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.