Didn't watch the 6-minute video. Cliff's, please?

I generally agree with you, when you give the proverbial yellow card as discussions go too far afield but in this one I struggle as most of the challenges we are going to see in the coming few years in education and other areas, are being driven by the assertion of religious principles, only subtlety shaded behind political rhetoric.

While I generally understand wanting to keep political and religious talk separate as the links used to be weaker (or less relevant), I think you mods will have some tough decisions in the future to make as it may not be possible to properly examine much of what the GOP is going to be trying to push into law, without the religious aspect being discussed.

Not a critique, and just my pov that some re-thinking may be required.

Society spent decades trying to separate church and State for good reason and now we see a push to assert Church over State.

But irony is usually lost on the faithful of any particular cult.

I'd say the extreme tribalism and patriarchal structure in tradition al religions was the best way to do things at the time. We're starting to figure out other (hopefully) wiser ways. But time will tell.

Humans are still basically the same creatures as they were when those rules and ideas were written down.

It's freaking hard to herd cats.

Another typically terrible soul read/ prediction.

Wait, where's my shock face? Good, I found it:

/sarcasm

it is because religious people like laggy believe their motives are pure they are so dangerous nd need to be piled on.

if you ask laggy, should a Muslim person who gains the power to institute laws and believes his scripture to be pure and true and who then has pure motives be able to assert his scripture on laggy and those in his community who believe what laggy does? laggy would say 'no way'. No way they should be forced by him, to live their lives according to HIS scripture and laggy would want society and the courts to protect laggy's right to live by his own scripture and morals.


Flip the script though and laggy cheers on when the religious world he thinks more correct is forced on others by those who control the law.

And that is the historical legacy of religion and religious wars across time. Muslims and Christians cohabitate in peace in a 'live and let live' way side by side when power structures are somewhat equal. As soon as one group or the other, feels they have number supremacy and the ability to control the structures of power, they then switch to trying to dominate the other and make them live by their morals and rules.

Religion pretty much by definition has to be intolerant.

It's worth your time.

Really funny clip.

Sure. We're all like that.

That's the point of a good education that includes critical thinking and broader horizons.

I have my mother and MIL who have both become semi-reclusive during covid.
Humans will just ball up into their own shell and ignore the outside world if they're not challenged on a regular basis. All religions are structured on that sort of instinct. Us and Them (filthy Roger)

No soul read laggy. YOu are just being dishonest as you don't want to stand by your prior stated view now that 'if God does it (calls for rape, murder, debauchery, other) it is necessarily good because god is good and beyond our judgement'.

Not sure why you don't want to admit that now, but glad if you have changed your view.

thus while person X calling for rape can be 'filth' but god doing same is 'good'.

Anyway welcome to our side if you are no longer saying that god calling for rape, etc is 'good'.

I agree 'most' are like that but not all.

I have many failings but that is not one. I may be stubborn, pig headed, opinionated, and other but I don't conflate my opinion with fact.

It is arguably my biggest pet peeve in life when people do that and the source of the vast majority of drag em out arguments I get in to here.

It is why I cite the Carlin Meme all the time as most people, whether it be for religion or other, feel that since they hold a strong opinion in any area and they feel their reasoning is correct, that then becomes something they can assert as factual. And it IS NOT.

My recent argument with uke and CV and OAFK was just that.

I have an opinion - 'it is fine and appropriate for me to offer a salutation of compliment to a person in a public street'

They have opinions - 'it is not. But it is fine in many other places (per uke) or an elevator (per OAFK) but not the street'

We should be able to agree to disagree over that and move on but instead I am told my position is 'wrong' and then my position is associated with actual assaults (touching a womans a$$ without permission) to try and prove it wrong, etc.

And then the gloves are off as I will never allow them to use their opinion to assert their choices are right and correct (many locations and elevator are A-OK) but mine based on my opinion is not.

I think, it is very dangerous to allow people to get too comfortable in asserting they hold the 'One True Opinion' and not challenging them on that.

As usual, you didn't disappoint with yet another dumb soul-read.

I have already said that a local school board should feel free to ban or not ban whatever they want from their own libraries:
If a group of Muslims are duly elected to a school board and they want to ban the Bible (or whatever) from their library, they are free to do so.

Imo it is pretty shitty to be respamming about the subject of a locked thread you were asked to not continue talking about in the moderation thread. As one might guess, this characterization of the argument by Cuepee is not remotely close to what actually happened, but it simply isn't appropriate to get into it without just being utterly defiant of the wishes of the mods. So I would ask that you stop trying to bring it up.

Yup. That is the root cause of quite a bit of chicanery.

Ironically the concept of God should quell that but humans are so good at gratifying our own egos that we just make God an extension of ourselves and we're back to square one.

Which is why they used to hold a liberal arts education in somewhat high esteem. It taught the student to think outside the box.

Of course now higher education is just a part of the corporate profit pipeline so that's not fashionable anymore. We're all just cogs in the machine.

But someone has to take the blame for the ills of society, it may as well be the perverts.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong ?

If four or so times in five years is "quoting boner talk repeatedly", then I plead guilty.

I quoted from Fifty Shades of Grey because I was asked to quote an offensive line from a book on a banned book list.

The other times, I was quoting a post that you addressed to me in RGT.

I think my point QP and lagt, is that religion within an education thread is fine. Quoting scripture goes over some line in my head about Education in America. Does that make sense?

Yup.

People laugh at me always referring to the Carlin Meme as if self evident and 'what is the point' as time and time and time again they are asserting their stand point as the only correct one and any other as 'wrong'. Why? Because when they think it through it makes sense to them and thus must not only be true but is so true it can be asserted as fact.

You would see no error of logic repeated in this forum more than that and the obviousness of the person stating it as they keep asserting you are wrong and they are right, as if a factual matter.

The entire meme of the speed one is driving being the 'perfect speed' not just for self, but for everyone else, is so brilliant in its simplicity and yet so many cannot grasp it. I mean, they get it when they read the meme, but then they resort to doing it anyway, immediately after.

FYI, (laggy more filth for you to applaud.)

The question that needs to be asked here is should a political party who has been able to seize the levers of power use it to institute such a partisan agenda which anyone seeing the focus of the bans can easily pick out. I bolded a couple that made my laugh based on such vague reasoning but I doubt even laggy would not say this is a pretty clear 'right leaning, religious agenda based action'.


If progressives seized the levers of power I would not want them to use gov't to ban any pro corporate books, or other such 'right' material.

Lol Cuepee, you assert your view is correct and others are wrong because it makes sense to you all the time.

Apply that to US politic as well then and leave out those religious condamnation out of public sphere ….

While true that a specific school or library banning a book doesn't necessarily imply federal censorship, it still means removing access to that book from a library and it means casting a judgment on that book. Now, there are books that do not belong in a school library for young children. Pretty much anyone would agree that you shouldn't put Marquis De Sade's "The 120 Days of Sodom" in such a library for example (be warned that even a synopsis of that book is not for the faint of heart).

But there are examples which I think are outright bad.

We recently heard story about how the school board in McMinn County, Tennessee voted to remove the comic book "Maus" from the 8th grade curriculum because of some foul language and that it in some places show humanoid animals naked. Maus, for those that don't know, is a very well-made comic about the holocaust. I strongly suspect the book was removed precisely because it shows the horrors of racist ideology, a suspicion made even stronger when a school principle in the same meeting declared that "To Kill a Mockingbird" was an example of a book that should be removed for the same reasons.

To clarify my post: I'm not saying that 10 raging Nazis by coincidence happened to be on the same school board, put away their armbands and voted to removed Maus.

I'm saying at some point a raging Nazi made a list of books he didn't like, made up some bogus reasons for as to why they should not be read or taught, spread it among his peers and through their intellectual network the list (or some refined form) made it way into bordering intellectual circles.

Filthy mice.

Makes sense.

Those desirious of continuing our little Bible Study can do so in RGT.

You might want to reread the Tweet:

Every article I've seen about it says the same.

Wow. Just, wow.

Canada is fairly widely considered to have some of the best education outcomes in the world. Here in BC, the largest school district has almost the same number of students - I believe about 74,000 currently. Total budget is ~780,000 CAD, or about 610,000 USD. A few thousand more students for less than half the cost, and likely better outcomes. Yikes.

A truly, truly terrible idea.

There's an expression for that in the education world here - playing with the trains. Elected school boards aren't educational experts; much of the time they aren't even educators. They shouldn't be playing with the trains. Set an overall strategic plan, hire good people, fund them adequately, and get the **** out of the way. Leave the book selection to people who know what they are doing.

I'm kewl with that approach. The post of mine that you were responding to above was me refuting yet another terrible soul-read by Cuepee.

Keeping people impoverished and without access to health care and basic nutrition isn't as cheap as some of these ubermenches seem to think it is.