0
   

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 12:28 am
Quote:
Main Entry: de vi ant
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: deviating especially from an accepted norm
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 04:58 am
Lola:-

Why go on threads that make you feel sick and not go on threads you said you loved?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 05:03 am
Foxy:-

I'm sure glad my school didn't go in for that stuff.
Are the usual core subjects too much work?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 07:36 am
sp

Lola mentioned that you had a stint teaching something somewhere at some time. Any familiarity with a couple of philosophy of education boys out of oxford...RS Peters and PH Hirst?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 07:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Main Entry: de vi ant
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: deviating especially from an accepted norm

OK, fair enough - if thats all you meant by "deviant" - but if that is all you meant by "deviant", then why the need to shield your kids from seeing anything for the reason of it being "deviant"? Why the special status of homosexuality when, I assume, you dont shield your kids from "being confronted with", to take your other examples, retarded or left-handed people either?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:50 am
Spendius, these highschoolers were a church group, not in a public classroom.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:51 am
Nimh please read my 'final comment' post again more carefully. I specifically stated my views on teaching sexuality to kids. I stand by it.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:55 am
Quote:
Lola:-

Why go on threads that make you feel sick and not go on threads you said you loved?


Spendy,

Exactly.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 10:09 am
Oooh, see now I'm torn. On the one hand, it doesn't seem good mental-health-wise to just keep saying the same things and have them be ignored, hence my attempt to just bow out. On the other hand, it doesn't sit well with me to have nimh's completely reasonable question be ignored using the same criteria. What I would love is to be able to have a face-to-face discsussion where tangents and distractions could be cut short and some answers to direct questions could be demanded.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 12:20 pm
I think it's a good question too. I'm waiting. But I don't look for an answer. Good questions have a way of being ignored around here.

There's plenty of room, however for the question to be addressed around the distractions.

But when no answers are forthcoming......what else is there to do but to deviate?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 02:48 pm
Fox's is a common definition of deviant - and accurate, of course - also implicit for most of us in the term is this meaning:

Definition: [n] a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
[adj] markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas"


Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, degenerate, deviate, pervert

See Also: bugger, child molester, fetishist, lecher, masochist, miscreant, nympho, nymphomaniac, paederast, paedophile, pederast, pedophile, reprobate, sadist, sadomasochist, satyr, sod, sodomist, sodomite
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 03:03 pm
satyr, yeah I'm like that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 08:11 am
Is Mary Cheney a pervert, then?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 08:16 am
Do you think so since you're the one using the word?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 08:19 am
My use of the word 'deviant' by the way is in the same context as is used by psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and others studying human behavior and it in no way is associated with anything perverse or even negative. That the rest of you see it as negative (homophobic?) is probably from your conditioning. But thank you so understanding that the No. 1 definition is the context and intent.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 08:45 am
Ah, so you don't mind if kids are exposed to left-handed people, redheads, and gay/ lesbian folks. Right?

The only reason to isolate them is because of sexuality. The problem is, their "sexuality" is as apparent to a preschooler as any heterosexual couple's "sexuality". All a preschooler cares about or needs to know is that there are many different kinds of families.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 08:55 am
Sozobe, if you want to discuss sex with your pre-schoolers go for it. I don't with mine. I wish to choose the time and place to discuss that with my kids.I respect your beliefs re raising your children. I would appreciate being respected for mine. Exposed to all kinds of 'decent' people? No problem. Exposed to the concept of homosexuality/heterosexuality at the preschool level. No way.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 09:02 am
But that's exactly what I have been saying, that the "lesbian=sex" link is in your mind, not preschoolers'. Why discuss sex after watching the Buster video? Why does seeing a couple of moms lead to a discussion of sex?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 09:08 am
Can you think of anything that differentiates a lesbian from a heterosexual woman other than sexual orientation? Differentiating gender and understanding male and female are quite sufficient for preschoolers in my opinion. If you read an earlier post on this thread, I stated I don't know the content of this particular cartoon but trust the judgment of those who have seen it to decide whether it is suitable for preschoolers.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 09:09 am
Can you think of anything that differentiates being raised by a grandma instead of two parents other than sexual orientation?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 07:51:43