[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And having worked in many of the “centers” of journalism, I can absolutely assure you that the greatest bias–ultimately the only one–is Man Bites Dog.
If a WSJ reporter discovered that Ted Cruz has lived on welfare for 13 years, 'Ole Rupert might be unhappy, but the WSJ newsroom would be fucking ecstatic to have a story of such Man Bites Dog potential. I mean really ecstatic.[/quote]
That doesn’t work for me though. Again, not that is directed towards you. More of a thinking out loud type of thing.
The above scenario makes a sort of sense. “Ted Cruz is anti-welfare, relied on welfare 20 years ago.”
Ok. Heads explode.
What if Ted Cruz was pro-welfare? “Ted Cruz shares how welfare gave him a helping hand.”
Bear with me…
But isn’t the school anti-welfare Ted Cruz, so to speak? I’m mean, our school system is anti-molestation, no?
I mean, if our school system was pro molestation–or at least ‘undecided’–agree or disagree with with their stance, it would “duh, I mean what do you expect?”
Sloppy, possibly weak, just some thoughts ‘out-loud.’
The not-following up bit I would absolutely classify as shuffling/passing the trash. Where is the police report? Where is the mark on his record during a background check? It’s clearly a case of “he/she isn’t my problem anymore” to me. “I did all (and only, if not less) than what was required of me.”[/quote]
Oh, the superintendents are certainly red-handed. Don’t get me wrong.
I am simply making a distinction–and I don’t mean to imply that it is a large distinction–between
A. The maliciousness of a person in a position of authority who hears of abuse and dismisses the abuser without contacting police and without following up on the whereabouts of the abuser, and
B. The maliciousness of a person in a position of authority who hears of abuse and actively moves the abuser to a separate place with further access to children.
Both persons in positions of authority are evil, but, to my mind, one has more actively participated in the crime (or, if you prefer, the sin).
[quote]
2. First, you called into question the fairness of it, so this isn’t directed at you. Why would anyone be more concerned if the molester was clergy, or a teacher?[/quote]
They absolutely shouldn’t. And if you were to look through my post history here and (somehow) through the history of my own conversations on the subject, I have never harped on the abuse thing, for precisely the reasons you’re getting at. Do note that the example of priestly abuse came up in order to illustrate the folly of holding a particular culture or entity or group collectively responsible for the heinous actions of a lunatic fringe of that culture, entity, or group.
Do I see a special kind of (horrible) irony in a rapist priest? Yes, I do. Do I hold anyone in or out of the Church responsible for the rape, other than the rapist and the people who knew about it and/or enabled him? Under no circumstances.
But isn’t the school anti-welfare Ted Cruz, so to speak? I’m mean, our school system is anti-molestation, no?
[/quote]
Yes, of course.
However, I think the ordained are “more” anti-welfare Cruz, if that makes sense. As I said, there are few professions more explicitly concerned with “good” things–morality, forgiveness, peace. [Note that it is laudable that many good religious people have worked, and often suffered, in order to give rise to this perception.] In my view, anyway.
This is going to be a little silly, but consider this list of possible happenings, from least “Man Bites Dog” to most:
–Abuse by the owner of a “real gore” shock website.
–Abuse by a porn magnate.
–Abuse by a regular Hollywood producer.
–Abuse by a garbage man/accountant/lawyer/famous actor/local politician.
–Abuse by a teacher/high-ranking politician/A-list actor.
–Abuse by a teacher/parent
–Abuse by a priest/Mandela figure/charity magnate/Head of State
And if you were to look through my post history here…[/quote]
No need, smh. I have no doubt. Keep in mind (this goes for anyone else following along) this was a discussion with you, than at you. Someone to talk about it with.
On GLSEN’s 2009 recommended ready list for 7th to 12th graders:
'The material is shockingly pornographic and cannot be discussed in much detail in a newspaper. Aaron Fricke, author of Reflections of a Rock Lobster, recalls performing oral sex on fellow first-graders. He gets lyrical reflecting on his erotic friendship with little Billy Marlen. “We were human beings who knew no social inhibitions and were willing to explore our sexuality to its fullest,” Fricke writes. He was in fourth grade; his child lover was in third. In another book, a lesbian essayist remembers making out as a tot with a girlfriend.
An essayist contributing to the Queer 13 anthology recalls his teenage introduction to lust in public lavatories (“The whole world of rest-room sex had opened itself up to me”). In another GLSEN-approved text, a young “sex worker” in San Francisco discusses how becoming a sadomasochistic transgender prostitute made him “a lot more confident and secure with myself.” Several books feature testimonials in which authors recall their liberating childhood erotic encounters with much older adults.
Again, GLSEN recommends this material for grades 7-12, in the name of promoting tolerance and safe schools.’
Mass Resistance tapes people walking into bathrooms.
“In October 2008, MassResistance employee Michael Olivio was arrested for disorderly conduct at a school after parents became concerned about his taking many pictures of their children. When questioned by police, he explained that he was filming footage for a documentary, but mistook an elementary school for a high school. When asked by police to leave, Olivio began to “act erratically”; he “ran through yards […] shedding clothing”. Camenker supported Olivio’s statement that he was working for the MassResistance, but went to the wrong school.”
[quote]H factor wrote:
Thought I would remind everyone what hate sites like Mass Resistance are up to.
[/quote]
Okay thanks for the ‘reminder.’ Feel free to voice your opinion on the GLSEN school reading list that contains stories about performing oral sex on first graders.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Thought I would remind everyone what hate sites like Mass Resistance are up to.
[/quote]
Okay thanks for the ‘reminder.’ Feel free to voice your opinion on the GLSEN school reading list that contains stories about performing oral sex on first graders.[/quote]
I don’t have much of an opinion on it. I wouldn’t recommend it for kids. The answer is not to fight one extreme with another which is what you do by reading insanity like Mass Resistance and Spearhead.
Radicals don’t seem to bother you when they back up what you think. It’s radicals on the other side you are pissed at. You don’t mind a hardcore anti-gay agenda, but you do mind a pro-homosexual one. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend the opposition is any better than the other extreme.
Feel free to comment on the Mass Resistance writer snapping pictures of little kids and running through the streets shedding clothing.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Thought I would remind everyone what hate sites like Mass Resistance are up to.
[/quote]
Okay thanks for the ‘reminder.’ Feel free to voice your opinion on the GLSEN school reading list that contains stories about performing oral sex on first graders.[/quote]
I don’t have much of an opinion on it. I wouldn’t recommend it for kids. The answer is not to fight one extreme with another which is what you do by reading insanity like Mass Resistance and Spearhead.
Radicals don’t seem to bother you when they back up what you think. It’s radicals on the other side you are pissed at. You don’t mind a hardcore anti-gay agenda, but you do mind a pro-homosexual one. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend the opposition is any better than the other extreme.
Feel free to comment on the Mass Resistance writer snapping pictures of little kids and running through the streets shedding clothing. [/quote]
We’ve already been through this. I have never read Spearhead. I do read MassResistance because they have a huge amount of information about homosexual activists. They’re the ones who broke the fistgate story. Does that mean I support the positions they take on everything? No. Am I responsible for the fact that one of their employers may be mentally ill? No.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
SexMachine… Man, go get some… If you are getting any you are spending way too much time hating on and researching gays. It’s weird man. [/quote]
It’s a single thread. And I’m not ‘hating on gays.’ Whenever I point something out the response I get is ‘that’s just the fringe.’ Yet apparently criticising ‘the fringe’ = ‘hating on gays’ when it suits. You can’t have it both ways.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
SexMachine… Man, go get some… If you are getting any you are spending way too much time hating on and researching gays. It’s weird man. [/quote]
It’s a single thread. And I’m not ‘hating on gays.’ Whenever I point something out the response I get is ‘that’s just the fringe.’ Yet apparently criticising ‘the fringe’ = ‘hating on gays’ when it suits. You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
The problem is you are going back and forth all the time. This would be like me opening a thread to criticize ALL christians in the most incorrect and stereotypical way. Then when someone like you jumps in to call me out I just say “I was just referring to groups like WBC”.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Would you be calling his obsession with gays…gay? [/quote]
I think it’s suspect that he posts so much about it, but that doesn’t make him gay. Me calling him such would just piss him off and likely drive him to dislike gays more.
I think he searches for reason to back up the way he feels. The thing is this is meta-ethically the wrong order. Rather he should use reason to understand his feelings and why they are irrational.
I think it’s suspect that he posts so much about it, but that doesn’t make him gay. Me calling him such would just piss him off and likely drive him to dislike gays more.
[/quote]
Lol. I could care less what you call me.
[quote]
I think he searches for reason to back up the way he feels. The thing is this is meta-ethically the wrong order. Rather he should use reason to understand his feelings and why they are irrational. [/quote]
It’s irrational to support family values and be concerned about the normalisation of transsexualism and cross dressing in schools?
