what precedent can you make that claim?

The fact that parents can (and they have at my old high school) influenced what a school does. They can, at any point, take their child out of school for a day for any reason. Before educational field trips are taken, the school has to get permission slips signed. Before an R-rated movie is shown in a high school for educational purposes, permission slips have to be signed. Before that "Miracle of Birth" video is shown in a health class, permission slips have to be signed. The list goes on and on.

Azrael wrote:Curriculum, schedule, food, discipline, dress, behavioral standards, even attendance (etc etc) are all (and always have been in public education) regulated by the school, not the individual parent.

Curriculum is decided by the school, but is considered an opt-out, not opt-in, aspect of school.
The rest of those examples are extrapolating what I said outside of the context.
Though technically, attendance for a day can be waived if the parent excuses the absence. Or, if the parent does not want their child going to school altogether, can just not register their child for school.
Children don't have to buy school lunches. They don't even have to bring food. Parents can pack their children a lunch or leave the responsibility of packing a lunch to their child, but either way, the parent gets what they want.

Belial wrote:If their parents object so strenuously to their children being taught that gay people are, like, human or something, then it's not like the kids are learning them at home.

Thanks for using a stereotype. "Oh, if they don't want their kids to learn about it at that age, it must be because they're GAY-HATERS!!!" There's a time and way to learn to cope with people that are different ("ZOMG! H2SO4 SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG!"), and I don't trust schools to teach it at the time or in the way that I would like for my children, and I can guarantee I'm not the only one.

Belial wrote:The school has to deal with them 8+ hours a day. Furthermore, the school, not the parents, is responsible for making sure that your kid's right to swing their fist ends at that other kid's face. To those ends, their wants do supercede your wants. You don't like it? Homeschool.

That's not curricula. If the curricula they are teaching there is "It's not okay to hit people," then you'll be hard-pressed to find a parent who doesn't want that taught to their child. If you're going to use an example, please use a reasonable one.

Belial wrote:So what's the criteria for a behaviour mattering enough to prevent, in H2SO4-land? Is it intention? Or is it action vs inaction?

If the infringement happens by a lack of action by the person who is considered to be infringing the rules, that is where prevention is necessary.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:38 pm UTC
by Griffin
Wait, wait, how is plagiarism non-action?
It doesn't just happen you know. Someone actually has to DO IT, and they have to INTEND to do it as well!

They may not realize its against the rules, but that's why we educate them about it.

Same case for this homo-bullying. Honestly? A lot of it happens because kids are kids and do stupid shit without knowing any better. They need to be taught that certain things are not only "not okay" but also "against the rules".

Murder is an actual law. Making fun of someone because they are different is not.

Why hello, harassment. Yes, I AM aware you are illegal and generally completely ignored in school contexts!

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:50 pm UTC
by DSenette
H2SO4 wrote:
Belial wrote:If their parents object so strenuously to their children being taught that gay people are, like, human or something, then it's not like the kids are learning them at home.

Thanks for using a stereotype. "Oh, if they don't want their kids to learn about it at that age, it must be because they're GAY-HATERS!!!" There's a time and way to learn to cope with people that are different ("ZOMG! H2SO4 SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG!"), and I don't trust schools to teach it at the time or in the way that I would like for my children, and I can guarantee I'm not the only one.
while i can "kind of" understand the "in the way that i would like" (though, to be honest i don't see how telling someone not to be a dick to someone who's not like you can be said in a way you don't like) but, what's the bit about timing? when exactly is the right time to not teach your children to stare at people with down's syndrome? what age are they allowed to know not to stare at the guy with one leg?

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:51 pm UTC
by Belial
H2SO4 wrote:Thanks for using a stereotype. "Oh, if they don't want their kids to learn about it at that age, it must be because they're GAY-HATERS!!!"


Wait, now you want your kids protected from *learning* about gay people? Like, that they exist?

Shit, what's the proper age to let your children in on the BIG SECRET that black people exist? Or Jews?

This is ridiculous.
That's not curricula. If the curricula they are teaching there is "It's not okay to hit people," then you'll be hard-pressed to find a parent who doesn't want that taught to their child. If you're going to use an example, please use a reasonable one.


...you...really don't know that saying? Your right to swing your fist ends at my face? It's, like, a figure of speech? One of those meta-whatsits?

Osiris Christ.

Okay, let's try again. The school has to deal with bullying. It's the school's responsibility to make sure that your little brat doesn't hurt, harass, or generally screw with the ability of someone else's child to take advantage of the school environment. Because, as it turns out, school isn't just about your child. There are several hundred other sprogs there and they need to play nice to keep the system going. If you want school to just center around your precious little snowflake and his cultivated ignorance of the existence of differences, keep him at home, preferably in a basement somewhere so he doesn't accidentally see an asian or exchange hellos with an atheist. That would be a total disaster.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:59 pm UTC
by Sourire
H2SO4 wrote:
Belial wrote:If their parents object so strenuously to their children being taught that gay people are, like, human or something, then it's not like the kids are learning them at home.

Thanks for using a stereotype. "Oh, if they don't want their kids to learn about it at that age, it must be because they're GAY-HATERS!!!" There's a time and way to learn to cope with people that are different ("ZOMG! H2SO4 SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG!"), and I don't trust schools to teach it at the time or in the way that I would like for my children, and I can guarantee I'm not the only one.

Parental entitlement is a wonderfully convenient device, no?

In the second grade I remember we bred mealworms as part of a science class. Might some parents have objected to the idea of their children being exposed to the miracles of reproduction at such an impressionable age? I mean sure, you can come up with all sorts of qualifiers (they're mealworms not being least among them) for what might justify this as part of an honest and open curriculum. But parents should have the right to be able to censor the messages their children are hearing at any time, right? If I don't want my kid learning about how the world works, it's not big government's place to stop me.

Seriously, parents do not have some all-encompassing right to their children. There are laws that dictate for how long your precious baby must sit in various classrooms, and there are legal avenues used to determine the material covered in those classrooms. You do not get power of veto.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:10 pm UTC
by Dark567
Sourire wrote: There are laws that dictate for how long your precious baby must sit in various classrooms, and there are legal avenues used to determine the material covered in those classrooms. You do not get power of veto.
Well, you kinda do, its called home school. Almost anything you view as controversial in school doesn't have to be taught. Many states have curricula requirements, but its mostly just "you have to teach reading, writing and math" and not topics like evolution.

Also if education violates your religion, you can have children opt out after eighth grade:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:17 pm UTC
by Sourire
Dark567 wrote:
Sourire wrote: There are laws that dictate for how long your precious baby must sit in various classrooms, and there are legal avenues used to determine the material covered in those classrooms. You do not get power of veto.
Well, you kinda do, its called home school. Almost anything you view as controversial in school doesn't have to be taught. Many states have curricula requirements, but its mostly just "you have to teach reading, writing and math" and not topics like evolution.

Also if education violates your religion, you can have children opt out after eighth grade:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

The idea of homeschooling seemed to me to have been rejected earlier in the thread. I should have made it more explicit that I meant "you do not have power of veto in what will be taught in public schools."

Also, I was not aware of the last stipulation. Thanks for the link. :)

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:31 pm UTC
by Azrael
H2SO4 wrote:
Azrael wrote:
H2SO4 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So you are contending that children shouldn't have to learn any particular component of the curriculum if their parents don't want them to?
Parents' want supersedes a school's want.
by what precedent can you make that claim?

The fact that parents can (and they have at my old high school) influenced what a school does. They can, at any point, take their child out of school for a day for any reason. Before educational field trips are taken, the school has to get permission slips signed. Before an R-rated movie is shown in a high school for educational purposes, permission slips have to be signed. Before that "Miracle of Birth" video is shown in a health class, permission slips have to be signed. The list goes on and on.

Boy, are you missing the boat. Permission slips for field trips have to be signed because the student is leaving the school property. Slips for R-rated movies because students aren't (by outside restriction) allowed to see R-rated movies when they're under 17. Sex & health education is (was/will be) the exception, not the rule, in that there is an established opt-out mechanism.

Furthermore, parents cannot take their children out at any time for any reason without consequence. Parents can excuse their child from facing punishment due to their absence by attesting to the legitimacy of the absence. "I don't want them learning Hamlet" (or, given recent new, reading 1984 in Seattle) doesn't work. Regardless of where one falls on the excuse vs. punishment axis for absences, a certain number of them typically results in failing to one of many degrees, including repeating a grade. So, sure, the want of the parent can trump the want of the school, but the school is then no longer required to uphold it's end of the bargain.

Attempts to alter curriculum have to go through the appropriate process, which includes input from other parents and the attempt can be quashed by the appropriate experts.

The parents are not the final arbiters of what happens in school. There's an all-in or all-out threshold at the point of enrollment, and only a (nearly) trivial input thereafter.

Re: Prop 8 Court of Appeals Oral Arguments (Live 1PM EST)

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:10 pm UTC
by netcrusher88
Or in a marginally more relevant example, you don't get to opt out of school telling your kids racism is wrong. Or sexism. It doesn't matter if your religion teaches that dark skin is a curse, or that women must submit to their masters husbands in order to please them. You can teach whatever you want at home but equality will be taught at school and expression of x-ism will not be tolerated.

It's the same concept - it doesn't matter what one's religion says about gay people, homophobia belongs on that list with racism and sexism and when it is it won't be something you can opt out of either.