(Close Window)
Topic: Here we go again...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 10, 2012 05:21PM)
How do you feel about cross dressers at school? Do you think it is OK? What grade or age should it be allowed? What restrooms should a male cross dresser use? As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you? As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?

The ACLU thinks it is fine. There is a surprise. :)

This is what prompted the above questions: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374850-virginia-school-district-considers-ban-on-cross-dressing

Just asking here...
Message: Posted by: Payne (Feb 10, 2012 05:35PM)
Since a portion of my wife's business is making corsets for cross dressers I'm all for it.

The first Transsexual I ever met I first encountered in a mens restroom. I'll admit it was a bit disconcerting at first and you had to go back and check the door to make sure you were in the right facility. But he was a kick to hang around with and we became pretty good friends.

Gender identity is a touchy subject. I certainly don't think that High School is the best environment to test the boundaries of social norms. But that's only because the troglodytes who inhabit your typical High School are going to beat the crap out of you because they feel threatened by anything that threatens their comfort zone because they are either fiercely xenophobic or they have doubts about their own gender identity
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Feb 10, 2012 05:59PM)
The problem is that most younger cross-dressers don't dress or act like females, they dress and act like Drag Queens. Obnoxious and ticks people off. No one would care if they simple assumed female attire and went on about their life.
Message: Posted by: Bluesman (Feb 10, 2012 07:41PM)
Are there girls cross-dresser? I only know men that does this.

Greg
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 10, 2012 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 18:21, acesover wrote:
How do you feel about cross dressers at school?
[/quote]

Don't care.

[quote]
Do you think it is OK?
[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]
What grade or age should it be allowed?
[/quote]

Any.

[quote]
What restrooms should a male cross dresser use?
[/quote]

Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.

[quote]
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
[/quote]

As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s.

[quote]
As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?
[/quote]

Don't care.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 10, 2012 08:29PM)
I don't care.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 10, 2012 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 20:41, Bluesman wrote:
Are there girls cross-dresser? I only know men that does this.

Greg
[/quote]

Girls wear "men's" style clothing all the time. It's fine for girls to wear pants, but not so much for guys to wear skirts it would seem.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 10, 2012 09:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 21:04, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 18:21, acesover wrote:
How do you feel about cross dressers at school?
[/quote]

Don't care.

[quote]
Do you think it is OK?
[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]
What grade or age should it be allowed?
[/quote]

Any.

[quote]
What restrooms should a male cross dresser use?
[/quote]

Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.

[quote]
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
[/quote]

As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s.

[quote]
As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?
[/quote]

Don't care.
[/quote]

As a confident, heterosexual guy, you're ok with other confident, heterosexual guys sharing a bathroom with your daughter, as long as they cross-dress? If we're not going to have unisex bathrooms, I think I lean toward segregating them by sex, not gender.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 10, 2012 10:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 21:04, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 18:21, acesover wrote:
How do you feel about cross dressers at school?
[/quote]

Don't care.

[quote]
Do you think it is OK?
[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]
What grade or age should it be allowed?
[/quote]

Any.

[quote]
What restrooms should a male cross dresser use?
[/quote]

Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.

[quote]
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
[/quote]

As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s.

[quote]
As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?
[/quote]

Don't care.
[/quote]

WOW!

I cannot help but respond to your post.

Crossdressers at school. Your answer. Don't care.

So by your answer you obviously have no problem with a guy wearing a dress or skirt to shool along with womens undergarments. Having said that how would you handle gym class with this individual? They are going to have to take off their skirt and undergarments which will be stockings and or pantyhose or thigh highs or possibly even a garter belt in the locker room.
----------

On to your second response.

Do you think it is OK? Yup

See above.
----------

On to your third response

What grade or age should it be allowed.

This really presents a problem. Suposoe the paarents are sending their 1sr or 2nd grader boy to school in a dress with nice patent leather shoes and cute socks. because at that agge not all of the kids I know pick out their clothes for school and are definitely influenced by their paarents.

Also once they reach the age of sexual awareness it presents all sorts of issues not just for them but also for their peers as mentioned in gym class. Also I hope they have correct posture and not sit like a guy when weariang a skirt. Lets not even go there.
----------

On to number 4 of your responses.

What restrooms should a male crrossdresseer use.

I got to love this answer. Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.
OMG. I can only respond with your kidding right? Leaves a lot of room for coed restrooms because anyone can say I identify with that gender. Just like the old saying I think I am a lesbian because I like girls said the guy.
----------

Number 5
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
Your response: As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s. Guess it all depends with the **** mean :) Just seems kind of weird having a guy stand next to you at a uniral with his skirt pulled up with his stockings or panty hose exposaed or thigh highs while taking care of business. but you are a confident heterosexual guy so you can handle it I am sure. But can your child?
----------

Aw but wait you answered tht last question with the response to my last questionwhenI asked: As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?

Your answer: Don't care.
My response to that absoutely noncaring response is, Nice. I can see that you really just don't care. Truer words have never left your finger tips than that "don't care" if that is how you feel.
Well we all know how you feel about it. You don't care. So no need for a response as you don't care.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 10, 2012 10:48PM)
I don't think students should be forced to cross dress in any grade.

What purpose is there in demanding folks wear clothes that don't fit properly?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 10, 2012 10:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 23:48, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
I don't think students should be forced to cross dress.
[/quote]

Why not? What if their parents insist? :)

Many here seem to feel it is OK so again I ask why not? :)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2012 10:55PM)
Why you don't tell us how you feel about it, aces?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 10, 2012 10:55PM)
I don't see the purpose in forcing students to wear clothes that don't fit properly, especially if it's to present a clumsy approximation of the stereotypical appearance of a member of a group to which they simply don't belong.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 10, 2012 10:57PM)
I would have to say that there is definitely a place for Crossdressing for those of that persuasion. However I do not think it is at all approiate in elementry school or middle school or high school.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 10, 2012 10:58PM)
It occurs that acting out sex role issues by way of costumes that no longer have relevance except as movie references may be a decent game for education. Any problems with having them also dress as rabbis, priests, imams and swamis too?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2012 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 23:57, acesover wrote:
...I do not think it is at all approiate in elementry school or middle school or high school.
[/quote]

I agree with Jon and the ACLU here. These kids exist in elementary, middle, high school, and college. Is that simple fact inappropriate, too? Does their reality inconvenience the rest in an egregious fashion? Perhaps the powers that be should just exterminate them, instead of letting their classmates do the dirty work? Really, compassion and understanding is all that's required, same as for everyone else. Banning "cross-dressing" for these kids is in fact enforcing cross-dressing for them. Do people really have a difficult time thinking outside of these boxes built around themselves? Scary they can't think past such basic levels. The human mind holds so much more potential- I find it very unnerving the way the bar is increasingly lowered. Not just the lowering but the attempted justifications don't hold even a drop of water and are often expected to go unchallenged. Seriously, imagine these kids, living this. ***ed terrifying, I suspect.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 10, 2012 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 23:42, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 21:04, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 18:21, acesover wrote:
How do you feel about cross dressers at school?
[/quote]

Don't care.

[quote]
Do you think it is OK?
[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]
What grade or age should it be allowed?
[/quote]

Any.

[quote]
What restrooms should a male cross dresser use?
[/quote]

Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.

[quote]
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
[/quote]

As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s.

[quote]
As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?
[/quote]

Don't care.
[/quote]

WOW!

I cannot help but respond to your post.

Crossdressers at school. Your answer. Don't care.

So by your answer you obviously have no problem with a guy wearing a dress or skirt to shool along with womens undergarments. Having said that how would you handle gym class with this individual? They are going to have to take off their skirt and undergarments which will be stockings and or pantyhose or thigh highs or possibly even a garter belt in the locker room.
----------

On to your second response.

Do you think it is OK? Yup

See above.
----------

On to your third response

What grade or age should it be allowed.

This really presents a problem. Suposoe the paarents are sending their 1sr or 2nd grader boy to school in a dress with nice patent leather shoes and cute socks. because at that agge not all of the kids I know pick out their clothes for school and are definitely influenced by their paarents.

Also once they reach the age of sexual awareness it presents all sorts of issues not just for them but also for their peers as mentioned in gym class. Also I hope they have correct posture and not sit like a guy when weariang a skirt. Lets not even go there.
----------

On to number 4 of your responses.

What restrooms should a male crrossdresseer use.

I got to love this answer. Which gender does he or she identify with? That one.
OMG. I can only respond with your kidding right? Leaves a lot of room for coed restrooms because anyone can say I identify with that gender. Just like the old saying I think I am a lesbian because I like girls said the guy.
----------

Number 5
As a guy are you comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to you?
Your response: As a confident heterosexual guy, I could give two ****s. Guess it all depends with the **** mean :) Just seems kind of weird having a guy stand next to you at a uniral with his skirt pulled up with his stockings or panty hose exposaed or thigh highs while taking care of business. but you are a confident heterosexual guy so you can handle it I am sure. But can your child?
----------

Aw but wait you answered tht last question with the response to my last questionwhenI asked: As a parent would you want your teenage son or daughter in this enviornment?

Your answer: Don't care.
My response to that absoutely noncaring response is, Nice. I can see that you really just don't care. Truer words have never left your finger tips than that "don't care" if that is how you feel.
Well we all know how you feel about it. You don't care. So no need for a response as you don't care.
[/quote]

Alright, I thought I was doing you a favor by answering your inquiry honestly. I didn't realize you were baiting me. Next time I'll know to expect underhanded tactics from you.
"Just asking" didn't mean "just asking," it meant "just say something so I can jump your ****."

You're really going to say I don't care about my kids? Really?
That **** gets you off my Christmas list.

I don't care what other kids wear to school because it doesn't hurt my kids.

I was hoping for a conversation, not an ambush.
That **** you said about me and my kids was over the line.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Feb 10, 2012 11:53PM)
It all just makes me curious as to how that sperm and egg ever got the idea to be a boy or girl? I mean it had to process billions of data --- put the nose here (check) put the mouth there (check) Boy parts here (check) OR Girl parts there (check) and then this wonderful masterpiece grows and oops. At what point did that sperm and egg goof? I know it can't be maybe in our thinking----can it? Is it possible we are EXACTLY the sex we were meant to be? I mean a lot of data was processed. But I don't want to be politically incorrect here. But I do wonder if we were REALLY politically correct would we really notice CROSS-Dressing at all? Why would we question it at all if it was in the "norm"? Why is it when we see a cross-dresser we KNOW something is odd or out of the norm? We want to not offend maybe in our comments but we know a Cross-dresser when we see one. That sperm and that egg what happened? How could it get everything right except for the way we think we should be?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 10, 2012 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 23:55, magicalaurie wrote:
Why you don't tell us how you feel about it, aces?
[/quote]

I would feel that from my posts you know how I feel about it.

If you do not understand I will tell you again.

If one is of that persuasion that they feel the need to cross dress they should. It is definitely their right. However as like most things there is a time and place for just about everything we do in life. As I said before while attending class in elementry through High School is not the place for cross dressing any more then practicing being a nudist when going to church on Sunday or for that matter to a football game or out for dinner. It is just not appropriate.

If booked for a group of clergy would you tell a joke with sexual inuenduos? It would probably get a laugh in a bar or night club. But I am sure not sit well with the clergy. Would you use the f-bomb while performing for clergy, or for children in middle or high school? I think not. But you hear it all the time in comedy routines at the local bars and night clubs. Time and Place. If you believe I AM WRONG LOOK AT THE INCIDENT AT THE sUPER bOWL. Why all the fuss? Because it was inapproiate.

I hope you now know how I feel.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 10, 2012 11:57PM)
? what's alll this about sperm and eggs processing data and having ideas?
Well, what beyond fertile ground for scripts aimed at amusement?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 12:35AM)
Accusing someone you've never met of not caring about their kids is not cool.
At all.

I must be ****ed, I'm breaking my own rule of allowing a cooling off period before responding to some offensive internet comment.

But then, that's most likely what you were fishing for so there's another favor I've done you. I'd say you owe me two now.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Feb 11, 2012 12:52AM)
What's "inappropriate" in your eyes, aces, is what's appropriate for someone that is a cross dresser. As Laurie so perfectly put it, forcing them to wear the clothes that society generally deems appropriate for their gender is, in their minds, cross dressing. The time and a place argument is nonsense. Are you saying that these people are allowed to be comfortable in the privacy of their own homes, but should be forced to conform when in public to make you feel more comfortable? It's not as though they can turn these feelings on and off with a switch. It's just as important to them at school as it is at home. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's "appropriate." This isn't play time and it's not a joke to these people. It's a serious issue that can cause depression, anxiety and a number of other psychological issues.

We spend far too much time worrying about what makes US uncomfortable without putting ourself in someone else's shoes. Go back to when you were in high school, and imagine the school board requiring you to wear a dress while on school grounds. How would that have made you feel? And would you really care about whether or not it made your classmates uneasy? Because really, that would have been their problem, not yours. That's what these kids go through - society tries to force them to be something they're not, and why should society care? They're not in that person's head. They don't know what it's like, and frankly it shouldn't be any of their business. If Tommy wants to wear a dress to school because he feels more comfortable that way, who are we to tell him that's not okay?

There was a great series on the Independent Film Channel a few years backs called Transgeneration, about four different college students facing these issues. It was a moving - and very inspirational - look at the struggles they faced.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 12:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 22:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As a confident, heterosexual guy, you're ok with other confident, heterosexual guys sharing a bathroom with your daughter, as long as they cross-dress?
[/quote]

If they identify themselves as confident heterosexual guys then they wouldn't be sharing a bathroom with my daughter.
A guy wearing a dress is not the same as a transgender. Not always, anyway.
I was thinking that these specific cross-dressers in the article most likely identify as boys, so in any garb they would be using the boys' room in my paradigm.

But the specific question I was answering was
"As a [b]guy[/b] are [b]you[/b] comfortable with a Cross dresser using a urinal next to [b]you?[/b]"
Which had nothing to do with my daughter. She's not me, and she's not a guy, so she doesn't match either of the criteria in the question.
And, of course, we now know that these were not really questions to begin with, but bait.
Which I apparently fell for.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 01:23AM)
For the record, when I wear a kilt I have to use the extra-manly men's room. This one has urinals sunk further into the walls to make room.
Wearing a kilt also doesn't make me Scottish.
I think this is called allegory, but it's past my bedtime, I haven't had any carbs this week, and my parenting has just been insulted, so I may not be thinking clearly.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 01:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:52, Andrew Zuber wrote:
As Laurie so perfectly put it, forcing them to wear the clothes that society generally deems appropriate for their gender is, in their minds, cross dressing...This isn't play time and it's not a joke to these people. It's a serious issue that can cause depression, anxiety and a number of other psychological issues...
[/quote]

Thankyou, Andrew, but Jon inspired my comments. A lot of kids are reported committing suicide over this these days... and those who claim guardianship threatening to officially snuff them with a "dress code". Really, what is going on with humanity in these "progressive" centuries? Kids lives are at stake. These kids have families. These kids are human, does that need to be stated here? Incredulously disturbing.

And Eric, there are plenty of things that are "odd" or "out of the norm" about plenty of people, if you want to drop this into that category. At the end of the day we're all people and this kind of dismissal of people for being born "human" is what's not quite right, here, if I'm being honest, and I am. Thankyou, Simon. Scares me that people seem so used to focusing in a backwards and hateful direction they don't even notice it anymore.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 11, 2012 01:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:55, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 22:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As a confident, heterosexual guy, you're ok with other confident, heterosexual guys sharing a bathroom with your daughter, as long as they cross-dress?
[/quote]

If they identify themselves as confident heterosexual guys then they wouldn't be sharing a bathroom with my daughter.
A guy wearing a dress is not the same as a transgender. Not always, anyway.
I was thinking that these specific cross-dressers in the article most likely identify as boys, so in any garb they would be using the boys' room in my paradigm.

[/quote]

Sorry; my misread. Long day.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 01:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 02:23, critter wrote:
Wearing a kilt also doesn't make me Scottish.
[/quote]

Why not? And how do we know it won't make the guy next to you Scottish, huh, critter?
Message: Posted by: Chrystal (Feb 11, 2012 01:54AM)
I absolutely would have no problem with an individual who is transgender, a cross dresser, is gay, or even purple for that matter.
Laurie said it more eloquently. :O)
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 01:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 02:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:55, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 22:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As a confident, heterosexual guy, you're ok with other confident, heterosexual guys sharing a bathroom with your daughter, as long as they cross-dress?
[/quote]

If they identify themselves as confident heterosexual guys then they wouldn't be sharing a bathroom with my daughter.
A guy wearing a dress is not the same as a transgender. Not always, anyway.
I was thinking that these specific cross-dressers in the article most likely identify as boys, so in any garb they would be using the boys' room in my paradigm.

[/quote]

Sorry; my misread. Long day.
[/quote]

No problem. I understand long days.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 01:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 00:53, The great Gumbini wrote:
Why is it when we see a cross-dresser we KNOW something is odd or out of the norm? We want to not offend maybe in our comments but we know a Cross-dresser when we see one. [/quote]

Because the adults whispered it. They said it was a cross-dresser and I heard them 'cuz I always had my listening ears on, Tracey didn't always but I always did. A lot of the adults say girls should wear dresses. Girls should wear pink and boys have to wear blue. Girls play with dolls. They're supposed to. And they should learn to cook soon as they can. And they should crack an egg and be able to drop it in the bowl without breaking the yolk or it's no good. How come? I can catch crickets outside at the barn. I did once and brought one in the kitchen to show my aunt and she screamed. But I showed her I could catch it easy. Then I brought it back outside where I got it from. How 'come she didn't like it? I caught it good. Good thing my mom never told me I have to wear pink, though, cuz I hate pink clothes, mostly. :nod:

[img]http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x436/magicalaurie/fountainlaurie1-1.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 11, 2012 02:20AM)
"The choice of clothing and the cut of the beard and its dressing are left to the discretion of men. But beware, O people, lest ye make yourselves the playthings of the ignorant"
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 02:25AM)
I heard that. It's real late and I should go to sleep or my mom might get mad. Even if I'm not tired. :shrug:

<-- :napping:
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 11, 2012 03:22AM)
I'm going to surprise all my friends here by saying this: I think (though I'm not sure) that school uniforms are a good idea. I suppose that the uniform could or should be unisex to avoid the issues in this thread.

Adults should be free to choose to live the way they want to live as long as they are no danger to others. But kids in school should be there to learn, not to compare Nikes or tattoos or panties.

School just isn't the right place for this particular fight, IMHO.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 03:36AM)
I'm still awake! Why should people fight? I think clothes are clothes and teachers should just make sure we're wearing some. Sometimes we don't wear our coats outside in the winter and they get upset. I think that might be o.k. but the teacher's still not my mom. Instead of saying girls should wear dresses when I was little ;) what if everyone said boys should wear dresses? Who says? I think if there is a fight it will go on even with uniforms even if they are unisex and I can wear jeans if I want to at school, I think I should too. And I don't think the teacher should tell me not to if I'm wearing jeans and a real shirt. One teacher tried to tell me what I should wear in grade five and she made my mom very mad. And she was bad to my sister. And she took our potato chips away from all of the class. Until the dentist person came one day and that person said potato chips aren't bad for your teeth. Mrs. Stonehouse that was the teachers real name, she tried to say chips were bad but the dentist whatever she was said they weren't. So then Mrs. Stonehouse knew she had made a mistake and the whole class knew, too, and my mom was glad.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 04:10AM)
And how do they know if the unisex uniforms are really unisex? Who told them and how do they know? And now I should go to sleep or I might get in trouble. Even if I'm still not tired. :shrug:

<-- :napping: for real this time.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 11, 2012 05:43AM)
Hm. Sorry about your insomnia.

Anyway, by "fight" I meant the fight to recognize the dignity of individuals who are compelled or simply choose to live in ways that differ from traditionally defined roles. That's a fight that deserves and continues to require our energy. But how kids dress in school ought not to be a real issue. I'm especially concerned about kids who cannot financially afford to dress as "cool" as the rest; but the issues in this thread would also be less relevant if the kids wore uniforms.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I just sort of suspect this. It could be that uniforms would lead to a whole new can of worms.

By "unisex" I just meant that the rigid distinction between boys (with ties?) and girls (in plaid skirts?) seems a bit old-fashioned. I was thinking more along the lines of khakis and blue blazers for everyone. :)
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Feb 11, 2012 06:45AM)
People just cant let kids be kids. Really, how many elementary school kids want to crossdress? It is their parents forcing their views onto their kids. Kinda like the 8 year old with a tattoo, dad pushed that one on him. Kids don't have the ability to make adult rational decisions like we do.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 07:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 07:45, rowdymagi5 wrote:
People just cant let kids be kids. Really, how many elementary school kids want to crossdress? It is their parents forcing their views onto their kids. Kinda like the 8 year old with a tattoo, dad pushed that one on him. Kids don't have the ability to make adult rational decisions like we do.
[/quote]
How many adults do you know who would WANT their kid to cross dress, or deal with gender identity issues?
Seriously, the idea that these types of things are the parents forcing things on their children is one of the most ignorant ideas I've ever heard.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 11, 2012 07:52AM)
Sometimes I get the urge to go out naked, however, through education I have learnt that it is disrespecting the nobility of my humanity to do so. I also would not like to be a plaything for the ignorant.

When I was younger I had the urge to have sex with as many girls as I could possibly muster, however I resisted the urge to do so, because I believe sex is between a couple who love each other within a marital institution.

As parents it is imperative to educate our children regarding the nobility of what it means to be human, and how it is natural to get "urges" and provide the child with tools to resist them and to rise above them....

......the rest can be worked out for yourselves :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Feb 11, 2012 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:
Sometimes I get the urge to go out naked, however, through education I have learnt that it is disrespecting the nobility of my humanity to do so. I also would not like to be a plaything for the ignorant.

When I was younger I had the urge to have sex with as many girls as I could possibly muster, however I resisted the urge to do so, because I believe sex is between a couple who love each other within a marital institution.

As parents it is imperative to educate our children regarding the nobility of what it means to be human, and how it is natural to get "urges" and provide the child with tools to resist them and to rise above them....

......the rest can be worked out for yourselves :)

Kam
[/quote]

Well said!
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Feb 11, 2012 08:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 07:45, rowdymagi5 wrote:
People just cant let kids be kids. Really, how many elementary school kids want to crossdress? It is their parents forcing their views onto their kids. Kinda like the 8 year old with a tattoo, dad pushed that one on him. Kids don't have the ability to make adult rational decisions like we do.
[/quote]
How many adults do you know who would WANT their kid to cross dress, or deal with gender identity issues?
Seriously, the idea that these types of things are the parents forcing things on their children is one of the most ignorant ideas I've ever heard.
[/quote]

So you think that an 8 year old should be allowed to make a decision to have a tattoo? Or do you kinda maybe think possibly the parents had something to do with that?? And really, you think that elementary age kids have the capacity to want to cross dress?

that's the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 11, 2012 08:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:35, critter wrote:
Accusing someone you've never met of not caring about their kids is not cool.
At all.

I must be ****ed, I'm breaking my own rule of allowing a cooling off period before responding to some offensive internet comment.

But then, that's most likely what you were fishing for so there's another favor I've done you. I'd say you owe me two now.
[/quote]

Read your post of Feb 10, 2012 9:04pm. I accused you of nothing. I simp;y stated your views which was stated by your post. So get off your high horse and don't make me sound like the bad guy here. You said it,not me.

Again not fishing just stating what you posted. Is it your post?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 11, 2012 09:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:52, Andrew Zuber wrote:
What's "inappropriate" in your eyes, aces, is what's appropriate for someone that is a cross dresser. As Laurie so perfectly put it, forcing them to wear the clothes that society generally deems appropriate for their gender is, in their minds, cross dressing. The time and a place argument is nonsense. Are you saying that these people are allowed to be comfortable in the privacy of their own homes, but should be forced to conform when in public to make you feel more comfortable? It's not as though they can turn these feelings on and off with a switch. It's just as important to them at school as it is at home. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's "appropriate." This isn't play time and it's not a joke to these people. It's a serious issue that can cause depression, anxiety and a number of other psychological issues.

We spend far too much time worrying about what makes US uncomfortable without putting ourself in someone else's shoes. Go back to when you were in high school, and imagine the school board requiring you to wear a dress while on school grounds. How would that have made you feel? And would you really care about whether or not it made your classmates uneasy? Because really, that would have been their problem, not yours. That's what these kids go through - society tries to force them to be something they're not, and why should society care? They're not in that person's head. They don't know what it's like, and frankly it shouldn't be any of their business. If Tommy wants to wear a dress to school because he feels more comfortable that way, who are we to tell him that's not okay?

There was a great series on the Independent Film Channel a few years backs called Transgeneration, about four different college students facing these issues. It was a moving - and very inspirational - look at the struggles they faced.
[/quote]

No Andrew the time and place is definitely not nonsense. It is the crutch of this whole issue. Going out socialy is perfectly acceptable for a person to CD but not to do so in a classroom. If you do not see the difference so be it. Should guys be allowed to not weaar shirts in class? Should they be allowed to go barefoot in class? However any of the aforeentioned things can be done if one wants to go to a football game or stroll in a park. Actualy probablhy prohibitted in some parks. But I think you get the drift Time and place. Time and place. Time and place.

I have nothing aganist crossdressers and have never said I do. Time and place. And I never said they had to be confined to home. I believe you brought that up.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Feb 11, 2012 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 04:36, magicalaurie wrote:
" I think clothes are clothes and teachers should just make sure we're wearing some. "

-------------

But why, Laurie? In for a penny, in for a pound. Let's suppose I am of American indian heritage, and my ancestors wore nothing more that a breechcloth. Why should I not be allowed to go to school this way, if the norms of society are now decided by each individual whim?

Jim
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 11, 2012 09:17AM)
If people want to cross dress, let them. Just not in school and that is the issue here. Nothing else.

Please read the above post above. It makes so much sense and says it all.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Feb 11, 2012 09:52AM)
Not in school. Seriously? So because it makes YOU uncomfortable to be next to a guy in a dress, let's force HIM to be uncomfortable all day, every day at school.

Makes ZERO sense. You clearly don't understand what goes on in their heads. You think thu should be forced to wear clothing for a gender they don't identify with. You can't turn these feelings on and off. If they identify with the opposite gender, they identify with it ALL DAY LONG. It has nothing to do with where they are, and it's not the school's place to say, "sorry, that's kinda weird, don't do it here." To some it might be "weird," but to them it is life altering.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 11, 2012 09:59AM)
I find the bathroom question much more interesting. When there's a sex/gender schism, how do you evaluate the incompatibility between one's wish to use the bathroom that corresponds to his/her gender vs others' wish to use the bathroom that excludes members of the opposite sex?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 10:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 09:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:35, critter wrote:
Accusing someone you've never met of not caring about their kids is not cool.
At all.

I must be ****ed, I'm breaking my own rule of allowing a cooling off period before responding to some offensive internet comment.

But then, that's most likely what you were fishing for so there's another favor I've done you. I'd say you owe me two now.
[/quote]

Read your post of Feb 10, 2012 9:04pm. I accused you of nothing. I simp;y stated your views which was stated by your post. So get off your high horse and don't make me sound like the bad guy here. You said it,not me.

Again not fishing just stating what you posted. Is it your post?
[/quote]

There's a difference between what a person says and how they say it.
I answered you question in a straightforward way, you chose to spin. Your response to my final answer alone would be only slightly ******y, but when you connect all of your responses together it tells quite a different story.
You straight up attacked my parenting. There's no way to wiggle out of it.
And then you have the gall to go on about inappropriate behavior.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Feb 11, 2012 10:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:
Sometimes I get the urge to go out naked, however, through education I have learnt that it is disrespecting the nobility of my humanity to do so.
[/quote]

Many tribal cultures wear nothing/next-to-nothing when out and about; the alleged 'nobility of their humanity' doesn't suffer in the least.

As with many issues, the real problem is often based on our attempts to force meaning on a universe that has none.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 11, 2012 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 11:34, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:
Sometimes I get the urge to go out naked, however, through education I have learnt that it is disrespecting the nobility of my humanity to do so.
[/quote]

Many tribal cultures wear nothing/next-to-nothing when out and about; the alleged 'nobility of their humanity' doesn't suffer in the least.

As with many issues, the real problem is often based on our attempts to force meaning on a universe that has none.
[/quote]

That's absurd!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 11:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 11:27, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 09:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 01:35, critter wrote:
Accusing someone you've never met of not caring about their kids is not cool.
At all.

I must be ****ed, I'm breaking my own rule of allowing a cooling off period before responding to some offensive internet comment.

But then, that's most likely what you were fishing for so there's another favor I've done you. I'd say you owe me two now.
[/quote]

Read your post of Feb 10, 2012 9:04pm. I accused you of nothing. I simp;y stated your views which was stated by your post. So get off your high horse and don't make me sound like the bad guy here. You said it,not me.

Again not fishing just stating what you posted. Is it your post?
[/quote]

There's a difference between what a person says and how they say it.
I answered you question in a straightforward way, you chose to spin. Your response to my final answer alone would be only slightly ******y, but when you connect all of your responses together it tells quite a different story.
You straight up attacked my parenting. There's no way to wiggle out of it.
And then you have the gall to go on about inappropriate behavior.
[/quote]

Had to take off for a minute. Let me elaborate.
I suspect some of my interpretation has been blown out of proportion by the limited medium of the internet.
I deliberately kept my answers short in the good faith of the "just askin'" condition. Since I assumed you really were "just askin'" I chose to invoke the "just answerin'" clause.
So I kept them short and simple so as not to make any allusions to your own beliefs or to end up attacking them.
But in your responses you chose to throw in "WOW!s" and "LOL's" and "You're kidding right?s"

Simply put: You asked, I responded, you mocked and derided my responses.
Like it or not, that [i]does[/i] make you the bad guy.
There's an old saying: "If you never cheat, you never have to worry about getting caught."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 11:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 09:30, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 07:45, rowdymagi5 wrote:
People just cant let kids be kids. Really, how many elementary school kids want to crossdress? It is their parents forcing their views onto their kids. Kinda like the 8 year old with a tattoo, dad pushed that one on him. Kids don't have the ability to make adult rational decisions like we do.
[/quote]
How many adults do you know who would WANT their kid to cross dress, or deal with gender identity issues?
Seriously, the idea that these types of things are the parents forcing things on their children is one of the most ignorant ideas I've ever heard.
[/quote]

So you think that an 8 year old should be allowed to make a decision to have a tattoo? Or do you kinda maybe think possibly the parents had something to do with that?? And really, you think that elementary age kids have the capacity to want to cross dress?

that's the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
[/quote]

I'm, big difference between "allowing" a kid to get a tattoo, and "forcing their views" onto them, pushing then to get a tattoo. The same with gender identity.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 11:21AM)
Aces: Given the conditions of the internet medium I do apologize for the severity of my initial replies.
However, I still think you were in the wrong and crossed the line, for reasons stated in my last post.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 10:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I find the bathroom question much more interesting. When there's a sex/gender schism, how do you evaluate the incompatibility between one's wish to use the bathroom that corresponds to his/her gender vs others' wish to use the bathroom that excludes members of the opposite sex?
[/quote]


I tend to side with the typical legal definition of gender. But my personal feelings are that gender should be a full time thing.
That's not the same as fashion. A guy in a dress is still a guy and should still use the guy's facilities.
But if it's a person who truly does identify entirely with the opposite gender from their biological one then I have no problem with them being treated as such.

But then the question comes up: What about those who, for reasons of biological uniqueness, identify with neither? I'm talking about actual biology here, not a mental thing.
In short:
Should intersexed individuals have their own bathrooms?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 11, 2012 11:37AM)
In Germany it's very common for women to use the men's stalls in places likes sports arenas. You know how it usually is: men go to the urinals and get out quick, while women wait in long lines. Not here. They line up at the stalls in both the men's rooms and the women's rooms.

Also, in Germany most cleaning people are women, and they feel free to clean the men's room while men are present.

In other words, I'm used to women being present when I pee.

Doesn't bother me any.

I'm not sure I have a point.
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Feb 11, 2012 11:52AM)
Its getting pretty weird in here! Now I know what my dad meant when he said the whole world has gone to hell!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 11, 2012 11:55AM)
Did your dad live in Germany?

LOL!
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Feb 11, 2012 12:05PM)
I think student to teacher ratios should be small enough, so teachers and parents can come to an agreement on how each situation should be handled in the child's best interest.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 11, 2012 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:

When I was younger I had the urge to have sex with as many girls as I could possibly muster, however I resisted the urge to do so, because I believe sex is between a couple who love each other within a marital institution.

As parents it is imperative to educate our children regarding the nobility of what it means to be human, and how it is natural to get "urges" and provide the child with tools to resist them and to rise above them....

......the rest can be worked out for yourselves :)

Kam
[/quote]

What I can work out for myself is that you are no more noble than the guy who had lots of fun following his urges with consenting women with complimentary 'urges'. If you are suggesting as it seems that you have risen 'higher' as a human because you have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union, I don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 13:07, Destiny wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:

When I was younger I had the urge to have sex with as many girls as I could possibly muster, however I resisted the urge to do so, because I believe sex is between a couple who love each other within a marital institution.

As parents it is imperative to educate our children regarding the nobility of what it means to be human, and how it is natural to get "urges" and provide the child with tools to resist them and to rise above them....

......the rest can be worked out for yourselves :)

Kam
[/quote]

What I can work out for myself is that you are no more noble than the guy who had lots of fun following his urges with consenting women with complimentary 'urges'. If you are suggesting as it seems that you have risen 'higher' as a human because you have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union, I don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 12:18PM)
With St. Pat's/Muay Thai day coming up I'll be wearing my kilt to school that day, as I do every year. I sure hope I don't get beat up.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 12:19PM)
Thought not exactly the same, as a straight male masculine man can be a cross dresser, but here's a decent explanation of the differences between sex, gender, orientation and expression.

[img]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq35psSJzu1qztkl8o1_500.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/rika84/Picture1.png[/img]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 11, 2012 12:19PM)
Clothes, or in this thread the proper term may be costume, are about social identity.
A school in our culture is not intended to convey gender/role identity norms but convey the basic skills that any member of our society will need as they proceed into their adult lives.

IMHO the issue sounds more like a schoolyard argument or something for the PTA to fret over than anything of interest to the students when they are in the classroom or hallways (or even the bathrooms).

Imagining one student introducing a new student to the teachers during a day:
"Yes, that's Ms R* who dresses like a butch leather fetish priest done up on gold eye makeup on Tuesdays before she goes out to the clubs - she's strict about spelling and grammar but a good teacher".
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Feb 11, 2012 12:39PM)
Jonathan, now that was funny! I will have that visual in my head all day!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 12:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 13:19, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Imagining one student introducing a new student to the teachers during a day:
"Yes, that's Ms R* who dresses like a butch leather fetish priest done up on gold eye makeup on Tuesdays before she goes out to the clubs - she's strict about spelling and grammar but a good teacher".
[/quote]

Actually sounds exactly like the former Vice Principal of Libby Middle School. Except the "good" and the "teacher."
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 06:43, stoneunhinged wrote:
Hm. Sorry about your insomnia...

I'm especially concerned about kids who cannot financially afford to dress as "cool" as the rest; but the issues in this thread would also be less relevant if the kids wore uniforms...

[/quote]

Thanks, but I slept in the afternoon. :nod: I understand about not being able to financially afford to dress as "cool" as the rest- I lived through that and I think uniforms might be a good answer to that, but don't the kids have to pay for the uniforms?

On this issue, though, in this particular case in Virginia, I think imposing uniforms will send the same message as a ban. It's still a wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak. You're still banning cross dressing. The reason for the uniforms will be "because of the cross dressers". Still sending the message there's something wrong with these kids. I don't think that's the lesson kids should be learning from their teachers. Teachers have an opportunity at this moment in Virginia to do some critical teaching and learning of their own. It would be highly irresponsible for that lesson to be "pass the buck". Kids are dying. Shot to death in the classroom. Committing suicide- leaving an empty desk in the classroom. Kids are living this in the classroom and will continue to do so. This has to be dealt with directly in the classroom, even if it's inconvenient for the teachers.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 01:41PM)
On 2012-02-11 10:12, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 04:36, magicalaurie wrote:
" I think clothes are clothes and teachers should just make sure we're wearing some. "

-------------

But why, Laurie? In for a penny, in for a pound. Let's suppose I am of American indian heritage, and my ancestors wore nothing more that a breechcloth. Why should I not be allowed to go to school this way, if the norms of society are now decided by each individual whim?

Jim
[/quote]

Well I said that cuz I'm Canadian and we wear clothes in Arnprior but I really like American Indian stuff and if that's what they wear, I wouldn't mind. It would be really cool, I think. I think they would wear something warmer in the winter, probably. In kindergarten the teacher told us a boy was coming from far away from Cambodia and he was going to be in our class from now on and I was surprised when I saw he was so dark, but he was really cool and we all liked him a lot. His name was Jungo and he could draw real good. And we would have liked him even if he wore different clothes than us, I think. The Pharaohs wore dresses and they ruled! I saw that on The Ten Commandments in religious ed- we watched the movie. We learned a little bit about them in art class, too.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 02:20PM)
http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/columnists/herenowblog/2012/02/suffolk_school_board_ignorance.html
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 03:00PM)
I see a big problem with such policies as they become inherently sexist. What becomes defined as "consistent with their gender?". Are pants exclusively male? Does that mean the real focus is on dressed and skirts? Girls would be still able to wear pants and dresses, but guys are limited. Or, if they DO focus on making girls wear skirts and dresses, then they become the ones unfairly focused on. Most guys would still be wearing the sane clothes, but most girls would then be the ones forced to change.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 11, 2012 04:53PM)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1073942--gay-students-endure-cycle-of-hate-in-schools
Message: Posted by: Chrystal (Feb 11, 2012 06:13PM)
That article is bang on and thanks for posting it Laurie.

I feel so strongly about this issue - so much so, I am one of five members of a Human Rights and Equity committee for our School District. I call students out everytime I hear racist or homophobic comments - not to penalize but to educate.
The old sticks and stones rhyme no longer holds true in todays world. The ignorant remarks and comments should never be tolerated and people should step up to the plate and protect these kids.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 11, 2012 06:26PM)
Critter,

I want to apologize here to you on the forum because that is where I stepped over the line. I knew when I posted what I did that you like most parents care more about your children than anything else in the whole world. I took a cheap shot because of what you posted "don't care". I knew what you meant but I just wanted to lash out on this and you happened to be an easy target. Having said tht I mean this truly. I am sorry. It was a hurtful thing to say.

There is nothing wrong in disagreeing but it should be kept civil.

TO ANYONE READING THIS I APOLOGIZE TO "CRITTER" FOR AN UNCALLED FOR REMARK I MADE SAYING WORDS TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS KIDS. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2012 09:23PM)
Accepted. I know you're a good dude.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 11, 2012 09:24PM)
:) now there's some integrity for you

Well done man, it takes a real genuine person to do what you did

We all make mistakes, but too many are not humble enough to acknowledge their errors

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 11, 2012 10:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 19:26, acesover wrote:
Critter,

I want to apologize here to you on the forum because that is where I stepped over the line. I knew when I posted what I did that you like most parents care more about your children than anything else in the whole world. I took a cheap shot because of what you posted "don't care". I knew what you meant but I just wanted to lash out on this and you happened to be an easy target. Having said tht I mean this truly. I am sorry. It was a hurtful thing to say.

There is nothing wrong in disagreeing but it should be kept civil.

TO ANYONE READING THIS I APOLOGIZE TO "CRITTER" FOR AN UNCALLED FOR REMARK I MADE SAYING WORDS TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS KIDS. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 11, 2012 10:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-10 20:41, Bluesman wrote:
Are there girls cross-dresser? I only know men that does this.

Greg
[/quote]

Hmmm, exactly?

If girls wear exactly what boys wear, is it cross dressing?
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Feb 12, 2012 12:26AM)
Thumbs up, aces. There should be more of that here on the Café :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 12, 2012 12:38AM)
The boys used to wear women's stockings, I think it was something to do with identity.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 12, 2012 12:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-12 01:38, tommy wrote:
The boys used to wear women's stockings, I think it was something to do with identity.
[/quote]

Dreaming it or being it?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 12, 2012 02:42AM)
Avoiding it.
Message: Posted by: jerome96114 (Feb 12, 2012 08:35AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 00:53, The great Gumbini wrote:
(...) But I do wonder if we were REALLY politically correct would we really notice CROSS-Dressing at all? Why would we question it at all if it was in the "norm"? Why is it when we see a cross-dresser we KNOW something is odd or out of the norm? (...)
[/quote]

If you had been raised in an islamic country you would "KNOW something is odd" and "out of the norm" when you'd see a woman NOT hiding her hair under a headscarf ...
If you had been raised in North Korea you would consider free markets to be "out of the norm" ...

So your "argument" is not really one!
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Feb 12, 2012 09:46AM)
A wake-up call to the rest of us, Aces! Kudos...
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Feb 12, 2012 10:47AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 12:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 11:34, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:
Sometimes I get the urge to go out naked, however, through education I have learnt that it is disrespecting the nobility of my humanity to do so.
[/quote]

Many tribal cultures wear nothing/next-to-nothing when out and about; the alleged 'nobility of their humanity' doesn't suffer in the least.

As with many issues, the real problem is often based on our attempts to force meaning on a universe that has none.
[/quote]

That's absurd!
[/quote]
:clown:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 12, 2012 11:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-12 09:35, jerome96114 wrote:...If you had been raised in an islamic country you would "KNOW something is odd" and "out of the norm" when you'd see a woman NOT hiding her hair under a headscarf ...
If you had been raised in North Korea you would consider free markets to be "out of the norm" ...

So your "argument" is not really one!
[/quote]

Congrats - you've noticed a couple of items that pass for "know" and "normal" and propagate bigotry.

Children as seeds of the future or toxic containers for bigotry? Memes or people?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 12, 2012 11:35AM)
I don't particularly care for the xenophobic arrogance of those who would force the women who would choose to wear a burkha or niqab to take them off either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 12, 2012 11:56AM)
I havn't read all the posts here because... well I am lazy.

But I think the real problem I have is the idea that in a free country the idea that "normal" boys wear this or "normal" girls wear that. A "distraction"? Puhlease! I mean it is pretty easy to tell them which restroom to use isn't it?

I just don't like the idea of the state telling us what is and is not normal for our kids to wear. I would not dress my child that way, but that is simply my decision, and eventually my childs choice right?

I think the more we point out differences and put labels on them like "normal" the more we inadvertantly ENCOURAGE this sort of thing!

As for the crimes in the article Lauri posted they are just that. Horrific crimes and should be dealt with as such. Kicking and group beatins should have serious penalties.

That said, I don't believe the school needs to cater to them as a "group". Again don't make them "different" but rather just make them equal. When we sepporate people based on anything, we are inadvertantly setting ourselves up for bad experiences.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 12, 2012 12:02PM)
Well said.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 12, 2012 07:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 13:13, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 13:07, Destiny wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-11 08:52, kambiz wrote:

When I was younger I had the urge to have sex with as many girls as I could possibly muster, however I resisted the urge to do so, because I believe sex is between a couple who love each other within a marital institution.

As parents it is imperative to educate our children regarding the nobility of what it means to be human, and how it is natural to get "urges" and provide the child with tools to resist them and to rise above them....

......the rest can be worked out for yourselves :)

Kam
[/quote]

What I can work out for myself is that you are no more noble than the guy who had lots of fun following his urges with consenting women with complimentary 'urges'. If you are suggesting as it seems that you have risen 'higher' as a human because you have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union, I don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
[/quote]


I thought the subject of this thread was regarding cross-dressing and NOT homosexuality??

Seriously, the prejudices and offenses that are flung around is sometimes absurd (Hi Steve :) )

Nowhere in my post did I say that I insist on homosexuals to resist their urges. My response was to the urges of cross-dressers wearing whatever they liked in an environment that may result in a degradation of their spirits, and they become a "plaything for the ignorant"....notice here that I am actually calling the "non-cross-dressers" the ignorant ones....

I have no place to call anyone, homosexual or otherwise, less noble than myself, however nobility is a limitless quality, and I do believe that you become "more" noble when you can overcome the urges of your animal nature and replace them with acts which uplift and elevate your spiritual aspect.

Destiny, to tell me to go back to Iran where my relatives have been so brutally persecuted, simply because I gave an opinion which you prejudicially misinterpreted, is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to the values of my country, Australia, and even to the values that should be respected by humans from all countries.

....and gdw, to see you give a thumbs up to that puts you in a similar light, I respect you both as individuals, since we all will return to the same dust in the end, however, you both need to reflect on some of your basic human values and qualities and become more educated on how to put these into practice....

....it takes a hell of a lot to be offended, but there is no more damaging disease than the disease of prejudice and racism.....


Kam
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 12, 2012 10:31PM)
Kam - first read what I said correctly - I never mentioned homosexuality anywhere in my post - I very obviously referenced heterosexual promiscuity which you clearly inferred was less noble than a monogamous heterosexual union.

I think nobility comes from things like common decency to your fellow man, helping others out etc - and is certainly not to be judged by the quality or quantity of people you rub bits with.

Next - I DID NOT TELL YOU TO GO BACK TO IRAN - and I find the suggestion I would or did say that extremely offensive.

What a low down dirty trick to try and wiggle out of what you said by crying 'racism'. Particularly after the patronising nonsense you wrote about Aboriginals a couple of weeks ago.

I said, "If you are suggesting as it seems that you have risen 'higher' as a human because you have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union, I don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia." and I said that because your suggestion that certain people are nobler because of resisting urges is more typical of a controlled theocratic intolerant dictatorship like Iran than it is of a tolerant pluralistic multicultural democracy like Australia.

Australia has a very proud tradition of accepting migrants since the end of the disgraceful White Australia Policy. (just as a humorous aside I find it very amusing that a Labour leader supported that policy by denigrating Chinese with the slogan "Two wongs don't make a white" and now we have a Labour Finance Minister of Chinese heritage called Penny Wong).

Immigration has made Australia a wonderful country and I am not going to ever disparage it - my great grand-parents immigrated here, just as you did.

As for "you both need to reflect on some of your basic human values and qualities and become more educated on how to put these into practice" I'm sure by now you've learnt plenty of phrases which express what I think you need to do.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 12, 2012 10:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-12 23:31, Destiny wrote:
Australia has a very proud tradition of accepting migrants since the end of the disgraceful White Australia Policy. (just as a humorous aside I find it very amusing that a Labour leader supported that policy by denigrating Chinese with the slogan "Two wongs don't make a white" and now we have a Labour Finance Minister of Chinese heritage called Penny Wong).
[/quote]

To make matters even more confusing- My daughter's name is Pennee, and when her and Liam fight she's often the one in the wong.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 12, 2012 11:18PM)
Hah - Ms Wong's first name is Penny which is convenient for a finance minister. The old Labour leader would certainly turn in his grave because it's not Ms Wong alone anymore - there are now two Wongs - Ms Wong's partner rcently gave birth to a daughter.

A Chinese Lesbian Finance Minister - where will it all end? :)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 12, 2012 11:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-12 23:31, Destiny wrote:
Kam - first read what I said correctly - I never mentioned homosexuality anywhere in my post - I very obviously referenced heterosexual promiscuity which you clearly inferred was less noble than a monogamous heterosexual union.

I think nobility comes from things like common decency to your fellow man, helping others out etc - and is certainly not to be judged by the quality or quantity of people you rub bits with.

Next - I DID NOT TELL YOU TO GO BACK TO IRAN - and I find the suggestion I would or did say that extremely offensive.

What a low down dirty trick to try and wiggle out of what you said by crying 'racism'. Particularly after the patronising nonsense you wrote about Aboriginals a couple of weeks ago.

I said, "If you are suggesting as it seems that you have risen 'higher' as a human because you have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union, I don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia." and I said that because your suggestion that certain people are nobler because of resisting urges is more typical of a controlled theocratic intolerant dictatorship like Iran than it is of a tolerant pluralistic multicultural democracy like Australia.

Australia has a very proud tradition of accepting migrants since the end of the disgraceful White Australia Policy. (just as a humorous aside I find it very amusing that a Labour leader supported that policy by denigrating Chinese with the slogan "Two wongs don't make a white" and now we have a Labour Finance Minister of Chinese heritage called Penny Wong).

Immigration has made Australia a wonderful country and I am not going to ever disparage it - my great grand-parents immigrated here, just as you did.

As for "you both need to reflect on some of your basic human values and qualities and become more educated on how to put these into practice" I'm sure by now you've learnt plenty of phrases which express what I think you need to do.
[/quote]

Destiny, I have nothing against you personally, I have never met you, and thankyou for clarifying your position in regards to immigrants, however, there can be little doubt that your comment about why I would have left Iran was "unwelcoming" to say the least, and I can categorically tell you that I am in no way an over-sensitive person, however the reality of it is that your comment did hurt me. But I pick myself up pretty quickly and probably on hindsight I was a little overzealous in my responding post.

Firstly, let me again clarify what I mean by the term "nobility" which is what I would have hoped you would have done rather than make an assumption and comment as you did. Let me also clarify that there was no reference in my post to me being more noble because I choose to live my life by not having sex with anyone my groin hints towards. By "noble" my understanding is a reflection on the twin aspects to the reality of a human being, namely the physical and spiritual aspects. The physical aspect is shared with all other animals, we need to eat, we need to sleep, etc etc. The spiritual aspect is what distinguishes us from the other animals, and my definition of nobility reflects a station whereby a person refrains from those things that is more animalistic. Love is the higher expression of our sexual nature, "sleeping around" with anyone that you fancy is not. Nobility (amongst SO MANY OTHER THINGS) in my opinion comes from resisting the urge to have sexual relations with anyone that stimulates your hormone levels at will.

Nobility also comes from (on a more practical level) abiding by the laws of your land, so sometimes I may get the urge to do 150kph on the highway, yet I resist those urges, because that appeals more towards my higher nature and will feed my spirit with the knowledge that it is in control of my actions, not my physical desires.

Secondly, I would like to know "exactly" how I was patronizing to the Indigenous cultures of Australia???? I apologize profusely if anything came across in that way....but I would still like to know so I can learn from it...

Thirdly, what does a personal decision to behave more nobly have anything to do with a dictatorship?

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 13, 2012 12:01AM)
What if we like to indulge our animalistic hormonal instincts with aboriginals [i]while[/i] driving fast?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 12:14AM)
....while throwing stuff??
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 13, 2012 12:27AM)
Well that would be the ultimate conclusion...
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 13, 2012 12:39AM)
Kam,

I'm sorry but you are avoiding two very important points.

1/ I never referenced homosexuality.

2/ I never told you to go back to Iran - now while others here mightn't realise it, you and I both know, in an Australian context, that is an extremely racist thing to say. On reflection, my wording was poor and too extreme, but certainly it did not come close to suggesting what you repeated it as.

I believe discrimination and prejudice begin with people believing their behaviour is more noble... more civilised... more proper... more decent... than other people's. It seems to be a natural extension of those beliefs to then criminalise other people's behaviour. Sadly in countries like Iran people end up swinging from a noose hanging from a crane in a public square for adultory. It still brings tears to my eyes to remember a couple of adolescent boys who suffered that fate in about 2003 - for a bit of teenage experimentation - or the 16 year old girl who was raped by a taxi driver and because she had the audacity to speak up for herself before an evil jucdicial cleric, suffered the same fate.

This all starts with people deciding their moral behaviour is superior to others.

As for the law of the land - in Australia you can only drive at 150kph in the Northern Territory, though even they are now introducing speed limits out in the bush, so not for long. You may quite legally though, be as promiscuous as you like with a like minded consenting adult, or a few, or many, like minded consenting adults, in all jurisdictions.

As for patronising indigenous Australians, I don't think anyone could better the following ode to the innocent nature of the noble savage.

"Such is the blessed purity of these people that a non peaceful means to achieve this respect does not even come into their consideration...."

I understand you mean well Kam, and no doubt went through hideous events I could never understand to be where you are today - I have enormous admiration for people brave enough to make the huge cultural change you have made - I doubt I would ever be brave enough - but I believe moral superiority has to be called into question whenever it raises it's head, and silly, even if well intentioned, generalisations can't be ignored.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 01:00AM)
Hi Destiny, there is absolutely no moral superiority that I am proposing by any of my posts. The post was not made as a comparative menas to distinguish myself or anyone over anyone else. We are all on the same path mate and I can assure you, my spiritual path is littered with as many mistakes as anyone else's. There is absolutely no dictatorship being proposed now or at any point down the line.

I am absolutely against any formal judgements of any kind against anyones character, however, what I do know is that we have twin aspects as humans, and the world would be a better place were we to focus more attention to our spiritual side, THAT'S IT....nothing more, nothing less, any person of right mind surely cannot disagree with that (but I bet someone here will)

Finally, I still do not understand how my quoted comment was patronizing?? Yes, the aboriginals may have had a savage history, yet they are still human beings that are 100% equal to me or you in their reality, and by that I mean that their capabilities are exactly the same, where they to be properly educated, their essential purity of heart will prevail, I've seen it before my very eyes....

Kam
Message: Posted by: jerome96114 (Feb 13, 2012 03:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-12 23:31, Destiny wrote:
(...)Next - I DID NOT TELL YOU TO GO BACK TO IRAN - and I find the suggestion I would or did say that extremely offensive.
[/quote]

Well " don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia" kinda could be interpreted that you wanted to implie exactely that. Right?
Before your response I also interpreted that statement that way.

[quote]
On 2012-02-12 23:31, Destiny wrote:

and I said that because your suggestion that certain people are nobler because of resisting urges is more typical of a controlled theocratic intolerant dictatorship like Iran than it is of a tolerant pluralistic multicultural democracy like Australia. (...)
[/quote]

Well, actually it is not.
It is a principle actually developed NOT ONLY buy almost any bigger religion (as well as other values, like the golden rule btw.)BUT ALSO by most philosophies, like the Stoa (Epiktet, etc.), Platonism (Sokrates, Platon, etc.), heck. To a certain degree even by Kant.

[quote]
On 2012-02-13 01:39, Destiny wrote:
(...)
I believe discrimination and prejudice begin with people believing their behaviour is more noble... more civilised... more proper... more decent... than other people's. It seems to be a natural extension of those beliefs to then criminalise other people's behaviour. Sadly in countries like Iran people end up swinging from a noose hanging from a crane in a public square for adultory. (...)
[/quote]

Well. Actually Sokrates was killed FOR trying to live more noble. (Questioning others' knowledge. Following his *god given* daimonium. Etc.)
So also happend to Dietrich Bonhoeffer who not tried to follow his human nature, the instinct to survive, and decided to fight the nazi regime, instead of beeing part of it.
So happend to all the christians killed by roman persecution about 1150 years ago, for not following their human/animal will to survive, but rather cling to their believes.

Nope, Beeing noble does NOT lead to killing people. If, then it leads to getting killed more likely.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 13, 2012 04:33AM)
And being Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Gay, Capitalist, Communist or being in the wrong place at the wrong time can also lead to being killed, so that proves exactly what?
Jerome said,
"Well " don't know why you left Iran and came to Australia" kinda could be interpreted that you wanted to implie exactely that. Right?
Before your response I also interpreted that statement that way."

Jerome, I am responsible only for what I write, not how people 'kinda interpret' or failure to read properly, or failure to comprehend. I do agree, as I have said previously, that I expressed myself poorly, but I did not mean anything more than I said - my interpretation is that you are taking a very big jump from what was said, to your conclusion.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 13, 2012 05:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 04:42, jerome96114 wrote:
Actually Sokrates was killed FOR trying to live more noble.
[/quote]

Uh...no. He was tried and convicted of not believing in Athenian divinities and corrupting young men like, well, [i]you[/i] perhaps?--a charge of which he was most certainly guilty. The penalty was death, and he had a chance to escape--which he refused. So apparently he believed that the noble thing to do was to accept his deserved punishment.

What Destiny is saying--and I totally agree with her--is that ancient Athens and modern Iran (and maybe the good 'ole USA?) is filled with people like Meletus, whose vision of nobility means deciding how others should live--usually while backed by some kind of "authority" (and usually motivated by political ambition), be it the laws of Athens or the Koran or the Bible or the Republican National Platform.

I admire your name dropping of philosophical schools and Kant and Bonhoeffer, but perhaps you should start your philosophical education all over again and re-read the Apology (along with Aristophanes' Clouds and Xenophon's Memorabilia) if you think that philosophy has always been seen as a noble pursuit. It wasn't. Not at all.

Now, did Socrates himself advocate "resisting urges"? Yes, but he seemed to suggest that this was an individual endeavor, guided by philosophy, and not something enforced by the polis.

Aristotle? Don't get me started on Aristotle....

Where were we?

It's February! I NEED BEER!
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 05:58AM)
I like Socrates approach :)

I'm not an incredibly knowledgeable man in the traditional philosophers, but I want to clarify again that in no way do I post with the intent to impose, as if by law, a way of living your life. In my religious way of life, there is no clergy to direct and "watch over" my every step. We live in an era where we can investigate the truth independent of any "self appointed interpreters" of divine guidance, we are responsible, solely responsible, for our own spiritual growth, and resisting animalistic urges, idle fancies and vain imaginings is all essential for that growth, in my humble opinion....

Careful study of the Word of God, no matter from which Book, should be the guiding principles by which we live our lives by....

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 06:04AM)
Kam, the very instant you type "God", as if singular and within your awareness, you've imposed.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 06:32AM)
The imposition can easily work both ways Jonathan, however my intention is not the "God" part but the "Word" part

No man can deny that there is a lot to be learnt from the sequence of Revelation in the form of the Written Word up until the present day
(but again I bet you will)

:)

Kam
Message: Posted by: jerome96114 (Feb 13, 2012 06:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 06:21, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 04:42, jerome96114 wrote:
Actually Sokrates was killed FOR trying to live more noble.
[/quote]

Uh...no. He was tried and convicted of not believing in Athenian divinities and corrupting young men like, well, [i]you[/i] perhaps?--a charge of which he was most certainly guilty. The penalty was death, and he had a chance to escape--which he refused. So apparently he believed that the noble thing to do was to accept his deserved punishment.
[/quote]

Uh, yes. Read the Apology. (Hope that's how to write it in English.) "not believing in Athenian divinities and corrupting young men" was only the officiall claims by meletos, anytos, and the other guy.
As Sokrates (well - more Platos *Sokrates* alter-ego) pointed out in the apology himself he ACTUALLY BELIEVED IN GOD(s) (especially Apoll, the god of Delphi, of which he thinks he was given his daimonium, and the quest to show people, that they have no knowledge.)

=> " τῆς γὰρ ἐμῆς, εἰ δή τίς ἐστιν σοφία καὶ οἵα, μάρτυρα ὑμῖν παρέξομαι τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖς. Χαιρεφῶντα γὰρ ἴστε που. οὗτος ἐμός τε ἑταῖρος ἦν ἐκ νέου καὶ ὑμῶν τῷ πλήθει ἑταῖρός τε καὶ ξυνέφυγε τὴν φυγὴν ταύτην καὶ μεθ' ὑμῶν κατῆλθε. καὶ ἴστε δή, οἷος ἦν Χαιρεφῶν, ὡς σφοδρός, ἐφ' ὅτι ὁρμήσειεν. καὶ δή ποτε καὶ εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐλθὼν ἐτόλμησε τοῦτο μαντεύσασθαι - καί, ὅπερ λέγω, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες - ἤρετο γὰρ δή, εἴ τις ἐμοῦ εἴη σοφώτερος. ἀνεῖλεν οὖν ἡ Πυθία μηδένα σοφώτερον εἶναι.(...) ταῦτα γὰρ ἐγὼ ἀκούσας ἐνεθυμούμην οὑτωσί· "Τί ποτε λέγει ὁ θεός, καὶ τί ποτε αἰνίττεται"

[" I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit; that witness shall be the God of Delphi--he will tell you about my wisdom, if I have any, and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the recent exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether--as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt--he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser. (...) When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? "(english translation by: The literature page) ]

And that is also why he decided not to flee. Because it was his noble, god given, task not to do it.

=> "λλὰ γὰρ ἤδη ὥρα ἀπιέναι, ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀποθανουμένῳ, ὑμῖν δὲ βιωσομένοις· ὁπότεροι δὲ ἡμῶν ἔρχονται ἐπὶ ἄμεινον πρᾶγμα, ἄδηλον παντὶ πλὴν ἢ τῷ θεῷ."

["The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die, and you to live. Which is better [the] GOD only knows."(english translation by: The literature page)]




[quote]
On 2012-02-13 06:21, stoneunhinged wrote:
Now, did Socrates himself advocate "resisting urges"? Yes, but he seemed to suggest that this was an individual endeavor, guided by philosophy, and not something enforced by the polis.
[/quote]

Did I claimed the last thing? - NOPE.

[quote]
On 2012-02-13 06:21, stoneunhinged wrote:
Aristotle? Don't get me started on Aristotle....
[/quote]

I did not speak about aristotele ...
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 13, 2012 07:03AM)
It's easy for misunderstanding to come into the conversation when language is so diverse - I speak Aussie English and unfortunately only scattered bits of other languages, Stoney speaks American English, though his grasp of linguistic subtleties is probably strongest having lived in Asia and now living in Germany. Although Kam speaks English like a native speaker, it is his Second language and obviously the same is true for Jerome. Jonathon of course speaks Rhetorical Amiguitese, so we are bound to suffer some confusion.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 13, 2012 07:08AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 07:50, jerome96114 wrote:
Uh, yes. Read the Apology

[/quote]

Right. I'll put that on my reading list. Thanks.

[quote]

Did I claimed the last thing? - NOPE.

[/quote]

Right. Did I claim you claimed it? I'm confused. You seem to be a bit...well...unclear about what you think. I was simply making a point in agreement with Destiny.

[quote]

I did not speak about aristotele ...
[/quote]

No, you didn't. I did. As long as we're dropping names, I thought I'd drop one myself.

You are missing the whole point of Socrates' defense in the Apology. The charge was that he didn't believe in the Athenian gods. His defense was that he wasn't an atheist. Now, this defense is disingenuous, to say the least. To say he believed in Apollo or was following his daemon or the instruction of the Delphic Oracle does not in any way prove that he believed in the Athenian gods. In fact, if he *did* believe in the Athenian gods he surely would have used that fact in his own defense. He didn't. One can only logically conclude that he did not in fact believe in the Athenian gods.

I get the feeling--please don't be offended--that you don't really have any significant quarrel with Destiny's position, yet you cut and paste her post and attempt to fisk it. That leads me to think that you're simply trying to show off a bit. You've studied philosophy and that makes you really smart, so you disagree with someone you don't really disagree with in order to tell me to read the Apology and quote Plato in Greek and pretend to know whether Kant is close or unclose to your own position. It's all cool.

Have a beer:

:stout:

I'd have one myself, but it's February.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 13, 2012 07:13AM)
One more thing: philosophy is, by its very existence, ignoble in that it explicitly rejects any orthodox opinion of what is good and noble. Philosophy forsakes conventional wisdom. It forsakes law and religion. It forsakes being proud and gentlemanly. It is heretical, dangerous, explosive. Anything less is not really philosophy.

If your teachers didn't teach you that, then they weren't philosophers. I feel kinda bad that you seem to have missed out on true philosophy.

Socrates acted nobly? HA! He was a reprobate, and he got what was coming to him.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 07:36AM)
But didn't Plato have some Judaic influence referring to the monotheistic belief as "the Good"?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 07:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 07:32, kambiz wrote:
The imposition can easily work both ways Jonathan, however my intention is not the "God" part but the "Word" part

No man can deny that ...
[/quote]

Until you state your presuppositions and beliefs your "intentions" are entirely in your own world and not part of our universe of discourse or your honest communication. At least this time you've typographically identified two of your inner world icons. Do you know how they got into your inner world?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 07:59AM)
Which two icons are you specifically referring to Jonathan?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 08:16AM)
4All, consider what you can learn from a Necker Cube. Are there other such things in our environment?

@Kam, examine your own text as if another person were reading it - see if you can find the items you capitalize, then quote. While not entirely impossible, there might be a universe where the white text on the green screen originates from something other than big brother's little plaything Eliza.

As to "the good" - notice the lack of capitalization - that's subjective as you can verify within the cited text. Sadly, the fish's advice to a stranger - "go soak your head in a nice cold bowl of water for a few minutes" - may also be incomprehensible.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 08:30AM)
@Jeff - asking others to "consider the position/perspective/proposition" when their background may have only taught them to "assume the position" - a command - and the only position they know is "submission" could also be confrontational as it does not leave animals any room but to face their self imposed corners.

How could one not notice the lack of "who makes the clothes", "who chooses the clothes" and "what purpose beyond warmth" dialog so far?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 08:44AM)
Hi Jonathan, never has Destiny's words about your ambiguous Mother Tongue been so true for me lol

However I think I understand what you are saying. I would argue (in a nice way ;) ) that unless you analyse the full measure of Divine Teachings from the Bible, the Quran through to the writings of Baha'u'llah you will be unable to appreciate the panorama of the WHOLE message as viewed from the perspective of the Necker Cube that I am sharing with all on this forum :)

I would love and genuinely appreciate to see the perspective if the Necker Cube that you are looking from, maybe we can then shared in a dialogue that's fruitful :)

Isn't that what you are here for?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 08:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 09:44, kambiz wrote:...I would argue (in a nice way ;) ) that unless you analyse the full measure of Divine Teachings from...
Isn't that what you are here for?

Kam
[/quote]

IMHO, no.

One could argue that whatever the text is, it's 'meaning' is to be found in the behavior of its readers.

If the fish's advice remains incomprehensible - perhaps some time in Promethea issue 15 will elucidate - as it's got pictures and plenty of pertinent references to look up and investigate.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 08:52AM)
No one is perfect Jonathan. I would humbly say that one can only strive. If my puny minded behavior has turned you away from a sincere investigation of something that may or may not benefit you, it's your decision. However, if my behavior has in any way offended you, it comes with my sincere apologies, and I would appreciate a PM :)

Either way, the decision is yours, I'm not selling you anything mate, your life is all about you, I will probably never get a chance to even shake your hand, but I hope to provide is a different perspective to the Necker Cube, I await to see yours :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 08:55AM)
Oh you added that last paragraph as I was posting....

I'll look up the advice of the fish now

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 09:00AM)
@Jeff - More tales from the cave, no?

Did Plato also explain why the guy went back into the cave? Or what he did after learning that folks prefer a shadow play to asking what casts the shadows, how and to what purposes?

Who made that cheese?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 13, 2012 09:17AM)
"Divine Teachings from the Bible, the Quran through to the writings of Baha'u'llah you will be unable to appreciate the panorama of the WHOLE message"

The mutual exclusivity of most of these writings would mean even their authors would question the adjective 'divine' and really do we need to read any of them to understand that basically the more people are nice to each other and mind their own business, the better it is for everyone? There have been plenty of good decent people on this planet who lived good decent lives and contributed positively to their community without reading any philosophy or theology.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 09:31AM)
How can we mind our own business here on this forum Destiny? Isn't the purpose of a forum to explore the diversity of opinion in a mutually understanding, positive and encouraging environment? How does minding your own business fit into that?

Here we all are, not minding our own business but sharing ideas....

I specifically referred to those Texts because they are more historically reliable, but you can include other Texts if you wish, the story is the same....

I would not be here were we all just "nice people" and yes there are plenty of those yet after millennia of misunderstandings we as a human race still can't get it right and we've exhausted the systems available to us. The topic of this thread is an example of this, surely just being a nice person isn't going to stop the hatred towards some of the innocent youth that have committed suicide as pointed out by the article by Magicalaurie?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 10:02AM)
Is capitalization a disorder like bigotry, or just a symptom?

Can we get back to being scared our kids might ask a cross dresser why they are dressed like Kathy from The Patty Duke show on Tuesday after they dressed like Peg from Married with Kids on Monday?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 13, 2012 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 08:13, stoneunhinged wrote:
One more thing: philosophy is, by its very existence, ignoble in that it explicitly rejects any orthodox opinion of what is good and noble. Philosophy forsakes conventional wisdom. It forsakes law and religion. It forsakes being proud and gentlemanly. It is heretical, dangerous, explosive. Anything less is not really philosophy.
[/quote]

Excellent, Stone!

That's one of the best posts that I've yet to read on the Café.

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 10:07AM)
Returning from what should have been a private message:

Is capitalization a disorder like bigotry, or just a symptom? Can we get back to being scared our kids might ask a cross dresser why they are dressed like Kathy from The Patty Duke show on Tuesday after they dressed like Peg from Married with Children on Monday?

@Kam - I deliberately use language in ways that don't easily translate. Context counts. Though I do try to keep to the basic presuppositions of NLP. Bad intent has side effects, as those who study magic are aware. ;)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 13, 2012 10:28AM)
In no particular order...

I read Destiny's comment about staying in Iran the way it was intended in the first place. I though it seemed fairly clear (though I've been wrong before about things that I thought seemed fairly clear).

The suggestion that Stone should read The Apology was one of the funniest things I've seen on the Café in quite a while.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 13, 2012 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 10:00, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@Jeff - More tales from the cave, no?
[/quote]

Indeed.

But sometimes I think that the cave is like that Necker Cube: those in the cave actually perceive themselves as outside of the cave, and vice versa.

Some think that "liberation" means accepting the shadows as real.

As for how the philosopher got back into the cave, Socrates said he was "compelled" to go back. I myself think that he probably just tripped and fell.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 13, 2012 10:31AM)
The thing is- if you know you're in the cave, you're not.

:eek:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 10:54AM)
Are there crossdressers in the cave?

Isn't that an Easter thing?
Message: Posted by: jerome96114 (Feb 13, 2012 11:09AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 08:08, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 07:50, jerome96114 wrote:
Uh, yes. Read the Apology

[/quote]

Right. I'll put that on my reading list. Thanks.

[quote]

Did I claimed the last thing? - NOPE.

[/quote]

Right. Did I claim you claimed it? I'm confused. You seem to be a bit...well...unclear about what you think. I was simply making a point in agreement with Destiny.

[quote]

I did not speak about aristotele ...
[/quote]

No, you didn't. I did. As long as we're dropping names, I thought I'd drop one myself.

You are missing the whole point of Socrates' defense in the Apology. The charge was that he didn't believe in the Athenian gods. His defense was that he wasn't an atheist. Now, this defense is disingenuous, to say the least. To say he believed in Apollo or was following his daemon or the instruction of the Delphic Oracle does not in any way prove that he believed in the Athenian gods. In fact, if he *did* believe in the Athenian gods he surely would have used that fact in his own defense. He didn't. One can only logically conclude that he did not in fact believe in the Athenian gods.

I get the feeling--please don't be offended--that you don't really have any significant quarrel with Destiny's position, yet you cut and paste her post and attempt to fisk it. That leads me to think that you're simply trying to show off a bit. You've studied philosophy and that makes you really smart, so you disagree with someone you don't really disagree with in order to tell me to read the Apology and quote Plato in Greek and pretend to know whether Kant is close or unclose to your own position. It's all cool.

Have a beer:

:stout:

I'd have one myself, but it's February.
[/quote]

Nope ... I do NOT just want "show off" otherwise I would not use greek, as I am not good at it (I failed my Graecum one time, and (at the End of this month) could (but of course do not hope to) fail it another time wich would end my studies leave me without anything but big BAFÖG depts, and suck, as I am quite good at the other disciplines of lutheran theology ...

BUT I really wanted to opose the claim that nobility would only be used by religions and regimes, as that seems to me plain stupid, now that Platonic philosophy to a big part is based on moral (=> noble way of life), The Stoa is based upon it (in Epiktets Handbook of moral it is even the main theme.), even humanist deists cared about it. Kant, who was not really sure wether god did exist said he was needed as a postulate to assure the prevailance of moral (-> That people try to live noble lives ), and benjamin franklin made a list of 13 core values that have to be followed to live a noble live.

But perhaps we only define nobility only differently. To me it is living personally a live following nomological core values, or certain moral standarts that help you overcome your animalistic instincs, yes - even to overcome your own self. [~ "eine noble tat begehen" / Doing acts of nobility] (And that is surely one of the main things philosophy is about - o at least many schools of philosophy)
- You on the other hand seem to perceive it as something forced upon you by society ...
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 13, 2012 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 12:09, jerome96114 wrote:
...BAFÖG....
[/quote]

Alles klar.

Hey, let's take this to PMs.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 13, 2012 12:06PM)
Flip the Necker Cube inside out, look at the one Black Swan and not the two White ones. It works for perspective purposes.

I am offended that all this misunderstanding seems to have overshadowed my brilliance.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 13, 2012 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 11:54, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Are there crossdressers in the cave?

[/quote]

Hard to tell from the shadows.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 12:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 13:06, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flip the Necker Cube inside out, ...
[/quote]


Unfortunately the Necker Cube is flat. It's a costume for (representation of) at least one cube. It's the models and the shadows used to construct them that become the topic after costumes become a medium of indirect discourse.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 13, 2012 12:24PM)
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Necker.shtml

This is what I was refering to Jon. Seems as if the idea wasn't mine in the first place.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 12:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 13:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Necker.shtml

This is what I was refering to Jon. Seems as if the idea wasn't mine in the first place.
[/quote]

? so you're okay with people dressing as Necker Cubes? Male/Female depending? And what might someone in that costume say when asked by a child whether they like Escher?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 13, 2012 03:01PM)
Nice recovery.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 05:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 12:30, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 12:09, jerome96114 wrote:
...BAFÖG....
[/quote]

Alles klar.

Hey, let's take this to PMs.
[/quote]


Nooooooooo!!!! I'm learning a lot from the discourse here, you're both keeping it civil too

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 13, 2012 05:45PM)
Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 13, 2012 05:48PM)
If you want to wear something that will in all probability get ya shot... who is anyone to interfere?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 13, 2012 05:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 18:45, acesover wrote:
Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?
[/quote]

Excellent point. I have no problems with reasonable dress codes.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 13, 2012 06:00PM)
Now to sound completely inconsistent:
I actually kind of like the idea of school uniforms these days as well.
I have considered the gang angle many times in the past as well, and that is one reason. I think it would also partially deter the cliques and stuff while the kids are at school. I don't think I'd have a problem with the school telling everyone that they had to wear the same thing while they're at school, as long as it is the same thing for every student.
Jeff made a good case and it's pretty close to my current views.

It's hard to explain why this isn't a divergence from my earlier stated views. I still believe all of that stuff too.
Well, there it is anyway.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2012 06:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 18:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 18:45, acesover wrote:
Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?
[/quote]

Excellent point. I have no problems with reasonable dress codes.
[/quote]

Everybody wears a black burqa with a red cross?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 13, 2012 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 19:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Everybody wears a black burqa with a red cross?
[/quote]

They only get the red cross if they know CPR.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 13, 2012 06:23PM)
Teaching kids dicipline, and having structure is not really a bad thing.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 13, 2012 06:32PM)
Yeah school uniforms are good for me too, Jeff made some very valid points, although the gang issue is less noticed here in Australia

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 13, 2012 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 18:45, acesover wrote:
Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?
[/quote]
Banning gang "colours" etc. is such an idiotic and futile attempt at addressing an issue. Seriously, just say it out loud, "to address the issue of gangs in school, we will tell them, get this, they can't wear certain colours. Yeah, that'll fix the problem."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 13, 2012 07:05PM)
Allowing gang colors to be worn in school is even more idiotic.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 13, 2012 07:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Teaching kids dicipline, and having structure is not really a bad thing.
[/quote]

Not a bad thing to teach kids that some people are going to dress, think, and act differently than the norm, and they're going to be expected to deal with it.

As for discipline and structure, when the teachers and school board members are subject to uniforms, I'll consider it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 13, 2012 07:16PM)
BTW, my first paragraph is not to minimize your point, Danny. I do think that those things are important; however, I think that a competing important lesson, and a more important one, is for the "normal" kids to get used to the idea that some people are different, and they aren't going to do really well in most adult subsocieties if they react to those differences with ridicule or violence.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Feb 13, 2012 09:25PM)
Aren't red and blue both considered gang colors? Are we saying that in a school where Bloods and Crips are present, no one is allowed to wear these colors? I don't know much about gangs, but with the number of them out there, isn't most of the color spectrum represented by one group or another? If that indeed is the case, I too would be in favor of uniforms. Make any idiot that thinks it's cool to be in a gang dress exactly like the nerds like me who spend time on magic forums rather than out dealing drugs and shooting people.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 13, 2012 10:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 20:03, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 18:45, acesover wrote:
Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?
[/quote]
Banning gang "colours" etc. is such an idiotic and futile attempt at addressing an issue. Seriously, just say it out loud, "to address the issue of gangs in school, we will tell them, get this, they can't wear certain colours. Yeah, that'll fix the problem."
[/quote]

What made you post that response? It does not even address the post. Who said anything about resolving gangs in School? Are you OK?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 12:46PM)
Temper. temper. 'Sup with the bait and switch? You yourself referenced "gangs":

[quote]Do all those here who believe that one can wear what they want also believe that where the shcools have gangs they can wear their colors?[/quote]

"gang colours" "REPRESENT". If you're not looking to address root issues, why touch the colours? Gdw addressed the obvious. These things go deeper than dresses and colours- that could easily go without saying, though the article you originally posted touched on it directly:

"In February 2008, 15-year-old Lawrence King from Oxnard, Calif., who occasionally wore jewelry, high-heeled boots and makeup to school, was shot to death in class by another student. Prosecutors deemed the shooting a hate crime."

As if people need to be told that shooting someone to death might be a hateful thing to do.



http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16038:-school-uniforms-to-blame-for-woes&catid=29:letter-to-the-editor&Itemid=113
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 01:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-13 20:05, mastermindreader wrote:
Allowing gang colors to be worn in school is even more idiotic.
[/quote]

This makes no sense.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 01:42PM)
I didn't expect it to make any sense to you. You're obviously unaware that the word "colors" used in this context refers to specific insignia, articles of clothing, etc., that expressly identify the wearer as being a member of a specific gang. It doesn't simply mean red or blue or whatever.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 01:51PM)
Bob, gdw was just chided by aces for indicating he's aware of what gang "colors" represent and now you're ridiculing him because he's obviously unaware?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 01:54PM)
Laurie-

I was just responding to the post Glen made directly before mine stating that my comment made no sense. No ridicule intended. (I didn't see ace's post.)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 01:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 14:42, mastermindreader wrote:
I didn't expect it to make any sense to you. You're obviously unaware that the word "colors" used in this context refers to specific insignia, articles of clothing, etc., that expressly identify the wearer as being a member of a specific gang. It doesn't simply mean red or blue or whatever.
[/quote]

obviously unaware? doesn't simply mean red or blue or whatever? I didn't expect it to make any sense to you? Tone.
The superficial representations are not the core issue here- gdw addressed that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 02:02PM)
The comment that my post "made no sense" is what prompted me to use that tone.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 02:03PM)
Skirting around the issue, so to speak.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 02:06PM)
Well he also characterized my suggestion that gang colors be banned as "idiotic." There's a bit of a tone problem there, too, don't you think?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 02:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Well he also characterized my suggestion that gang colors be banned as "idiotic." There's a bit of a tone problem there, too, don't you think?
[/quote]

Um, actually I was responding to acesover's post which brought up gang colours. Also, I was the first one to actually directly mention the idea of "banning" them. Your only post (responding to the mention of gang colours) prior to my "idiotic" comment was saying you don't mind reasonable dress codes. Neither do I, actually. My comment was directly addressing the attempts to address "gang" related issues with policies banning their "colours."

To try and suggest that my comment, and tone, was directed at YOUR suggestion is a bit unfounded don't you think?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 14, 2012 02:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Well he also characterized my suggestion that gang colors be banned as "idiotic." There's a bit of a tone problem there, too, don't you think?
[/quote]

I can't find the written citation, but I'm pretty sure there was a memo at one time about tone only mattering when talking about people we disagree with.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 15:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Well he also characterized my suggestion that gang colors be banned as "idiotic." There's a bit of a tone problem there, too, don't you think?
[/quote]

Um, actually I was responding to acesover's post which brought up gang colours. Also, I was the first one to actually directly mention the idea of "banning" them. Your only post (responding to the mention of gang colours) prior to my "idiotic" comment was saying you don't mind reasonable dress codes. Neither do I, actually. My comment was directly addressing the attempts to address "gang" related issues with policies banning their "colours."

To try and suggest that my comment, and tone, was directed at YOUR suggestion is a bit unfounded don't you think?
[/quote]

Perhaps. Sorry for my tone, though. I was primarily responding to your comment that my earlier post made no sense.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 03:49PM)
I gathered as much. I wasn't complaining. Thanks though. My comment that it made no sense was just an attempt to reiterate that the policy of banning gang colours makes no sense.

Also, thanks Laurie.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 04:08PM)
And that's where we differ. The policy of banning gang colors makes perfect sense IMO. Of course it won't solve the problem of gangs, but it will certainly help improve the atmosphere in what is supposed to be a learning environment.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 04:12PM)
I think I'd rather know who the gang bangers were so I could avoid them.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 04:15PM)
Banning gang colours has got the be the epitome of a band aid to treat a cancer.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 04:25PM)
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer. However I can certainly see the validity that banning gang colours at school may improve the possibility of a more relaxed learning environment, don't you think?

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 05:05PM)
Would Gestapo uniforms be acceptable school attire for members of white supremacist gangs? (Do I get a Hitler point for that?)
Message: Posted by: jerome96114 (Feb 14, 2012 05:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 18:05, mastermindreader wrote:
Would Gestapo uniforms be acceptable school attire for members of white supremacist gangs? (Do I get a Hitler point for that?)
[/quote]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o19CaOSuD8] Oh, hell no![/url]

;-)
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 14, 2012 05:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 18:05, mastermindreader wrote:
Would Gestapo uniforms be acceptable school attire for members of white supremacist gangs? (Do I get a Hitler point for that?)
[/quote]

I'll allow it. (The Hitler point, that is.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 06:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer. However I can certainly see the validity that banning gang colours at school may improve the possibility of a more relaxed learning environment, don't you think?

Kam
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about fixing the problem of gangs I'm general, but specifically gangs in school, and the school environment WOULD be the place.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 14, 2012 06:18PM)
So the kids have their colors stitched into the lining of their pockets. The root cause grows.

The words we might want to explore are: "toxic container" - as kids have to get their issues somewhere.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 06:26PM)
Those dirty garbage pail kids.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 08:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer.[/quote]

Pointed out? By a single authoritative figure? We all have jurisdiction on this and the school environment is most definitely one of the places this cancer can be and needs to be cured. The school environment is plagued with this cancer. Kids are being killed in their classrooms. Kids are committing suicide, leaving empty desks in their classrooms. Should that need to be repeated here? Kids are living and dying with this cancer in their classrooms and hallways. The school environment is directly involved and the root causes need to be dealt with directly by those who oversee the school environment.

As for the tone isssue, Bob, Lobo: Bob, you said you didn't intend any ridicule. My point was your tone indicated otherwise.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 14, 2012 08:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 19:26, gdw wrote:
Those dirty garbage pail kids.
[/quote]

not quite, look up the term via google - it's pertinent to this discussion.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 14, 2012 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:05, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer.[/quote]

Pointed out? By a single authoritative figure? We all have jurisdiction on this and the school environment is most definitely one of the places this cancer can be and needs to be cured. The school environment is plagued with this cancer. Kids are being killed in their classrooms. Kids are committing suicide, leaving empty desks in their classrooms. Should that need to be repeated here? Kids are living and dying with this cancer in their classrooms and hallways. The school environment is directly involved and the root causes need to be dealt with directly by those who oversee the school environment.

As for the tone isssue, Bob, Lobo: Bob, you said you didn't intend any ridicule. My point was your tone indicated otherwise.
[/quote]

My point is that it's awfully rare that "tone" gets criticized, or commented upon, by someone who agrees with the point that the person with the questionable tone was making.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 08:49PM)
I understood that point, Lobo. If you'll look back, you'll see Bob was mistaken in stating gdw was "obviously unaware". I'm supposed to agree with him when he was mistaken and has himself stated he missed at least one relevant post? And if I disagree I shouldn't refer to his tone because that would express a bias on my part? B******t! is obscuring the topic here, I think.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 09:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 19:26, gdw wrote:
Those dirty garbage pail kids.
[/quote]

not quite, look up the term via google - it's pertinent to this discussion.
[/quote]

Which term? Because if I look up garbage pail kids, I'm gonns spend the next hour and a half watching clips of it on YouTube. .
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 09:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 19:18, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So the kids have their colors stitched into the lining of their pockets. The root cause grows.

The words we might want to explore are: "toxic container"...[/quote]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 09:11PM)
I got that, my reference was a, clearly missed, attempt at humor.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 09:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:05, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer.[/quote]

Pointed out? By a single authoritative figure? We all have jurisdiction on this and the school environment is most definitely one of the places this cancer can be and needs to be cured. The school environment is plagued with this cancer. Kids are being killed in their classrooms. Kids are committing suicide, leaving empty desks in their classrooms. Should that need to be repeated here? Kids are living and dying with this cancer in their classrooms and hallways. The school environment is directly involved and the root causes need to be dealt with directly by those who oversee the school environment.

As for the tone isssue, Bob, Lobo: Bob, you said you didn't intend any ridicule. My point was your tone indicated otherwise.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with you here Laurie. It is my humble opinion that the education required to cure this cancer starts at home, and it starts with the parents. IN FACT, I am all for state run "spiritual parenting programs" that all would-be parents be subsidised to go through prior to becoming parents.....thats where the cure to this cancer will be found...THEN, and only then can teachers FINALLY find some progress in their work...teachers and parents need to be on the same page

But, I only offer this as a basis for further discussion here, its not my idea, its just an offer for voluntary exploration :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2012 09:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:15, gdw wrote:
Banning gang colours has got the be the epitome of a band aid to treat a cancer.
[/quote]

Ever been to a school where gangs are an issue? Been in a neighborhood where you can get shot for wearing Raiders colors? If not, then it is tough to pontificate about it and sound smart.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 09:24PM)
I posted this link on another thread but actually it's more relevant here. If you think gang "colors" in schools aren't a problem, or that suggesting they be banned is "idiotic" as Glen states, just google "Gang colors public schools" and you'll find hundreds of links that show otherwise.

http://www.keepschoolssafe.org/school/gangs.htm
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 14, 2012 09:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 22:15, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:05, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer.[/quote]

Pointed out? By a single authoritative figure? We all have jurisdiction on this and the school environment is most definitely one of the places this cancer can be and needs to be cured. The school environment is plagued with this cancer. Kids are being killed in their classrooms. Kids are committing suicide, leaving empty desks in their classrooms. Should that need to be repeated here? Kids are living and dying with this cancer in their classrooms and hallways. The school environment is directly involved and the root causes need to be dealt with directly by those who oversee the school environment.

As for the tone isssue, Bob, Lobo: Bob, you said you didn't intend any ridicule. My point was your tone indicated otherwise.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with you here Laurie. It is my humble opinion that the education required to cure this cancer starts at home, and it starts with the parents. IN FACT, I am all for state run "spiritual parenting programs" that all would-be parents be subsidised to go through prior to becoming parents.....thats where the cure to this cancer will be found...THEN, and only then can teachers FINALLY find some progress in their work...teachers and parents need to be on the same page

But, I only offer this as a basis for further discussion here, its not my idea, its just an offer for voluntary exploration :)

Kam
[/quote]

Wait, did you actually just advocate for a state run parenting course for future parents?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 09:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 22:28, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 22:15, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:05, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 17:25, kambiz wrote:
But gdw it has been already pointed out that the school environment is not the place to cure the cancer.[/quote]

Pointed out? By a single authoritative figure? We all have jurisdiction on this and the school environment is most definitely one of the places this cancer can be and needs to be cured. The school environment is plagued with this cancer. Kids are being killed in their classrooms. Kids are committing suicide, leaving empty desks in their classrooms. Should that need to be repeated here? Kids are living and dying with this cancer in their classrooms and hallways. The school environment is directly involved and the root causes need to be dealt with directly by those who oversee the school environment.

As for the tone isssue, Bob, Lobo: Bob, you said you didn't intend any ridicule. My point was your tone indicated otherwise.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with you here Laurie. It is my humble opinion that the education required to cure this cancer starts at home, and it starts with the parents. IN FACT, I am all for state run "spiritual parenting programs" that all would-be parents be subsidised to go through prior to becoming parents.....thats where the cure to this cancer will be found...THEN, and only then can teachers FINALLY find some progress in their work...teachers and parents need to be on the same page

But, I only offer this as a basis for further discussion here, its not my idea, its just an offer for voluntary exploration :)

Kam
[/quote]

Wait, did you actually just advocate for a state run parenting course for future parents?
[/quote]

I advocated a state-run parenting course for everyone from the age of 15....there you go :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 09:33PM)
In fact, all children from a specific age that will be decided by the state MUST do a parenting course AT SCHOOL....thats what I'm advocating :)

Have at me Glen, go for it.....

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 09:36PM)
....and by parenting course, I'm not talking about how to make your wife more comfortable during labour, but rather, what to do when you see your child is developing aggressive tendencies, what is discipline? how to enforce boundaries, honoring the human spirit, striving for excellence in all undertakings, recognizing the essential sanctity of human life, appreciating beauty, I could go on for days....

Kam
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 09:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 22:11, gdw wrote:
I got that, my reference was a, clearly missed, attempt at humor.
[/quote]

My response was a "just in case"... :)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 09:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 22:33, kambiz wrote:
In fact, all children from a specific age that will be decided by the state MUST do a parenting course AT SCHOOL...[/quote]

So SCHOOL is one place to begin to cure the cancer, then, yes? And TEACHERS will teach STUDENTS "what to do when you see your child is developing aggressive tendencies, what is discipline? how to enforce boundaries, honoring the human spirit, striving for excellence in all undertakings, recognizing the essential sanctity of human life, appreciating beauty..." Yes? And you completely disagree with me?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 14, 2012 09:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 16:49, gdw wrote:
I gathered as much. I wasn't complaining. Thanks though. My comment that it made no sense was just an attempt to reiterate that the policy of banning gang colours makes no sense.

Also, thanks Laurie.
[/quote]
It makes perfect sense.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 09:54PM)
Well Laurie, it depends on which generation we are talking about. If we want to see some improvements now, we need to educate the parents at home. If we want to see sustainable improvements then it is the future generations of parents that require that education. Once those children grow up to be responsible parents and can utilize the parenting education they have received, then they can COMPLEMENT the education their children receive at school by advocating and enforcing the principles at home.

The education of children to be effective parents of the future must therefore occur at school AND at home....this is the balance

Societal problems will reduce drastically if something like this was implemented...

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 14, 2012 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 14:51, magicalaurie wrote:
Bob, gdw was just chided by aces for indicating he's aware of what gang "colors" represent and now you're ridiculing him because he's obviously unaware?
[/quote]

Do you pay attention to what is posted and what it means?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 14, 2012 10:03PM)
Is there an app for this, or maybe a video game?
can this get done between commercials or perhaps instead of something else, say music or painting?

what if some parents don't want their kids taking communion from the clown under the golden arches and instead want their kids to give props to the king of burgers or perhaps to attend at the house of the young lady of the fries and neverland?

the brown fizzy water with the red and white logo or the brown fizzy water with the red white and blue logo - it's gang colors again, right?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 14, 2012 10:12PM)
Oh Sh#t , we lost Townsend again. Its gonna be okay Jon.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 10:19PM)
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/gangs.html

"Gangs are a community problem, but schools are a part of that community and cannot operate in isolation while hoping that the gang members will drop their gang alliances and activities once they cross the schoolhouse door."

Take their clothing colours away, if you like and you can manage it- maybe you ought to cut their hands off at the same time. And you might as well cut out their tongues while you're at it. Gangs flash their "colours" in more ways than one.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 14, 2012 10:27PM)
Magicalaurie
gdw

If you guys think gang colorsis not an issue you definitely live in la la land. You are removed fromreality and the real world. Perhaps youboth live shelteredlives but I believe gdw just likes to disagree because he seems to think tellling anyone what to do is a bad thing. He mush prefers chaos and do as you want otherwise known as the gdw way of living. Answer to no one and have no responsibility...just do it if you want, its all good, this is known as "the gdw way".

Laurie I truly believe you have lived a very sheltered life which in of itself is not a bad thing. However it does not give you a true picture of things. Of course this is just my theory about you and if you wish to disagree go right ahead. But try and speak from experience rather than what believe things are. Speak of experiences that life has thrown at you.

Face facts there are gangs and they have colors and many of them are bad people and if you so much as look at them wrong you are in a world of hurt. They do not ride horses all day or live in nice places or catch butterflies. They live a different lifestyle that you are not familiar with, nor do you really want to be. Colors is not a discussion thing with them it is a way of life and means very much to them so do not take it lightly when one says to ban colors is not a big deal...it is a very big deal to these people and could go a long way in curbing violence.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 10:27PM)
"Recognizing Gangs
Typically, people look for graffiti or bandannas as the main indicators of a gang presence. However, gang indicators can be quite subtle, particularly as awareness increases among school officials, law enforcement, parents, and other adults.

Depending upon the specific gang activity in a specific given school or community, gang identifiers may include:

Graffiti: Unusual signs, symbols, or writing on walls, notebooks, etc.
"Colors": Obvious or subtle colors of clothing, a particular clothing brand, jewelry, or haircuts (But not necessarily the traditional perception of colors as only bandannas)
Tattoos: Symbols on arms, chest, or elsewhere on the body
"Lit" (gang literature): Gang signs, symbols, poems, prayers, procedures, etc. in notebooks or other documents
Initiations: Suspicious bruises, wounds, or injuries resulting from a "jumping in" type initiation

Handsigns: Unusual hand signals or handshakes
Behavior: Sudden changes in behavior or secret meetings"
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 14, 2012 10:30PM)
Gangs are about belonging and the loss of community. Families and schools are a place where that community can be built--but it takes a commitment to build those institutions, and a commitment to children. In this country where we put our money where our mouth is, every budget I've seen shows children are not a major priority.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 10:32PM)
You don't know anything about the reality of my life or where I've come from, aces. Would you like me to lay it all out for you here? Perhaps everyone who agrees with me should also complete a public qualifying questionnaire before they post any further comments here?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 14, 2012 10:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 23:32, magicalaurie wrote:
You don't know anything about the reality of my life or where I've come from, aces. You're still skirting.
[/quote]

So then you profess to have knowlege of gangs and gang related incidents.

Banning colors helps reduce their identity and gives them less confidence. Whereas having colors creates unity among gang members in shcool. How difficult is this to understand?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 10:42PM)
What you gonna do about the rest of their colours? Those that aren't obviously displayed with their clothing? Or if they are clothing related, subtly so. Those posted above, plus these:

http://www.gangwatchers.org/gang-dress.html

and more...
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 10:56PM)
Laurie why did you delete your post outlining suggested strategies at schools?

I glimpsed at it and wanted to have a good read now, it seemed very good, but now it's gone :(

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 14, 2012 11:00PM)
Laurie,

You cannot eliminate gangs from schools. But you can try and curb the violence by limiting certain things that antagonize other gangs. Also you can possibly tone down things that give gangs confidence and remove some of their identity. Something is better than nothing. Or you can just let them do as they please.

I guess the choice is in the administators hands and they will do as they see fit. Different strokes for different folks. The only thing they can probably all agree on is that gangs are not good for the students in a school. It is not the schools problem to eliminate gangs it is the shcools problem to have a safe enviornment and banning colors is definitelhy a step in the right direction. It is not a solution to the problem of gangs but rather a measure that prevents easy identification of members and helps reduce their confidence as gang members. Gangs know colors intimidate. Colors help identify individuals as a group which in effect gives them confidence and courage to carry out things they would not do on their own as an individual. But as a gang mob physcology takes over and it changes the playing field considerably.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 11:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 23:56, kambiz wrote:
Laurie why did you delete your post outlining suggested strategies at schools?

I glimpsed at it and wanted to have a good read now, it seemed very good, but now it's gone :(

Kam
[/quote]

The whole article is available at this link, Kam. :

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/gangs.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 14, 2012 11:12PM)
Is anyone here seriously suggesting that gang colors, etc., should be PERMITTED in schools?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 14, 2012 11:26PM)
I'm seriously suggesting you're evading the heart of the issue. It needs addressing. You're not going to be [i]able[/i] to remove gang colours if there are gang members that want to flash them. The form of the colours will change. The root needs to be dealt with to change the hearts and minds of the kids wearing the colours. Colours don't pull triggers, people do.

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/01/1/school.html

"Although schools frequently cite youth gangs and violence as reasons to require student uniforms, Hethorn's research has found that young people most often communicate their membership in gangs in ways that aren't easily covered by a school uniform policy. Tattoos, hand signs and body posture are more reliable signs of gang identity than what adults often believe is the case–wearing a particular color or style of clothing, she said. Her research also found that subtle clothing variations, such as wearing socks or a belt in a certain way or turning one point of a collar in or out, can be used to communicate gang membership."
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 11:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 23:30, landmark wrote:
Gangs are about belonging and the loss of community. Families and schools are a place where that community can be built--but it takes a commitment to build those institutions, and a commitment to children. In this country where we put our money where our mouth is, every budget I've seen shows children are not a major priority.
[/quote]

Very well said landmark :)

Speaking from my own experience, I am currently involved extremely heavily in creating from anew communities that are sustainable, universally participatory and mutually supportive. Everyone wants to belong to something and have an identity.....my work revolves around building community identity that is solely constructive and not destructive...

The main area of attention lies with children, youth, their parents and their school teachers

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 14, 2012 11:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 00:05, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 23:56, kambiz wrote:
Laurie why did you delete your post outlining suggested strategies at schools?

I glimpsed at it and wanted to have a good read now, it seemed very good, but now it's gone :(

Kam
[/quote]

The whole article is available at this link, Kam. :

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/gangs.html
[/quote]

Thanks Laurie :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 15, 2012 12:02AM)
Laurie,

As I said before I really feel you have not experienced much of the real world. Most of your posts end or are based on a youtube vid of someone else, or a url of someone you don't even know but you found their views by googling the topic. But very little of Laurie. That does not bode well with me. It is nothing but someone elses opinion a parrot repeating what it heard,but it is not Laurie. You can say it helps fortify your opinion but truth comes from what YOU believe in not what someone tells you to believe. Remember the old addage...figures lie and liars figure. By that I mean, I or you can find enough information or disinformation dependingon how you take it on the nternet to back up any opinion. Experience life and don't live it vicarouisly through others. Then post something from Laurie not someone you don't even know.

Seems like all you do is post vids from youtube. If you recall just a short while ago when doing the bit on making a continuing story all you did was keep on posting vids and did not write anything. Reading your home page you are obvioiusly very talented individual. Use it.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 12:21AM)
B******t! again. You don't know what is me because you don't have eyes that see.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 15, 2012 12:23AM)
Laurie-
Not seriously evading anything. The issue being discussed is not whether or not there are other things that need to be done to solve the problem of gangs (there are, and on that I agree with you), but whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools. Some here seem to be taking the position that if you cannot solve ALL gang identification problems, it is "idiotic" (as Glen puts it) to ban gang attire. I disagree.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 12:26AM)
The only reason the issue is whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools is because the OP is skipping out on the original topic of this thread.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 12:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:02, acesover wrote:
Laurie,

It is nothing but someone elses opinion a parrot repeating what it heard,but it is not Laurie. You can say it helps fortify your opinion but truth comes from what YOU believe in not what someone tells you to believe. [/quote]

I've stated my beliefs from the top of this thread. I've provided supporting references because my opinion is obviously of little import to you. Providing supporting evidence and recommendations by experts or those with a special interest in a specific field is something people do when they expect to be taken seriously in a discussion. Schools require citations in written essays and reports. You are seriously out of line. Do you have any legitimate discussion devices at your disposal or is it all bait, switch, and tackle?
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Feb 15, 2012 12:55AM)
Well I do know about gangs. I can tell you this. The reason most youths join a gang is for self-preservation. They are in a neighborhood that is run by a specific gang and you are either with them or against them. They have two options---join them or be attacked at literally every corner. It is a climate of "Might makes right". The colors come afterwards. By the time we get to a color issue (with clothing) the problem has already flourished. Yes we should take the gang colors out of the school. Yes we should attempt to stop ALL gang actions. Tagging, throwing up signs all of it---we need to get rid of it. But first we need to make our communities safe. How do we do that? The same way they do it in "Money" communities. You simply let your local governments know it will no longer be tolerated and YOU set the timetable. People think it's a tuff job to get done---it is not. You can try programs, and try all the "politically correct" ways of stopping the violence. You can wait for the next set of elections to come along and here those "It's time to get tough on crime" speech's. Or, you can simply say "Enough is enough". You set real working laws in place. If you are a gang-banger be prepared to be pulled over, stopped every chance and questioned as to why you are here and what you are doing here. If you are in a gang and you are getting in trouble it will be "Three strikes and you are IN" Yes in the Military that is. You want to fight and shoot guns and kill? We have a career waiting for you. And please I can hear some now saying "You can't do that". Yes as a matter of fact we can. We need to change our way of thinking. We need NEW and improved "programs". Remember why most join gangs-- "self preservation" and remember the motto they must live by "Might makes right" What you will find is a large majority would JUMP at the chance to be corrected if we would give them the chance. This is why so many return to prisons. They have the chance to get off the streets for a while. As one gang banger told me "In prison at least I know I won't get shot". This is also the reason so many gang-bangers will shoot a rival gang member or commit a crime against another person but will SURRENDER to a police officer. Might makes right. They UNDERSTAND this. It is time we fight these gangs with what THEY understand. Not to bully them but to let them know civil people will always have the might and they can join OUR gang any time. They need to know WE want safe streets EVERYWHERE not just in areas where it can be afforded to a select number of people. They need to know no longer will the words He (the innocent bystander) was in the wrong place at the wrong time---We are civilized people, we are never in the wrong place---THEY (the gang-bangers and people who would prey on others) are the ones who are in the wrong place at the wrong time! We need to lead by example and discipline with direction.

We have allowed too many things for too long of a time. We have allowed laws to pass that make no sense and we all know it but still allow it. What has it gotten us? It's time once and for all to let our leaders know either they stop this madness or they will be replaced by people who will. Then children can go to school knowing the "red" dress or "blue" jeans are NOT gang colors---they are their colors.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 15, 2012 01:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:49, magicalaurie wrote:
I understood that point, Lobo. If you'll look back, you'll see Bob was mistaken in stating gdw was "obviously unaware". I'm supposed to agree with him when he was mistaken and has himself stated he missed at least one relevant post? And if I disagree I shouldn't refer to his tone because that would express a bias on my part? B******t! is obscuring the topic here, I think.
[/quote]

If you understood my point, you'd realize that it doesn't have to do referring to the tone of a post one disagrees with, but rather with failing to refer to the questionable tone in posts that one agrees with.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 15, 2012 01:53AM)
With respect to the military suggestion, while there's no perfect solution tom gang violence, giving them guns and paying them seems, to me, not to be the least imperfect solution.

With respect to changing the hearts and minds...well, yeah, worth a try, but it's still a low percentage play. Doe it ever happen? Sure. But you're talking about a select few students who are going to renounce gang affiliation because of anything some teacher(s) said or did.

Thoughts and affiliations are one thing; for those whose gang "activities" at school are limited to those things, try to change them. For those whose activities include possession of weapons and instigating violence, I vote for streamlined expulsions and making the school a less intimidating, less threatening place for those students who want to get an education,
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Feb 15, 2012 05:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 02:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Does it ever happen?
[/quote]

Sure. American History X. Big brother tells little brother he was raped in prison and he was wrong to be a Nazi. Little brother hears story and decides not to be a Nazi anymore.

Easy as pie.

Next question.

I'm here all week, folks!

Also: I'm in love with Laurie. She knows it, but I wonder whether the other NOTS regulars have figured it out yet.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 05:38AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 23:12, magicfish wrote:
Oh Sh#t , we lost Townsend again. Its gonna be okay Jon.
[/quote]

Did folks get the parallel between gang colors and soft drink brands?

Hoping folks can get the questions about just who is going to teach their kids what (presumably universal) skills and at what cost (losing music and art? under the auspices of what institution? how far is that from imposing the very conditions others have fled?) is probably too much.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 05:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:26, magicalaurie wrote:
The only reason the issue is whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools is because the OP is skipping out on the original topic of this thread.
[/quote]

Not at all - it's just some people want to believe their gang colors are more American than apple pie and more fundamentally correct, and for the good of all, than anyone else's gang colors. For such (bigots?) the urban bandanna color issue serves to keep their own issue at a distance and permit them to discuss the lives of others as if they were misguided children or chattle beasts.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 06:08AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 02:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
... while there's no perfect solution tom gang violence, giving them guns and paying them seems, to me...
[/quote]

Which can work as long as the population of semi-domesticated bandits is kept small and there's plenty of money to pay them or enough wars to keep them distracted elsewhere - see fall of Rome.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 15, 2012 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:26, magicalaurie wrote:
The only reason the issue is whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools is because the OP is skipping out on the original topic of this thread.
[/quote]

The whole issue is whether it is ok to condone something controversial at school such as cross dressing or wearing colors. The answer is simple. NO, it is not the time nor place for it. If you want to crossdress do it at the proper time and place, wear your colors on the street, time and place. Don't you get it? Time and place. The place is not at school so it also means it is not the proper time for thethis attire. What is so difficult to grasp about this? I am not telling any one not to crossdress or wear their colors...just not at school as it causes nothing but problems. It is definitely not conduseive to learning.

Laurie see if you can find by googling that crossing dressing at school or wearing colors has helped students get a better education. :) While at it see if either of these has been disruptive and hindered the education process at school and report back to us. I think you know what you will find. That is what I mean by using your own common sense.

Cross dressing at school,bad idea. Wearing "gang colors" to identify oneself at school, bad idea. Why? If you have to ask no one can explain it to you.

That's my story and I am sticking to it. Voiced my opinion on this topic enough. No more comments. So fire (flame) away.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 15, 2012 09:16AM)
My nephew wore skirts until he was about 10. He just felt more comfortable in a skirt and he did this from an early age. We all assumed he was gay and sure enough, when he was 18 he came out. Today he is an incredibly talented dancer with one of the major ballet companies in the world. Fortunately, he grew up in a household that supported, cherished, and loved him. Somehow I don't think he would have been so successful, adjusted and centered if he had grown up with parents who shared Acesover's philosophy. Being a parent is all about looking at your child for what they are and supporting and nurturing the person that they are. If that means they like to wear skirts, so be it. Preventing cross dressing in school is only going to do one thing: make the child believe there is something wrong with them. How, in anyone's view, that is a good thing is beyond my comprehension.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 15, 2012 09:35AM)
I have no doubt that someday people will look back at our time as a time of incredible close mindedness filled with hate and fear of anything out of the norm, just as we look on the dark ages. The notion that a person is not free to pursue their own happiness because of social norms will be looked on as inconceivable as we think of the holocaust today. Personally the philosophy and kind of thinking espoused by (some in this thread - I won't name names) makes me sick to my stomach and sad that we still live in such an unenlightened backwards time.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2012 10:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 07:08, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 02:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
... while there's no perfect solution tom gang violence, giving them guns and paying them seems, to me...
[/quote]

Which can work as long as the population of semi-domesticated bandits is kept small and there's plenty of money to pay them or enough wars to keep them distracted elsewhere - see fall of Rome.
[/quote]
Does that mean we won't have to endure any more commercials about the military being all about winning hearts and minds, and helping little old Afghan women across the street? Or can we finally admit, that our number one priority is to kill as efficiently and brutally as possible, even at the cost of our youth, and that the military is about that and nothing else.

Hail Sparta! And don't forget the parade for the heroes, the few, the proud, the Crips, the Bloods.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 11:01AM)
[quote]
Does that mean we won't have to endure any more commercials about the military being all about winning hearts and minds, and helping little old Afghan women across the street? Or can we finally admit, that our number one priority is to kill as efficiently and brutally as possible, even at the cost of our youth, and that the military is about that and nothing else.
[/quote]

Maybe that's all you did when [i]you[/i] were in the military...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 15, 2012 11:13AM)
Killing as efficiently as possible generally helps saves the lives of our youth.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 11:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:23, mastermindreader wrote:
Laurie-
Not seriously evading anything. The issue being discussed is not whether or not there are other things that need to be done to solve the problem of gangs (there are, and on that I agree with you), but whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools. Some here seem to be taking the position that if you cannot solve ALL gang identification problems, it is "idiotic" (as Glen puts it) to ban gang attire. I disagree.
[/quote]

Not at all what I am suggesting. What I'm saying is focusing on futile policies that in no way ACTIALLT address the issues is what is idiotic.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 10:16, Slide wrote:
My nephew wore skirts until he was about 10. He just felt more comfortable in a skirt and he did this from an early age. We all assumed he was gay and sure enough, when he was 18 he came out. Today he is an incredibly talented dancer with one of the major ballet companies in the world. Fortunately, he grew up in a household that supported, cherished, and loved him. Somehow I don't think he would have been so successful, adjusted and centered if he had grown up with parents who shared Acesover's philosophy. Being a parent is all about looking at your child for what they are and supporting and nurturing the person that they are. If that means they like to wear skirts, so be it. Preventing cross dressing in school is only going to do one thing: make the child believe there is something wrong with them. How, in anyone's view, that is a good thing is beyond my comprehension.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:

Forcing children to repress who they are, and institutionalizing such mentality in schools, is VERY unhealthy, and certainly not conducive to encouraging growth and education. Then again, when was the last time schools really were conducive to encouraging growth and education?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 11:35AM)
"Colours don't pull triggers, people do."

Lol, brilliant, so long as we don't infer the wrong thing into "colours."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 15, 2012 12:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 12:26, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:23, mastermindreader wrote:
Laurie-
Not seriously evading anything. The issue being discussed is not whether or not there are other things that need to be done to solve the problem of gangs (there are, and on that I agree with you), but whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools. Some here seem to be taking the position that if you cannot solve ALL gang identification problems, it is "idiotic" (as Glen puts it) to ban gang attire. I disagree.
[/quote]

Not at all what I am suggesting. What I'm saying is focusing on futile policies that in no way ACTIALLT address the issues is what is idiotic.
[/quote]

No one suggested an either/or solution. Many things are necessary to combat the problem of gangs.

And since someone brought up the topic of "tone" earlier, I wonder why you get a pass when you refer to other peoples suggestions as "idiotic?"
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 12:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 02:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-14 21:49, magicalaurie wrote:
I understood that point, Lobo. If you'll look back, you'll see Bob was mistaken in stating gdw was "obviously unaware". I'm supposed to agree with him when he was mistaken and has himself stated he missed at least one relevant post? And if I disagree I shouldn't refer to his tone because that would express a bias on my part? B******t! is obscuring the topic here, I think.
[/quote]

If you understood my point, you'd realize that it doesn't have to do referring to the tone of a post one disagrees with, but rather with failing to refer to the questionable tone in posts that one agrees with.
[/quote]

If you understood my point, you'd realize I didn't mention Bob's tone because I didn't like it- but because it did ridicule and Bob said no ridicule was intended. For the record I think calling something "idiotic" might be a questionable use of tone but then gdw didn't follow with "no ridicule intended", did he?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 15, 2012 01:39PM)
Wow. Just received a profanity ridden rant in a private message from acesover. It confirmed everything I already knew. I reported it to the moderators.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 15, 2012 03:08PM)
Slide,


Profanity ridden? Here is my PM to you. It was a PM because I said I would not post here on this topic any more. But when you out and out lied I had too.


Here is the post. First part is from your post. Mine bgins with: You know what they say about opinions.

-----------------------------------------------

I have no doubt that someday people will look back at our time as a time of incredible close mindedness filled with hate and fear of anything out of the norm, just as we look on the dark ages. The notion that a person is not free to pursue their own happiness because of social norms will be looked on as inconceivable as we think of the holocaust today. Personally the philosophy and kind of thinking espoused by (some in this thread - I won't name names) makes me sick to my stomach and sad that we still live in such an unenlightened backwards time.

You know what they say about opinions. If you don't let me enlighten you. They are like Aholes everyone has one. That is yours and you are entitled to it.

I suppose that if you enjoy taking illegal drugs you should do so because in the future people will look back and see how close minded we were to feel that it was a bad thing. Just like I am sure everyone will look back and say what was the big deal about abortion? So we do as we please and correct it tomorrow with a pill or scapel. But you probably feel that abortion is OK now so thatis falling on deaf ears.

So as long as you have no doubt it is OK. Because you rule. OMG. What a pompus *** you are. Its your freaking opinion so maybe just maybe you may be wrong.

Where is this profanity ridden as you said?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2012 03:13PM)
I am curious as to how many here have first hand experience with gangs. Since my question was evaded the first time, perhaps since I addressed it to GDW I pose to to all.

Gangs are not easy to pontificate about. The BEST gang intervention officers are often those who came up through the gangs. For many reasons. I am not saying an opinion is not valid if you havn't been in a gang. However I am saying that if you have NO actual hands on experience as to what it means to know which colors to wear or die then the opinion might not be as informed as you might think.

You may not believe it but gangs vary by region tremendously. Inner city gangs join based mostly on location. Smaller cities not so much. In prison it is more by race than anything. Many here are showing a tremendous lack of understanding of actual gang life and the reasons they exist.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 15, 2012 03:15PM)
Wow, I guess words like ahole and *** are not profanity to you. !


BTW: yes I believe in a Woman's right to choose.
and yes I believe certain drugs like Marajuana should be legalized.

and how am I a liar? your post was profanity ridden. But perhaps that is the way you talk from where ever you are from. In my town it is considered profanity. and obviously since the Café censored your post, they think so as well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2012 03:21PM)
I hope that wasn't directed to me LOL.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Feb 15, 2012 03:25PM)
Harking back to the origin of the topic.
I did some work at a few schools,primary,junior and secondary,last summer.
I was there when the school was closed for the holidays,but still had to follow the
site health and safety rules.
This involved the usual pontificating irrelevent bumf,with one exception.No shorts
were to be worn by male contractors on site.
I made the probably well worn angry retort,that if I were to wear a skirt and claim to be
a transvestite,I'd be allowed to.
The answer was in the affirmitive.
It's the little double standards,that are enforced by the right-on brigade,that grate with me.
Not anything else to do with it,just the duplicity.
I also tend to find,the sort of person that sets these ridiculous guidlines,tend to gravitate to working for the
local council and government sponsored bodies.
Just a bunch of hand wringing w@nXers!!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 03:26PM)
Luckily, I've never been in a gang.
Unfortunately, I have had some unpleasant dealings with gang members. I don't recommend it.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 15, 2012 03:26PM)
No Danny,

Read higher.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 13:00, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 12:26, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 01:23, mastermindreader wrote:
Laurie-
Not seriously evading anything. The issue being discussed is not whether or not there are other things that need to be done to solve the problem of gangs (there are, and on that I agree with you), but whether or not gang colors should be permitted in schools. Some here seem to be taking the position that if you cannot solve ALL gang identification problems, it is "idiotic" (as Glen puts it) to ban gang attire. I disagree.
[/quote]

Not at all what I am suggesting. What I'm saying is focusing on futile policies that in no way ACTIALLT address the issues is what is idiotic.
[/quote]

No one suggested an either/or solution. Many things are necessary to combat the problem of gangs.

And since someone brought up the topic of "tone" earlier, I wonder why you get a pass when you refer to other peoples suggestions as "idiotic?"
[/quote]

Who said I get a pass? I don't think I was the one complaining about tone. Also, again, don't think I was ever referring to anyone's (here) suggestion, but the actual policies, and the problem of focusing on the wrong thing, effectively ignoring the actual problems, and how they can actually be addressed.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 15, 2012 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 16:15, Slide wrote:
Wow, I guess words like ahole and *** are not profanity to you. !


BTW: yes I believe in a Woman's right to choose.
and yes I believe certain drugs like Marajuana should be legalized.

and how am I a liar? your post was profanity ridden. But perhaps that is the way you talk from where ever you are from. In my town it is considered profanity. and obviously since the Café censored your post, they think so as well.
[/quote]


Hee, hee people will look back to thesetimes and say that *** and Ahole were cnsidered profanity. Just as we look back on the dark ages. Do you see how ludicrious your point was?

Do you really consider *** profanity, or ahole?

Where you come from they consider that profanity, but they condone abortion, smoking pot, gangs wearing their colors to school and kids crossdressing at school. That is some town you live in. Just saying... Or is it as I said? Your opinion and we all know about opinions. :)

By the way I cantype *'s myself and do not need the Café to do it for me. look********************* wow talk about profanity

BTW if yoiu go back and read the posts here you will find *'s #'s etc. And theyare not my posts. In fact youi will find a lot of those lol etc that are often posted here. I guess anyone who does that is beneath you. Give me a break.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 04:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 16:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am curious as to how many here have first hand experience with gangs. Since my question was evaded the first time, perhaps since I addressed it to GDW I pose to to all.

Gangs are not easy to pontificate about. The BEST gang intervention officers are often those who came up through the gangs. For many reasons. I am not saying an opinion is not valid if you havn't been in a gang. However I am saying that if you have NO actual hands on experience as to what it means to know which colors to wear or die then the opinion might not be as informed as you might think.

You may not believe it but gangs vary by region tremendously. Inner city gangs join based mostly on location. Smaller cities not so much. In prison it is more by race than anything. Many here are showing a tremendous lack of understanding of actual gang life and the reasons they exist.
[/quote]

I'm sorry for not noticing your initial question directed at me.
I don't really see how whether or not I have first hand knowledge of gang life and/or living with gangs is required for my opinion on policies meant to address gang behavior in school to have validity.
That being said, though I do not have much firsthand experience, I do have some knowledge on the issues at hand.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 15, 2012 04:18PM)
Glen-

I think that Laurie doesn't know that we speak (figuratively) like this to each other all of the time and neither one of us (I think) is particularly upset or offended about it. If I didn't enjoy arguing with you I wouldn't bother.

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 04:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:18, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

I think that Laurie doesn't know that we speak (figuratively) like this to each other all of the time and neither one of us (I think) is particularly upset or offended about it. If I didn't enjoy arguing with you I wouldn't bother.

Best-

Bob
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 04:24PM)
Why does that smiley face have a p... oh, wait, it's just an arm. Okay, we're good.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 04:26PM)
IMMO two of the basic questions are:

1) What sort of answers are appropriate to give when asked about such a costume - remember social roles and costumes are cultural and cross dressing is about costume.

2) What sort of boundaries are suitable to impose on students as regards their own clothes at school?

I believe I addressed the gang colors and politics of costume in other posts and don't see that as too helpful to bring into this post.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 04:34PM)
[quote]
...IMMO...
[/quote]

"Ivan Makes Monkeys of Orangutans."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 04:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:34, critter wrote:
[quote]
...IMMO...
[/quote]

"Ivan Makes Monkeys of Orangutans."
[/quote]

Lovely distraction - got another?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:18, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

I think that Laurie doesn't know that we speak (figuratively) like this to each other all of the time and neither one of us (I think) is particularly upset or offended about it. If I didn't enjoy arguing with you I wouldn't bother.

Best-

Bob[/quote]

Hey Bob, I was just pointing out where my interpretation of ridicule in your post came from. It was a simple point, that Lobo proceeded to magnify and I've attempted to clarify. I don't expect either you or gdw have your feathers particularly ruffled on this. My sister and I often engage in as, Siegfried would put it, "good discussions", and folks have got their fingers on the keypad ready to dial 911 with Tracey and I giving each other a bewildered "What is their problem?" look. I get it.
Apologies if I misinterpreted your "tone". If I was a Café tone police person in the first place would I keep saying B******t!? Y'all have misunderstood me on this, as well, yourselves, I think, FWIW.
:)
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 04:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:36, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:34, critter wrote:
[quote]
...IMMO...
[/quote]

"Ivan Makes Monkeys of Orangutans."
[/quote]

Lovely distraction - got another?
[/quote]

"Irene Munches Many Olives."
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 15, 2012 04:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:51, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:36, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:34, critter wrote:
[quote]
...IMMO...
[/quote]

"Ivan Makes Monkeys of Orangutans."
[/quote]

Lovely distraction - got another?
[/quote]

"Irene Munches Many Olives."
[/quote]

OMG. I know Irene "the olive muncher" and her brother Ivan.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 15, 2012 04:57PM)
No way! You from Lemhi County?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 04:59PM)
Jon, regarding those two basic questions, I think teachers need to get together with parents, maybe with students present would be a good idea, and these discussions should be had, information gathered, and processed. Proceeding from there with serious consideration. I've addressed these questions- they go deeper than the costume, the human equations need calculating.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 05:07PM)
Lauie, in all fairness one does not calculate human values - it's not a mixture problem.
Social roles are just that - stereotypes with costumes and fashion and mannerisms.
IMHO that's not such a great thing to bring into a classroom for all ages for obvious historical, political and religious reasons.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 15, 2012 05:37PM)
Laurie-

All is cool and I think it's a good thing that once in a while we get called on the way we speak to each other.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 15, 2012 06:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:45, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:18, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

I think that Laurie doesn't know that we speak (figuratively) like this to each other all of the time and neither one of us (I think) is particularly upset or offended about it. If I didn't enjoy arguing with you I wouldn't bother.

Best-

Bob[/quote]

Hey Bob, I was just pointing out where my interpretation of ridicule in your post came from. It was a simple point, that Lobo proceeded to magnify and I've attempted to clarify. I don't expect either you or gdw have your feathers particularly ruffled on this. My sister and I often engage in as, Siegfried would put it, "good discussions", and folks have got their fingers on the keypad ready to dial 911 with Tracey and I giving each other a bewildered "What is their problem?" look. I get it.
Apologies if I misinterpreted your "tone". If I was a Café tone police person in the first place would I keep saying B******t!? Y'all have misunderstood me on this, as well, yourselves, I think, FWIW.
:)
[/quote].

I wasn't trying to distort (or magnify) your point; I was trying to make a separate-but-related point of my own.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 06:28PM)
Who likes BANANAS?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 15, 2012 06:34PM)
Monkeys.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2012 07:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:16, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 16:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am curious as to how many here have first hand experience with gangs. Since my question was evaded the first time, perhaps since I addressed it to GDW I pose to to all.

Gangs are not easy to pontificate about. The BEST gang intervention officers are often those who came up through the gangs. For many reasons. I am not saying an opinion is not valid if you havn't been in a gang. However I am saying that if you have NO actual hands on experience as to what it means to know which colors to wear or die then the opinion might not be as informed as you might think.

You may not believe it but gangs vary by region tremendously. Inner city gangs join based mostly on location. Smaller cities not so much. In prison it is more by race than anything. Many here are showing a tremendous lack of understanding of actual gang life and the reasons they exist.
[/quote]

I'm sorry for not noticing your initial question directed at me.
I don't really see how whether or not I have first hand knowledge of gang life and/or living with gangs is required for my opinion on policies meant to address gang behavior in school to have validity.
That being said, though I do not have much firsthand experience, I do have some knowledge on the issues at hand.
[/quote]

You SERIOUSLY don't see why not having first hand knowledge of gang life and what drives people to it might be relevant? I know you enjoy pontification as do many here, but my friend life is what happens while you are busy "googling" it. You can not put forth solutions unless you know what is causing the problems in the first place.

Thank you for proving my point.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 18:07, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Lauie, in all fairness one does not calculate human values - it's not a mixture problem...
[/quote]

Fair enough. I retract the term, Jon.


What would you recommend, Danny? You're not the first here to suggest gangs aren't easy to pin down.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 15, 2012 07:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 16:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am curious as to how many here have first hand experience with gangs. Since my question was evaded the first time, perhaps since I addressed it to GDW I pose to to all.

Gangs are not easy to pontificate about. The BEST gang intervention officers are often those who came up through the gangs. For many reasons. I am not saying an opinion is not valid if you havn't been in a gang. However I am saying that if you have NO actual hands on experience as to what it means to know which colors to wear or die then the opinion might not be as informed as you might think.

You may not believe it but gangs vary by region tremendously. Inner city gangs join based mostly on location. Smaller cities not so much. In prison it is more by race than anything. Many here are showing a tremendous lack of understanding of actual gang life and the reasons they exist.
[/quote]

Some...not extensive, by any means. I (substitue) taught in a Gang-heavy district for a year, I've also lived with an LAPD cop and done a fair bit of pro-bono work in gang areas. I don't spend too much time out and about in those neighborhoods, but I know who's where, for the most part, in So. Cal.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 07:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 20:00, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 17:16, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 16:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am curious as to how many here have first hand experience with gangs. Since my question was evaded the first time, perhaps since I addressed it to GDW I pose to to all.

Gangs are not easy to pontificate about. The BEST gang intervention officers are often those who came up through the gangs. For many reasons. I am not saying an opinion is not valid if you havn't been in a gang. However I am saying that if you have NO actual hands on experience as to what it means to know which colors to wear or die then the opinion might not be as informed as you might think.

You may not believe it but gangs vary by region tremendously. Inner city gangs join based mostly on location. Smaller cities not so much. In prison it is more by race than anything. Many here are showing a tremendous lack of understanding of actual gang life and the reasons they exist.
[/quote]

I'm sorry for not noticing your initial question directed at me.
I don't really see how whether or not I have first hand knowledge of gang life and/or living with gangs is required for my opinion on policies meant to address gang behavior in school to have validity.
That being said, though I do not have much firsthand experience, I do have some knowledge on the issues at hand.
[/quote]

You SERIOUSLY don't see why not having first hand knowledge of gang life and what drives people to it might be relevant? I know you enjoy pontification as do many here, but my friend life is what happens while you are busy "googling" it. You can not put forth solutions unless you know what is causing the problems in the first place.

Thank you for proving my point.
[/quote]

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, just that having direct firsthand knowledge was not a prerequisite for a valid opinion.
As I said, I DO have some knowledge on the subject, however I myself have never been in a gang, nor lived in an environment where I had to deal with them directly. I have, however, had a close friend involved with gangs, as well as other exposure through my father.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 15, 2012 07:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 19:34, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Monkeys.
[/quote]

Well I certainly don't. They make me sick. Though I do like monkeys, although they in fact also make me sick.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2012 07:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 20:09, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 18:07, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Lauie, in all fairness one does not calculate human values - it's not a mixture problem...
[/quote]

Fair enough. I retract the term, Jon.


What would you recommend, Danny? You're not the first here to suggest gangs aren't easy to pin down.
[/quote]

What I am saying is that unless you have been involved, opinions that are strong and all encompasing may not be so right.

See at the heart of it which EVERYONE seems to have missed is that "gangs" are just PEOPLE! Many of those are in a situation that is simply out of their control. Many of those PEOPLE are kids! 12 year olds who hang onto the drugs for the gang because even if they are caught, the sentence is almost nothing. They do this not because they are criminal, but just want to survive.

As I said if you have no real world experience with this sort of thing having (as GDW puts it) a "valid opinion" is not that easy.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 15, 2012 08:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 20:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
...See at the heart of it which EVERYONE seems to have missed is that "gangs" are just PEOPLE!...[/quote]

I think you've missed a lot of posts in this thread, Danny. And I heard what you said rather early on...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2012 08:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-15 20:57, Dannydoyle wrote:...which EVERYONE seems to have missed is that "gangs" are just PEOPLE!...
[/quote]

That, along with the bandits notion was already posited under in fast food, brand name, house of worship, regional clothes discussion.

continue please.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 15, 2012 11:27PM)
So, whats the conclusion?

Kam
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 16, 2012 09:09AM)
Somewhat along the same lines as the original story is this story that went viral here in Happy Valley recently.

http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-byu-note-byu-students-honor-code-note-goes-viral-20120215,0,4550428.story

Some of you should get a laugh out of this.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 16, 2012 12:38PM)
[url=http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-byu-note-byu-students-honor-code-note-goes-viral-20120215,0,4550428.story]rockwall's link[/url]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 16, 2012 12:52PM)
Just another example of the insidious spread of Sharia law.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 16, 2012 12:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 00:27, kambiz wrote:
So, whats the conclusion?

Kam
[/quote]

Blaming someone else for your insecurities instead of taking responsibility for them and addressing them directly from within is currently in keeping with the Honor Code?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 16, 2012 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 13:38, magicalaurie wrote:
[url=http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-byu-note-byu-students-honor-code-note-goes-viral-20120215,0,4550428.story]rockwall's link[/url]
[/quote]

Thanks magicalaurie. You're totally magical!