Off Topic Messages

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:27 pm

the squirrel wrote:
"I don't really have to defend myself to other people. Their problem is not a problem for me," McBeth said


But he was quick enough to make his problem a problem for everyone else.

McBeth said. "I'm proud of who I am."


Yes, and so is Gary Glitter, and MJ.

These confused individuals dont need sex changes...........they need some serious psychiatric help.....and if that doesn't help.........lock them up because they are dangerous, unstable people....and a possible threat to society.


How "mean" you are, squirrel. :D

Can no one say out loud what is rather obvious ? Common sense, indeed.

Re: Religious Expression Beats Common Sense

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:39 pm

EagleUSA wrote:Charron said aircraft were unique environments, but schools had the ability to better control different situations.

Tell that to the parents of 11 year old Joe Geeling, stabbed by a fellow pupil while leaving school last Wednesday evening. Or the parents of the 16 5 year olds gunned down in Dunblane 10 years ago.

I don't see any difference between this and Muslims wanting Sharia law. If it's not conducive to the society of the country in which you live you should leave. :evil:

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:46 pm

Del:

This excellent Newsweek Int'l article sums up how Europe is finally wising up about their "live and let live" attitude about immigrants. Seems quite sensible:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11569485/site/newsweek/


(From the thread:
Multiculturalism, Pig Soup & Europe's Crisis :


http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... highlight=

*****************************************

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm

Thanks for the link Greg. Good article.

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:25 pm

You're welcome. As Holland goes, so might the West.

I especially like some of these excerpts:

******************************************

"...How different things look today. Dutch borders have been virtually shut. New immigration is down to a trickle. The great cosmopolitan port city of Rotterdam just published a code of conduct requiring Dutch be spoken in public. Parliament recently legislated a countrywide ban on wearing the burqa in public. And listen to a prominent Dutch establishment figure describe the new Dutch Way with immigrants. "We demand a new social contract," says Jan Wolter Wabeke, High Court Judge in The Hague. "We no longer accept that people don't learn our language, we require that they send their daughters to school, and we demand they stop bringing in young brides from the desert and locking them up in third-floor apartments."

What's going on here? Weren't the Dutch supposed to be the nicest people on earth, the most tolerant nation in Europe, a melting pot for minorities and immigrants since the Renaissance? No longer, and in this the Dutch are once again at the forefront of changes in Europe. This time, the Dutch model for Europe is one of multiculturalism besieged, if not plain defunct.

Welcome to the end of tolerance, or at least to the nonnegotiable limits to what Europeans will tolerate. Whether it's the Netherlands' rediscovery of Dutch communal values, or the universal affirmations of free speech (to mock religion, or anything else), Europe is everywhere on the defensive. After decades of relatively unfettered immigration and cultural laissez faire when it came to accepting people of differing values and social mores, there are signs that a potentially ugly backlash is setting in. Even before Jyllands Posten published the cartoons last fall, Denmark's Minister of Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen said, "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid." (Well said! :lol: These days, he speaks for most Europeans. Danes, and Dutch, and a few other countries might be well on their way to creating multiethnic societies. But make no mistake: they're no longer willing to tolerate a European melting pot—a broadly multicultural society—where different cultures live by widely different norms...."

*********************************

"We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid."


This applies to the 71-year Sex-change Teacher situation as well, in my opinion.

Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:19 am

The right to have a job is not asking for any special privilege. The point is that if they remain in their sex and exhibit abnormal traits you condemn. They try and closer conform to the societal norm for their specific behavior and you still condemn them. They have a right to live.

The children do not care if adults treat the issue with rationality. They take their cues from adults not the other way around.

Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:31 am

I'm not so sure "sex changes" are something society should endorse. But
to suspend disbelief, I really question whether we're talking about a totally healthy individual here, given his job (teaching children) and having grown children as well who are undoubtedly traumatized. I can assure you that.

At 71, he should do what he feels he must, but surely the school childen factor in as well. They have a right not to have social experiments performed in front of them for reasons of "equality."

Not everyone gets to be a teacher - and for good reason.

And children indeed do need moral guidance and care from the ills (or strangeness) of the margins of society. They are naturally innocent -to a fault, which is a reason we teach and protect them.

Teach tolerance, yes, but "show & tell" about everything under the sun?

Mr. / Ms. McBeth showed poor judgment in foisting this on his kids - and the school's kids.

In this day and age, you can be an "out" gay man. It's the scary "sex change" that rightly remains creepy.Mr. / Ms. McBeth showed poor judgement in foisting this on everyone.

Until recently, one could not even have such a medical procedure. How did this suddenly morph into being a basic right?

Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:17 am

I'm not saying it should be a basic right or should be encouraged. I'm saying you have a right to live and to work. I'm also saying for that for the homosexuals where this is an option, and it's not an option for all of them for various reasons, (though some would argue that these people are not true homosexuals but that's an argument) their opponents have to decide what they want because it appears to be a no win either way. And you could say all you want about it being a choice but to endure the ridicule that often comes with a sexual persuasion outside the norm hardly seems like a choice anybody would make.

Again I'm not sure how much of a problem this is for children unless it is a problem for their parents. These kids are the age where they are generally very accepting barring adult interference. Fear towards a person because of his or her looks is generally a learned reaction.

Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:14 am

likethebike wrote:I'm not saying it should be a basic right or should be encouraged. I'm saying you have a right to live and to work.

While I agree generally with the thrust of your argument (I certainly don't believe that anyone should be tormented because of sexual preference) you are on shaky ground with the argument that everyone has a RIGHT to work. There is no right of employment........one must conform to some standards to be employed anywhere. If someone refuses to conform in a way deemed necessary by a certain employer..........that is a choice with consequences.

I MUST dress a certain way to work where I do. I remember having to cut my hair for some jobs in the past. If I refused to conform to those standards.......I was out of luck.

This situation goes well beyond those strictures. There is an inherent and omnipresent streak of selfishness in cases such as this.

We must accept the changes.......consequences to others be damned.

No consideration for the desires of the parents or well-being of the children.Your supposition that children are unaffected by appearances apart from parental influence is self-evidently wrong, BTW. Ever see a child confronted by a clown?? My kids run in terror at the sight of Santa Claus. When I was about 3, I was terrified at the cook at the local diner who had a skin condition which gave him a mottled appearance. My parent's explained that the man was harmless.......a good friend of our family. They certainly didn't stoke my fears........but they were as unable to allay them with me as I am with my own children.

The point you made about the children not knowing anything was out of the ordinary because some would have other teachers forgets the basic inter-human dynamics of groups. The word would get around. Interest would be peaked. Cruel jokes and fear would follow.

Then would come the inevitable questions for the parents........who are then forced to deal with an issue most would rather not have to explain until the child was older.



I'm also saying for that for the homosexuals where this is an option, and it's not an option for all of them for various reasons, (though some would argue that these people are not true homosexuals but that's an argument) their opponents have to decide what they want because it appears to be a no win either way. And you could say all you want about it being a choice but to endure the ridicule that often comes with a sexual persuasion outside the norm hardly seems like a choice anybody would make.

It is a choice many make out of sheer frustration or bravado........."If they don't like it.....I'll show 'em!!!"

It's also a way to anesthetize themselves by joining a "group".......a way to attain a sense of normalcy (within their peer group) by coming "out" and receiving the acceptance of those who are like them. They can then gain points for their "in your face" stand with society, and delude themselves that they are forging ahead for equality. Aggressiveness of the type displayed by the person we are discussing here is rewarded and admired by their peers.........it is a means to stature. The slings and arrows simply serve to solidify that position in the group and harden their resolve as their stature grows. The slings and arrows are actually welcomed at some level because of this, and many get satisfaction from it.

And that is what it's about........a way to attain acceptance from the only group they care about, since such acceptance will never come from society at large anyway.


Again I'm not sure how much of a problem this is for children unless it is a problem for their parents. These kids are the age where they are generally very accepting barring adult interference. Fear towards a person because of his or her looks is generally a learned reaction.

Again, this stand puzzles me........do you have children??

Last edited by Scatter on Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:23 am

likethebike wrote:The children do not care if adults treat the issue with rationality. They take their cues from adults not the other way around.


The cue they'd get from that transgender adult is:
I was the wrong sex and now I fixed that. Snip. Snip.
I'm all better now. Ain't I pretty? Me so pretty!
:P You can do this too if you need to.

That's a bad cue for kids to get from an adult.



- Hey, let's be open-minded now......
go do the Ultimate Liberal Act of Tolerance and Understanding:
just go into every 1st Grade classroom and have all the kids take their clothes off, naked, and they look at each other, and DECIDE NOW which type of genitalia they're attracted to.

(tell them no matter which kind they like, it's OKAY)

And easily determine who's straight and who's gay NOW
- diagnose it early - to prevent anyone from being
trapped in the wrong body for 70 f***ing years!.

Maybe Mixed-up Marvin can get that sex change operation at 9 years old.


Wow - what a great idea. :shock:


No matter how you slice it, Liberalism is utter supidity and perversity

Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:42 am

...

Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:58 am

Actually.....
I fear that Ultra-liberal thinking & reasoning really finds my sarcastic absurd 1st grade thing to be a very logical method to produce gay-tolerant/pro-gay kids.

You gotta brainwash them your way at some early point!

Why not? Evolution messages are brainwashed to little kids in cartoons and movies.

Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:41 am

Scatter- The right to work is essentially the right to live because you can't live without money. Now employers have the right to ask for certain concessions given the nature of the job (a right that is often abused in this employer friendly environment). I'm not sure that applies here. One thing that is being ignored here is that this is basically uncharted ground. It's not the way the person is dressing and it's not even an especially abnormal look. Many older women grow masculine in appearance. Unless some adult MAKES it an issue, it's not going to be an issue for the kids.

Haven't you noticed with your own children the way your reaction to a situation colors their reaction? You laugh at a joke on a television show and they laugh. You get angry about the car breaking down and later they learn to get angry over similar mishaps. I can't believe you've never had the case where the kid scrapes his knee or something and just stands there stoically until the adults rush over and start making a fuss. Then the waterworks start. My nephew sliced his head open and didn't share a tear until his mother came over and got hysterical.

Kids' minds are open until we close them.

Sex changes existed when I was a kid as well and I knew about them. I didn't get all hysterical.

I think you exaggerate the importance of the support of the transexual community as with any oppressed community that support is a defense mechanism. Nobody says "I'm going to grow up and have a sex change operation so I can be hero amongst my transexual peers." It's not an indulgence a decision someone makes out of hand. It's not like getting drunk one night and getting a tattoo. It's not a whim.

I don't see how it affects your life or anyone's life. If a kid knows enough to ask you explain. Are you afraid that rationally dealing with this issue will make every kid want to grow up and get a sex change?

Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:58 pm

We don't have to worry about them growing up and getting a sex change

if sex changes are illegal, outlawed, and verboten.

Just put a stop to the mutiliation, period.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:24 am

Delboy wrote:
EagleUSA wrote:
Charron said aircraft were unique environments, but schools had the ability to better control different situations.

Tell that to the parents of 11 year old Joe Geeling, stabbed by a fellow pupil while leaving school last Wednesday evening. Or the parents of the 16 5 year olds gunned down in Dunblane 10 years ago.

I don't see any difference between this and Muslims wanting Sharia law. If it's not conducive to the society of the country in which you live you should leave.


As a point of clarification, I am not responsible for the above quote.

When kids are not allowed to wear baseball caps in school but are allowed to bring daggers in under the guise of religious expression, we've truly "jumped the shark" as a civilization. Ironic, isn't it? You can't mention the word God, start the day with a simple prayer, or include the song "Silent Night" in the school's "Winter Program", but we've got no problem with your Sikh child bringing a mini sword to class. Truly F**ked up, if you ask me.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:46 am

Indeed, Eagle. What an upside down world the West has become in this era of well-intended liberalism. From daggers in school to the photos below, I'm not sure if it's always "progress" that we have unleashed.

Image

Nice to see Scatter joining the fray (great response, btw) as I'm short on time today but look forward to responding further to LTB's posts. And GG as usual cuts through the muck in his unique way, like it or not.

I leave with a general sentiment that we must acknowledge that it is not our job as a society to empower people to do whatever they want to do with themselves. Given the money involved in hawking these "necessary" medical mutilations, it's also not the romantic process of self-discovery that some would deem it. It's an outright indulgence, if not exhibit "A" mental illness of some sort.

A big part of the inevitable (?)out-growing of the excesses of liberalism (and yes, Scat's right: having kids changes a lot) is the almost natural confirmation of the wisdom of our ancestors, our parents, our grandparents, etc. So much of what we were told (but ignored yet soaked up) was in the end very wise about raising children.

The "old" society knew or thing or two about what works and what doesn't. It may have been a sexist and racist and anti-gay world that we're moving away from, but they also knew a thing about moral guidance for children and society.

It's the ultimate hubris to assume that we can just throw the baby out with the bathwater in remaking society. Thankfully, common sense and a willingness for someone to stand up and say, "no" will never go away.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:10 am

In what way is what the teacher did immoral? You could say it's not natural but it's not natural to use drugs to extend your life.

These are important questions to ask. If you are going to block a person with the impulses of the teacher's what course of action do you deem acceptable for that person? What's more is that the course of action has the potential to make that person happy? What practical detriment does it have?

And let's face it as a woman, she does not look that abnormal although it is unfair to judge just from a head shot. Plus, if you choose to "protect" children from a sight like this should we also segregate anyone who has a disfigurement or even anyone who has grown ugly with age?

To me this is all about respecting the right of a person to make their own choices and live their own life.
Last edited by likethebike on Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:01 am

To me this is all about respecting the right of a person to make their own choices and live their own life.


LTB, that mantra/phrase/policy sounds okay. Civil. Humane.
It really sound innocuous and simple.

But who in their right mind can side with adult freaky sexually-explicit self-expression, and be against the preservation of morality, and blatantly care nothing about Kids' Rights to Innocence and Ignorance of such perverse activites and ideas.


Based on that "make their own choices and live their own life" policy, does that mean it's okay to smoke a joint in front of the kids (or with them) or hump the wife in front of the kids, jack off in front of kids, or teach them how to, or say F-words (and let kids cuss) ?

Where do Liberals draw the Line
:?:

It's really sad that the Woodstock Generation unleashed a behavioral virus into society.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:03 am

likethebike wrote:In what way is what the teacher did immoral? You could say it's not natural but it's not natural to use drugs to extend your life.

These are important questions to ask. If you are going to block a person with the impulses of the teacher's what course of action do you deem acceptable for that person. What's more is that the course of action has the potential to make that person happy? What practical detriment does it have?

And let's face it as a woman, she does not look that abnormal although it is unfair to judge just from a head shot. Plus, if you choose to "protect" children from a sight like this should we also segregate anyone who has a disfigurement or even anyone who has grown ugly with age.

To me this is all about respecting the right of a person to make their own choices and live their own life.


You're blatant defiance in defending these sicko's is beyond belief.......

Ever heard of the Minnessota method?.....this is how it works.

If one person agree's with what you say, you might-just might have a point, but if (as in your case) 9 out of 10 people DISAGREE with you, then you have to seriously question your belief's.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:27 am

It depends on who the 10 people are. If I walked into a gay bar the situation would be quite different wouldn't it? If a person walked into a vintage Ku Klux Klan you could find unanimous consent on the merits of something as outrageous as a lynching.

GG- I ask you very civilly what is immoral about what the person did? I have in some ways made a mistake in inferring that the person was an active homosexual before the operation. However, if that was the case doesn't the operation make the person more normal, more "moral" according to the criteria you have set? What is even sexually explicit about it's public impact? No one was forced to watch the operation and as I said she does not look appreciably different from many other women in that age range.

If you can't tell me why it's wrong, why should I assume it's wrong? I'm not advocating what this person did but I'm not condemning it either.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

LTB Wrote
It depends on who the 10 people are. If I walked into a gay bar the situation would be quite different wouldn't it? If a person walked into a vintage Ku Klux Klan you could find unanimous consent on the merits of something as outrageous as a lynching.


I doubt very much if people hold discussions using the minnesota method, in gay bars and KKK meetings.

The way you defiantly defend these saddo's sounds to me like you are he/she too? lol

Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:06 am

What happened to majority rule?

Nowadays, if ONE parent complains about the Christmas Pageant at school and claims to be offended, the school cancels it or drops all the religious songs.


Changing USA traditions and heritages......
to accomodate a minority of complainers?

Stupid. Bad move.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:30 am

I just see human beings not cartoon characters Squirrell.

I ask again why is it immoral? You can't just say it is.

Majority does rule however the majority doesn't have the right to completely dominate the lives of the minority. And Christmas pageant in school isn't a majority/minority issue. It's a constitutional issue. And even more it's not the minority insisting on these changes most of the times (like Walmart's happy holidays) the changes come from within the institutions themselves.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:04 am

JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON. :D

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:35 am

likethebike wrote:Scatter- The right to work is essentially the right to live because you can't live without money. Now employers have the right to ask for certain concessions given the nature of the job (a right that is often abused in this employer friendly environment). I'm not sure that applies here. One thing that is being ignored here is that this is basically uncharted ground. It's not the way the person is dressing and it's not even an especially abnormal look. Many older women grow masculine in appearance. Unless some adult MAKES it an issue, it's not going to be an issue for the kids

The fact of the matter is, the Liberal mantra of "It's ALL for the children" is conspicuous by its absence here. Why should a 6 or 7 year old be forced to confront such a subject?? What ever happened to "readin' 'ritin' and 'rithmatic" without a social agenda being forced down their throat??

Here's the bottom line Bike.........it's not anyone elses business to expose my children to such social and sexual subjects. It's MY damn business to dtermine WHAT and WHEN and WHETHER I want to address social issues. And most especially sexual issues.

It's not the business of schools to make those judgements.Perhaps if that was once again the policy of public schools, we would get back to actually teaching rather than turning out semi-literate morons whose test scores are ranked near the bottom of the industrialized world.


Haven't you noticed with your own children the way your reaction to a situation colors their reaction? You laugh at a joke on a television show and they laugh. You get angry about the car breaking down and later they learn to get angry over similar mishaps. I can't believe you've never had the case where the kid scrapes his knee or something and just stands there stoically until the adults rush over and start making a fuss. Then the waterworks start. My nephew sliced his head open and didn't share a tear until his mother came over and got hysterical.

Again, it is apparent that you have no children of your own. Children need no prompting to recoil in fear from what they see. It is not the same as scraping a knee and only getting frightened after a grownup does.

I've never taught my kids to fear clowns.......they've never seen me react in panic after seeing one. I don't fear Santa. My kids do DESPITE MY ASSURANCES. I can guarantee that if I started coming home today dressed as a woman from now on, my kids would freak..........and begin to ask questions inappropriate for children their age. And that is the point.

These questions that are necessarily raised by this person's irredeemably selfish actions are not appropriate to be addressed to children this young. I don't need their innocence attacked by complex sexual issues foisted upon them by selfish and self centered "teachers' or misguided liberal social engineers.


Kids' minds are open until we close them.

No, children recoil naturally from such things until we brainwash them into thinking such things are "natural". Although, really , no amount of convincing seems to work, overdone stridency of the gay lobby aside.

Sex changes existed when I was a kid as well and I knew about them. I didn't get all hysterical.

I doubt most parents are hysterical either........I bet that they simply resent such socio/sexual experimentation being imposed upon their children.

I think you exaggerate the importance of the support of the transexual community as with any oppressed community that support is a defense mechanism. Nobody says "I'm going to grow up and have a sex change operation so I can be hero amongst my transexual peers." It's not an indulgence a decision someone makes out of hand. It's not like getting drunk one night and getting a tattoo. It's not a whim.

You are twisting my words here. I said nothing concerning the motivation or inception of that lifestyle. I never suggested it was a "whim". Nonetheless, once the decision is made to openly pursue that lifestyle, the support network is extensive, vocal, shrill, and rewarding of those whose voices and actions are the loudest politically and socially. That is fact.


I don't see how it affects your life or anyone's life.

Are you serious???.........it affects my life because it is being paraded before MY children at an age where it is inappropriate. It affects my life because such socio/sexual experimentation makes guinea pigs of my children without my consent. It affects my life because it robs me of my responsibility and duty to guide and direct my child's education experience and quality, as well as what I deem as appropriate exposure to such things at a time I deem proper.

If a kid knows enough to ask you explain. Are you afraid that rationally dealing with this issue will make every kid want to grow up and get a sex change?

Not at all.........how about that it is not a subject that SHOULD be foisted upon my child without my consent?? How about the fact that you cannot deal rationally with such an issue with a child whose emotional and social development does not enable them to process such information??

How about preserving some semblance of innocence in children while getting about the business of teaching something other than a worldview that I find objectionable??? That is an imposition upon MY rights and MY responsibilities.

I couldn't care less if someone is homosexual. I have homosexual friends and family members that I love. If you were gay, I would be every bit the friend to you that I am now.

But I will not cede to you the raising of my children, and what I deem age appropriate exposure. It is frankly no one's business but mine.