controversial topics (Discussion)

I could bring up a graphic where it charts the kill count of the Judaic/Christian god an Satan, but that is beside the point. The school administrators should have told the anti-abortion people to leave because they are being disruptive.

They have those rallies here every so often around the high schools and the admins can't tell anyone to leave if they arent on the property. They've gotten smart by standing across the street with their signs panflits and chants but I remember those from when I was in highschool and besides the aborted fetus pictures which is disgusting we used to troll them every bit as hard as they were trolling us.

This would go for the drug free people too, we'd get their "proud to be drug free" ribbons then rip "free" off and change it to say "proud to be a druggie" even the none druggies just because of the morality bashing.

this is a weird city though and those were diffrent times

They can call the police for disrupting the peace, especially if they are shouting.

I work several blocks from the school, so I don't know how things turned out... might check the paper tomorrow morning when the boss brings it in.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

Due to the current rights and abilities of teachers and their institutions, and the current decline of intelligence, the education should be reformed as follows:

quit cutting school budgets and they can afford to rase the level of education back to what it once was when we were on top of the game

nsanelilmunky wrote:

*Due to the benefits of learning multiple languages, and the current immigrations (legal and otherwise), it will be required to learn (immersion style or half-immersion) one secondary language starting in 1st or 2nd grade, and second secondary language starting about 5th or 6th grade (along with English and the 1st secondary language). A third, separate language would be made available starting in the 9th grade.

I dont see the point of this, then again around here everyone learns spanish around the 9th grade anyway and theres really not much need to know to much more unless we're supposed to all be translators in the UN or something...

nsanelilmunky wrote:

*Until the beginning of the 9th grade, children are not full citizens of the US. Around the time of the 9th grade, they will be allowed to take the citizenship test. This test will require them to be proficient in the workings of the government, be of acceptable levels in academics, and said students will not be able to be employed before they take and pass this test. This should put some fire under their asses and make them WANT to be in school, lest they fail the citizenship test. Before this test, they are considered US-born residents.

No, worst idea ever. This leaves every child to the possible owning by government goon squads worse then the INS that can and I'm betting would go and remove unwanted children and no there is nothing the parrents could do because they are harboring none citizens. It is a great way to bring about military camps filled with growing killing machines and dont think they wouldn't use that opportunity.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

*Literacy and proficiency levels are to be set for each grade level. Failure means repetition of that grade level. Too many failures means expulsion.

remove "no child left behind" amd re instate the old system that I grew up under its basicly the same thing...

nsanelilmunky wrote:

Even with that system, teacher's couldn't do anything but sit there and yell at kids.

not a catholic school fan then?

nsanelilmunky wrote:

Endless, are you being sarcastic, or were you just typing fast?

a little of both with some sardonic for flavor

This is super interesting. Other than autonomy, and reason for this to be ethical?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print

SPF wrote:

This is super interesting. Other than autonomy, and reason for this to be ethical?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print

We have to be a member to read that.

Evil?

Where do my rights start and end in the workplace?
And what gives my employer the right to make sweeping moral judgements about what I do in my own time?

^^oh lame, sorry.

Basically the article says that parents are purposely making their kinds turn out blind or deaf so they can have an all blind or deaf family. They are implanting these defects in the embryo.

Parents say that if there whole family shares the same "defect" that they will be a stronger family.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

^^^That's not right. there's trying to make your family stronger, and then there's child abuse. I think this would be considered abuse. They're pretty much endangering the child and forcing it to live a cripples life.

ya we talked about this in my ethics class. Parents also choose to rid their children of disease. that makes way more sense

Evil?

Where do my rights start and end in the workplace?
And what gives my employer the right to make sweeping moral judgements about what I do in my own time?

In my opinion what you do in your own time is your business and nothing to do with your employer

The World has gone mad, Big Brother is everywhere and our personal freedoms are being slowly eroded every day

^^ Exactly! It's sure as hell not anyone's employer's business what they do in their own home (I mean, unless it's a woman coming in with a black eye or something; then help is clearly needed).

Imagine the tables turned: what's the Brooksville mayor doing at home, anyway? And if she calls smoking "the root of all evil", can you imagine what activities of her own she's covering up??

I just remembered this from a while back: Swiss ban on minarets draws widespread condemnation. I thought it was absolutely stupid to just ban further constructing an architectural feature simply because you have a problem with a religion (BTW, minarets are faarrr prettier than the steeples I see all the time attached to churches). The only time I would support such a legislation is if they can definitively prove that an architectural feature (this time the minarets) is a structural hazard to the populace in general, but short of that it starts to step on the toes of people to have freedom to practice their religion peaceably. (From my understanding, the minaret is just an added on feature that really is not that major of a symbol--it's a kin to the steeple attached to a church.)

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

I just remembered this from a while back: Swiss ban on minarets draws widespread condemnation. I thought it was absolutely stupid to just ban further constructing an architectural feature simply because you have a problem with a religion (BTW, minarets are faarrr prettier than the steeples I see all the time attached to churches). The only time I would support such a legislation is if they can definitively prove that an architectural feature (this time the minarets) is a structural hazard to the populace in general, but short of that it starts to step on the toes of people to have freedom to practice their religion peaceably. (From my understanding, the minaret is just an added on feature that really is not that major of a symbol--it's a kin to the steeple attached to a church.)

What's next, banning the flying buttress?

I wouldn't do it. I find such conduct childish and ill mannered. Doing such things are done in disrespect to those still living. The deceased body doesn't care.

That "how do you like it" part does make you wonder if somehow such words could reach through to some, but I kind of doubt it.

I agree with you, Nsane and Cyn. It would be stooping to their level -- moreover, it would indicate that your (using the hypothetical "you" here) actions are dictated solely by the actions of others. Tossing your moral compass, and compromising your beliefs, because you've been hurt only makes everyone feel like garbage at the end.

mm... Childish was the wrong word to use. This is just, I don't know. As far as I've always known it's been a given, a silent taboo that you just don't intrude on anyones funeral or services.