Sexual Education

[ssibal]

Re: Re: What a concept....

...but how are you going to teach history without getting into what someone thinks is right or wrong? History is very much the interpretation of the teller. You are living in a fool's paradise if you think that education is not a moral minefield.

That is simple, you do not inject your opinions into the subject matter. If a teacher is incapable of teaching history without expressing their opinion of what was right or wrong then I do not think they should be teaching that subject. History should be about the facts only.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Re: Re: Re: What a concept....

That is simple, you do not inject your opinions into the subject matter. If a teacher is incapable of teaching history without expressing their opinion of what was right or wrong then I do not think they should be teaching that subject. History should be about the facts only.

I take it you haven't studied history very much.

 

[Tony]

What exactly are the thoughts and feelings someone will have to repress in order to be tolerant?

"Tolerating" something implies that the person has an objection or finds something disagreable about another person. In "teaching tolerance" you are teaching a person to ignore or repress thier disagrement. Why dont we teach them to work out their disagreement in civil and rational debate?


And are you sure those thoughts and feelings are worth to be saved from repression? Really?

Mabey, but a person should make that choice for themselves. They should not be compelled to do so by the state.

Even if they are the thoughts and feelings of some fanatic who hates you/your race/your beliefs/your country for no reason you or any reasonable person will ever be able to understand?

Let them hate me, they have freedom of thought right? But when they cross the line, I have a problem with it.

 

[ssibal]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What a concept....

I take it you haven't studied history very much.

What are you implying? That someone cannot teach that the Europeans killed the indigenous American populations without saying "that was very wrong of the Europeans" or "those stupid indians deserverd to get killed?"

 

[Mr Manifesto]

How did Egypt come to be in a position to florish in the Middle Kingdom? Was it because of Thutmose III or Hatshepsut? Your answer depends on your ideology.

 

[jimlintott]

In "teaching tolerance" you are teaching a person to ignore or repress thier disagrement. Why dont we teach them to work out their disagreement in civil and rational debate?

I tolerate stupid people. They amuse me and I give them the benefit of the doubt. No amount of rational civil debate will make them less stupid.

Tolerance or lack of it isn't always about disagreements that can be solved by talking it out. If one of my queer friends sits down and debates with a homophobe he might make that person less homphobic but he likely won't become less gay.

I do agree that we should teach civil and rational debate. Maybe I'm being shallow but I can't help but feel that if we aren't teaching tolerance then we are teaching intolerance.

Think of the children!!

 

[Tony]

I dunno, mabey you're right. I am just speaking for myself. I dont tolerate gay people, honestly, I dont care. I am niether "tolerant" or "intolerant". If someone is gay, it doesnt even bother be, "tolerance" never enters my mind. It just is. And I came to this attitude by thinking logically.

 

[ssibal]

How did Egypt come to be in a position to florish in the Middle Kingdom? Was it because of Thutmose III or Hatshepsut? Your answer depends on your ideology.

Big difference between different interpretations for how something happened and expressing your opinion as to whether something that happened was right or wrong.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Big difference between different interpretations for how something happened and expressing your opinion as to whether something that happened was right or wrong.

My point is, history is all about interpretations. And I'm sure you can think of a few other subjects taught in school equally open to opinion and interpretation. Schools are not, never have been, and never will be moral-free zones.

 

[DrBenway]

One solution for this problem I thought of was teaching homosexuality in school sex education programs, as an acceptable alternative to hetrosexual sex.

Parents who believe homosexuality is a sin won't be happy with this approach. Although I would disagree with them, I recognize that they are entitled to their opinion.

How kids learn a few things about sexuality in school:

A percentage of school teachers are gay. Kids usually figure this stuff out. The information becomes the subject of much speculation and humor.

If a kid is overheard making comments about a certain teacher or other adult being queer, he's usually reprimanded. He's told, "What you said is rude, for one. And secondly, so-and-so's personal life is none of your business."

I think the "tolerance" issue can be subsumed under the right to privacy. Luckily, teaching about the right to privacy won't freak parents out so much as teaching about "tolerating gays."

 

[a_unique_person]

It does.

I side against top-down socialization requirements for the public schools, no matter how well intentioned they are.

MattJ

But there is a top-down socialization requirement in place right now, it teaches only heterosexuality and acts like homosexuality doesn't exist.

I agree that talking about sex to teenagers is embarassing enough for them as it is, talking about homosexuality would be even more so.

I have read, though, that teaching kids about sex at puberty is too late. Like walking and talking, they need to understand about themselves at a younger age to get the full benefit. By the time they are teenagers, in a sexual knowledge vacuum, they may have already started to veer off into random sexual craziness by themselves.

 

[plindboe]

But there is a top-down socialization requirement in place right now, it teaches only heterosexuality and acts like homosexuality doesn't exist.

Excellent point!


Personally I feel that schools shouldn't teach morals or tolerance. Kids most be taught how to think for themselves. They should be presented by all the facts available, and from those they can decide what to believe is right or wrong, based on the morals that have been passed on to them by their parents. Often tolerance increases the more info there is about the issue, so tolerance will probably be a consequence none the less.

Information about sexual preferences shouldn't be ignored in schools, since this issue is a big part of our world today(5% gay maybe???). Also considering the problems these 5% go through when they begin to discover their own sexual preference, growing up in a world where they get the impression that it doesn't exist, because of the lack of education dealing with the subject.

Peter

 

[ssibal]

My point is, history is all about interpretations. And I'm sure you can think of a few other subjects taught in school equally open to opinion and interpretation. Schools are not, never have been, and never will be moral-free zones.

But teaching different interpretations is not the same as teaching morality. I think morality has no place in school.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

by sundog

Roll your eyes all you like. If you're going to insult me with a big word, spell it right or I'll call you on it. People who cannot truly aspire to a good vocabulary shouldn't use words they haven't mastered.

You 'called' me on a typo. It happens that I know how to spell disingenuous. But you are correct you should be doing what you do best and keeping this forum safe from misspellings and typos. Keep calling.







PS- you managed to miss a few other misspellings I made. Better correct me.

---
edit

I notice you edited your post to remove any typos and misspellings you made. I can see you are a master strategist as well as a master proofreader.

 

[aerocontrols]

The more than horizontal somethings well covered by cloth?

You say 'well-covered'. The students who can walk into my office at any time might not see it that way.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

But there is a top-down socialization requirement in place right now, it teaches only heterosexuality and acts like homosexuality doesn't exist.

Please supply evidence of your assertion that schools are forced (top down) to act like homosexuality doesn't exist.

I think you'll find that many schools do not ignore the existence of homosexuality. If you can find something that shows otherwise, I stand ready to oppose that top-down requirement, as I do all others.

MattJ

 

[Sundog]

by sundog

I can see you are a master strategist as well as a master proofreader.

Thank you, I see you are a master baiter.

Refrain from insulting me, and you'll find I treat you with the same respect I try to treat others here with.

 

[ZeeGerman]

You say 'well-covered'. The students who can walk into my office at any time might not see it that way.

MattJ

Hmm, I doubt it would be a problem over here - actually I'm pretty sure.

How about the same picture without the erections. Would that be acceptable.

I think we should start a thread about this, just to see the different perceptions of what is work-safe and what's not...

Zee

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Thank you, I see you are a master baiter.

Refrain from insulting me, and you'll find I treat you with the same respect I try to treat others here with.

I don't see how I can refrain from insulting you- you take the mildest comment as an 'insult'.

We'll comprimise. I won't insult you if you do not see an enemy in every shadow. Deal?

 

[Sundog]

I don't see how I can refrain from insulting you- you take the mildest comment as an 'insult'.

We'll comprimise. I won't insult you if you do not see an enemy in every shadow. Deal?

Deal, buddy!

Give me a chance, I'm not such a jerk as you think.