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

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:58 pm UTC

Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
legopelle
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 7:07 pm UTC
Location: Directly over the center of the earth.

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

Postby legopelle » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:03 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Here.

Thank You. :mrgreen:
The Reaper wrote:I'm still fine with people having reactors, and still against them weaponizing the leftovers.

Walter Bishop wrote:Why would anyone kill a scientist? What have we ever done?

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

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

Postby Cathy » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:17 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:Does he realize how absurd he sounds?
Honestly? Probably.


Yeah, I feel like much "uuhhhhm eerrrrrmmm"-ing is due to how awkward he feels making the same (baseless, in my opinion) arguments. I'm listening to it right now. I also like the way Theodore Olson speaks. It feels like he thinks every word through.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

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

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:43 am UTC

Yakk wrote:By your reading, it says "the people's rights are limited to his enumeration, but the state's rights are not" in practice, which seems to go directly against the plain reading of the document.
It takes a Federal court to rule that any given state law *does* infringe upon individual rights - and I think all of our rights, from freedom of speech to a right to privacy are all interpreted to exist in the Constitution, even if they needn't be spelled out specifically like in the case of privacy, or with the idea of a right to marriage. That right is indeed not listed, but is assumed to exist by extrapolation and interpretation by the Supreme Court. So there does need to be a Constitutional basis to overrule the actions of any state, by determining that it conflicts with either the Federal Constitution itself or a relevant and justly derived Federal law.

I think. I am not a Constitutional lawyer.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

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

Postby Dark567 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:03 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Yakk wrote:By your reading, it says "the people's rights are limited to his enumeration, but the state's rights are not" in practice, which seems to go directly against the plain reading of the document.
It takes a Federal court to rule that any given state law *does* infringe upon individual rights - and I think all of our rights, from freedom of speech to a right to privacy are all interpreted to exist in the Constitution, even if they needn't be spelled out specifically like in the case of privacy, or with the idea of a right to marriage. That right is indeed not listed, but is assumed to exist by extrapolation and interpretation by the Supreme Court. So there does need to be a Constitutional basis to overrule the actions of any state, by determining that it conflicts with either the Federal Constitution itself or a relevant and justly derived Federal law.

I think. I am not a Constitutional lawyer.

Generally, I think the understanding is that the powers of the federal government are enumerated, but the rights of the people are unenumerated. But one of the enumerated powers of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people, so if there is a right that isn't laid out in the constitution, the federal government still has the power to protect intruding upon it by the states(or someone else).
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

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

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:46 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:Generally, I think the understanding is that the powers of the federal government are enumerated, but the rights of the people are unenumerated. But one of the enumerated powers of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people, so if there is a right that isn't laid out in the constitution, the federal government still has the power to protect intruding upon it by the states(or someone else).

So if government has the power to defend any and all unenumerated people's rights, doesn't that essentially give the government the power to do whatever they want?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

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

Postby Dark567 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:51 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:So if government has the power to defend any and all unenumerated people's rights, doesn't that essentially give the government the power to do whatever they want?
Basically, they just have to justify that X is a "right", which is done by a different branch of government then the one who has the power to make law.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

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

Postby Lucrece » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:11 am UTC

Cathy wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:Does he realize how absurd he sounds?
Honestly? Probably.


Yeah, I feel like much "uuhhhhm eerrrrrmmm"-ing is due to how awkward he feels making the same (baseless, in my opinion) arguments. I'm listening to it right now. I also like the way Theodore Olson speaks. It feels like he thinks every word through.


That's probably the train of thought being thrown off by judge interruptions. If you notice, Olson is smart because he doesn't hasten his speech, so he isn't as unnerved by an interruption as he is getting out his thoughts out more slowly and put together.

That and the fact that Olson is a magnificent orator-- he's argued 56 cases in the Supreme Court thus far. He's got the game down, and you could tell from the lesser interruption he got from the judges compared to the other lawyers.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

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

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:30 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:So if government has the power to defend any and all unenumerated people's rights, doesn't that essentially give the government the power to do whatever they want?
Basically, they just have to justify that X is a "right", which is done by a different branch of government then the one who has the power to make law.

Rights Are granted by the Judiciary Branch? Laws by the executive?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

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

Postby Dark567 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:37 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:So if government has the power to defend any and all unenumerated people's rights, doesn't that essentially give the government the power to do whatever they want?
Basically, they just have to justify that X is a "right", which is done by a different branch of government then the one who has the power to make law.

Rights Are granted by the Judiciary Branch? Laws by the executive?
Rights are granted by the Judiciary branch's interpretation of the constitution(obviously with the exception of constitutional amendments which explicitly grant rights), laws by the Legislative branch(unless the president uses his veto). The executive executes the law.


....thats at least vaguely how it works.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

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

Postby mosc » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:26 pm UTC

One thing I always bring up that people seem to forget is straight couples adopting. If marriage is for procreation, than a straight couple adopting makes them unfit parents. Do they really want to say that? I know they're insane and all but even by their own fucked up logic isn't that over the line?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

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

Postby Dark567 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:35 pm UTC

mosc wrote:One thing I always bring up that people seem to forget is straight couples adopting. If marriage is for procreation, than a straight couple adopting makes them unfit parents. Do they really want to say that? I know they're insane and all but even by their own fucked up logic isn't that over the line?

It's not really about that and we(and they) know that. It's about having both female and male figures in a child's life, because they don't believe a male can be substituted for a female or a female substituted for a male(because they are different, *look* they have different parts!). Which is not just insulting to gay and lesbian parents, but to all the single parents.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

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

Postby mosc » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:47 pm UTC

How do they argue unfit parenting at all when you have adopted kids and single parents? Also, gay parents have technology available in this day and age to have kids that are 50% theirs anyway so even some kind of direct lineage = better parent argument doesn't hold.

The only thing they can really say is that Marriage is classically defined as between a man and a women and that they see no good reason to change it. If they argue any kind of actual "gay marriage is bad" type of statement, it can't possibly have any supporting evidence or logical rationale that doesn't also denigrate adoption/fertility treatments/single parents/etc.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

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

Postby Dauric » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:54 pm UTC

mosc wrote:How do they argue unfit parenting at all when you have adopted kids and single parents? Also, gay parents have technology available in this day and age to have kids that are 50% theirs anyway so even some kind of direct lineage = better parent argument doesn't hold.

The only thing they can really say is that Marriage is classically defined as between a man and a women and that they see no good reason to change it. If they argue any kind of actual "gay marriage is bad" type of statement, it can't possibly have any supporting evidence or logical rationale that doesn't also denigrate adoption/fertility treatments/single parents/etc.


You're assuming that they -aren't- trying to denigrate adoption/ fertility treatments/ single parents/ any non-traditional nuclear 2 adults and 2 + some percentage of a third child families.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

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

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:53 pm UTC

mosc, once you break all the arguments down, the base premise always comes down to one or both of two things: "my religion says it's bad" and "gay sex is gross." That's it. That's all they've got. Everything else that pretends to appeal to reason or evidence is inconsistent, easily disproved by history, or hypocritical.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:19 am UTC

Dauric wrote:You're assuming that they -aren't- trying to denigrate adoption

Reasonable assumption is reasonable.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

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

Postby folkhero » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:43 am UTC

mosc wrote:How do they argue unfit parenting at all when you have adopted kids and single parents? Also, gay parents have technology available in this day and age to have kids that are 50% theirs anyway so even some kind of direct lineage = better parent argument doesn't hold.

Therese Stewart actually brought up this point during her time.

podbaydoor wrote:mosc, once you break all the arguments down, the base premise always comes down to one or both of two things: "my religion says it's bad" and "gay sex is gross." That's it. That's all they've got.

Don't forget: "mumble, mumble; something, something: CHILDREN!!" Which seems to be a favorite.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

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

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:34 am UTC

And the most effective argument. There was a recent 500+ page study on prop 8 that showed that the whole meme of the black vote was actually untruth-- we never had the black vote. What we LOST was middle age parents that would normally trend in equality's favor, but quickly reversed when shown the ads of "my school says a princess can marry another princess, and so could I".

Heterosexism will still be a huge problem even when homophobia is made socially unacceptable.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
M.C.
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:06 pm UTC
Location: South of the equator.

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

Postby M.C. » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:08 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:What we LOST was middle age parents that would normally trend in equality's favor, but quickly reversed when shown the ads of "my school says a princess can marry another princess, and so could I".


Are those available online? I'd like to see them.
Nobody likes Milhouse!

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:53 pm UTC

I believe Lucrece is referring to this ad.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

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

Postby Yakk » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:04 pm UTC

Aww, kid so cuute.

Bald man not cute.
->
Vote with kid, not bald man.

Clearly, the voting algorithm of people that appeals to has issues.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

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

Postby mike-l » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:28 am UTC

Oh me yarm, schools might teach my child they can marry whoever they love? What ever will I do?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
scarecrovv
It's pronounced 'double u'
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: California

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

Postby scarecrovv » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:38 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I believe Lucrece is referring to this ad.

That ad made me sad. But this video made me happy again. :D

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby Diadem » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:05 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I believe Lucrece is referring to this ad.

How does the mind of people that are convinced by this ad work? That kid is so cute. All I think when I hear her say "And I can marry a princess" is "Of course you can sweety, if you want to". How on earth does your mind work if 'cute kid in favour of gay marriage' persuades you to vote against it?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:41 am UTC

scarecrovv wrote:That ad made me sad. But this video made me happy again. :D

I, too, was saddened by the fact that the government is telling me what I can and can't teach my child.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:03 am UTC

s/fact/willfully ignorant myth/

Feel free to teach your kids whatever you feel like (though I reserve the right to judge you for it). Meanwhile, you do not have unilateral control over school curricula.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:25 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Feel free to teach your kids whatever you feel like (though I reserve the right to judge you for it). Meanwhile, you do not have unilateral control over school curricula.

True, I don't get to control what the school wants to teach, but apparently I don't get to control what they teach my child, either. I don't know about you, but it used to be that you could take your child out of school for a day if you wanted. Apparently that's not the case anymore, what with the Thought Police out there...

And to those of you who will no doubt willfully and knowingly construe what I'm saying, it's not that I see treating people of a different orientation in an equal manner as wrong, it's how I see a school teaching it as wrong. The message is the same, the methods are different.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:38 am UTC

It is, again, manifestly false that you cannot withdraw your child from school for a day. This should not be confused with the right to withdraw your child from school graduation requirements or behavioral standards, which does not exist.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:43 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It is, again, manifestly false that you cannot withdraw your child from school for a day. This should not be confused with the right to withdraw your child from school graduation requirements or behavioral standards, which does not exist.

Graduation requirements are flexible, actually. My high school had something called a Plan II, where you could switch out certain graduation requirements for others.

Behavioral standards, while not opt-out-able, are not assumed to be not-up-to-par until action is taken, which is why not every student is sent to the principal's office until they watch a video on not cheating on tests. Correctional action is only taken when a rule is infringed. However, in the case I linked above, they assumed every student is a gay-hater that will end up bullying that girl until she committed suicide and therefore forced correctional measures into the curriculum.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:07 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Graduation requirements are flexible, actually. My high school had something called a Plan II, where you could switch out certain graduation requirements for others.

Most schools have electives. Most schools also have required courses. We are discussing a required component of the curriculum, and the existence of electives does not change that.

H2SO4 wrote:Behavioral standards, while not opt-out-able, are not assumed to be not-up-to-par until action is taken, which is why not every student is sent to the principal's office until they watch a video on not cheating on tests.

Every English class I have had since middle school has contained a discussion of plagiarism, and my computer science course's policy on academic honesty was printed at the top of every problem set last semester. You are correct that there should be no presumption of guilt, but there is a difference between assuming guilt and assuming that there is a widespread problem, or potential problem, that would be mitigated by advance discussion. Thus, your claim that "they assumed every student is a gay-hater" is again false; I would appreciate it if you would not go out of your way to say things that are obviously untrue.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:24 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Most schools have electives. Most schools also have required courses. We are discussing a required component of the curriculum, and the existence of electives does not change that.

And this refers to...what exactly? You said that graduation requirements aren't opt-out-able, I pointed out that they are, they just need to be replaced (in my high school, that is; not too sure about others), and then...this. I'm confused as to where this comes in.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Every English class I have had since middle school has contained a discussion of plagiarism, and my computer science course's policy on academic honesty was printed at the top of every problem set last semester. You are correct that there should be no presumption of guilt, but there is a difference between assuming guilt and assuming that there is a widespread problem, or potential problem, that would be mitigated by advance discussion. Thus, your claim that "they assumed every student is a gay-hater" is again false;

There is a difference between the two assumptions made, however. In the case of plagiarism, it is often a problem amongst students, and that is why the students are taught in advance about plagiarism. In the case I linked, however, it was a problem amongst the teachers, yet the students were the ones who had to have this curriculum. See the mismatch?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I would appreciate it if you would not go out of your way to say things that are obviously untrue.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't go out of your way to say things that are obviously only there to give me no chance at a "correct" response. I agree with your statement, the validity of my argument is debunked by my character. I object to your statement, it makes it seem like it was plain as day that what I was saying is untrue and that I was just too moronic to know.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

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

Postby Xeio » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:48 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Every English class I have had since middle school has contained a discussion of plagiarism, and my computer science course's policy on academic honesty was printed at the top of every problem set last semester. You are correct that there should be no presumption of guilt, but there is a difference between assuming guilt and assuming that there is a widespread problem, or potential problem, that would be mitigated by advance discussion. Thus, your claim that "they assumed every student is a gay-hater" is again false;

There is a difference between the two assumptions made, however. In the case of plagiarism, it is often a problem amongst students, and that is why the students are taught in advance about plagiarism. In the case I linked, however, it was a problem amongst the teachers, yet the students were the ones who had to have this curriculum. See the mismatch?
Bullying is, by far, a problem among the students.

I can only assume that the court was given good reason to assume that the teachers were not the only problem in that district (if you have teachers bullying/harassing students... well... the students aren't going to be any better), thus the mandated curriculum.
Last edited by Xeio on Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:29 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:54 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:And this refers to...what exactly? You said that graduation requirements aren't opt-out-able, I pointed out that they are, they just need to be replaced (in my high school, that is; not too sure about others), and then...this. I'm confused as to where this comes in.

You say that graduation requirements are opt-out-able at your high school, but I assert that there are generally at least some graduation requirements that are inflexible. At my school, for example, there was no option not to take physical education or several years of math and English. The graduating class below mine is now required to take at least one year of music and two years of a language other than English. To move through the school system, there are things that you have to do. In this school district, educational videos on bullying are among them. Even though they are new, the concept of mandatory graduation requirements is not.

H2SO4 wrote:There is a difference between the two assumptions made, however. In the case of plagiarism, it is often a problem amongst students, and that is why the students are taught in advance about plagiarism. In the case I linked, however, it was a problem amongst the teachers, yet the students were the ones who had to have this curriculum. See the mismatch?

Yes; there is a mismatch between the standards that you are applying to those scenarios. Note how you say that plagiarism "is often a problem amongst students," but contrast the other case not by saying that homophobia is not a problem among those students, but by saying that it is a problem among their teachers. Very well. The teachers have a problem, and so the school district instituted tolerance training for them. Meanwhile, homophobic bullying is often a problem among students, and likely more so in the presence of homophobic teachers, and therefore the court's judgment additionally mandated anti-bullying education for the students.

H2SO4 wrote:I would appreciate it if you wouldn't go out of your way to say things that are obviously only there to give me no chance at a "correct" response. I agree with your statement, the validity of my argument is debunked by my character.

I haven't the fuckingest clue what you're talking about.

H2SO4 wrote:I object to your statement, it makes it seem like it was plain as day that what I was saying is untrue and that I was just too moronic to know.

It's not that I think that you're incapable. It's that I think you're not putting a serious effort into accurately framing those statements to which I have objected. Buzzwords like "Though Police" to me suggest an over-willingness to dramatize the discussion at the expense of accuracy.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:00 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:You say that graduation requirements were opt-out-able at your high school, but I assert that there are generally at least some graduation requirements that are inflexible. At my school, for example, there was no option not to take physical education or several years of math and English. The graduating class below mine is now required to take at least one year of music and two years of a language other than English. To move through the school system, there are things that you have to do. In this school district, educational videos on bullying are among them. Even though they are new, the concept of mandatory graduation requirements is not.

That makes more sense.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Yes; there is a mismatch between the standards that you are applying to those scenarios. Note how you say that plagiarism "is often a problem amongst students," but contrast the other case not by saying that homophobia is not a problem among those students, but by saying that it is a problem among their teachers. Very well. The teachers have a problem, and so the school district instituted tolerance training for them. Meanwhile, homophobic bullying is often a problem among students, and likely more so in the presence of homophobic teachers, and therefore the court's judgment additionally mandated anti-bullying education for the students.

I wasn't saying it's not a problem amongst students, merely that mandating anti-orientation-based-bullying videos for the students because of the teachers is the mismatch. Plagiarism is, every year, a problem for students, with or without the discussion. Whether or not it lessens the amount of plagiarism is irrelevant. However, the reason why there are plagiarism lectures every year is because it's a problem every year. 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. Tinker v. Des Moines, anyone?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not that I think that you're incapable. It's that I think you're not putting a serious effort into accurately framing those statements to which I have objected. Buzzwords like "Though Police" to me suggest an over-willingness to dramatize the discussion at the expense of accuracy.

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.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

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

Postby ++$_ » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:04 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Orientation-based-bullying amongst students, however, is not being reported in the linked case.
It's not clear to me whether the bullying alluded to in this quote is from students or counselors:
She was forced to participate in a school-sponsored counseling group, where she was berated for her sexual orientation, according to ACLU reports.
So it's possible that the case involves bullying amongst students, depending on what actually happened at the counseling session. (I'm sure the judge knows what happened, but I don't.)

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

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

Postby T-Form » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:48 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:I wasn't saying it's not a problem amongst students, merely that mandating anti-orientation-based-bullying videos for the students because of the teachers is the mismatch. Plagiarism is, every year, a problem for students, with or without the discussion. Whether or not it lessens the amount of plagiarism is irrelevant. However, the reason why there are plagiarism lectures every year is because it's a problem every year. 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. Tinker v. Des Moines, anyone?

I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because otherwise they'd be doing nothing of substance to discourage homophobic bullying until it actually happens to someone. Given that this sort of bullying is so common, that'd be a pretty negligent way of handling the possibility. Furthermore, it appears many of the parents are homophobic themselves - why else would they object so strongly to these videos? Given that, it's quite reasonable to assume that many of the kids are raised in a homophobic environment and thus it's a good idea to try to offset that to reduce the chance of hostility to queer students. Hell, it's quite likely that a lot of them don't even know how to talk about queer people (specifically) using non-offensive terms.

Tinker v. Des Moines is about freedom of speech, so it's irrelevant here. Furthermore, the school isn't actually disciplining any students, so claiming "persecution" is ridiculous. And championing Tinker v. Des Moines while complaining of "persecution" by the ACLU? Tell me, who represented Tinker and the other students in that case?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

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

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:17 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because otherwise they'd be doing nothing of substance to discourage homophobic bullying until it actually happens to someone. Given that this sort of bullying is so common, that'd be a pretty negligent way of handling the possibility. Furthermore, it appears many of the parents are homophobic themselves - why else would they object so strongly to these videos?

Just like schools do nothing of substance to discourage pretty much anything else wrong until it actually happens?

For the same reason I said I would, possibly? Not disagreeing with the material, just not trusting how the school teaches it.

Tinker v. Des Moines is about freedom of speech, so it's irrelevant here.

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.

And championing Tinker v. Des Moines while complaining of persecution by the ACLU? Tell me, who represented Tinker and the other students in that case?

FTFY.
Woo. ACLU gets one thing right, suddenly they're Mother Teresa? The number of cases in which the ACLU is acting in the manner I described is much higher than cases such as this.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

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

Postby Yakk » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:56 pm UTC

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?
Last edited by Yakk on Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

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

Postby Jessica » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:39 pm UTC

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.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

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.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests