Alberta makes stupidity law

[Putz]

That post got me thinking Homeownertoo. If we lived in an intolerant world it would be unlikely that minorities would even exist. It is acting on that intolerance that is evil. Organizations such as the KKK (killing black people, and probably a few whites who they didn't like) and present day Neo Nazis that promote more hatred than those who tolerate things that they might not agree with. Pretty much a live and let live attitude.

[Homeownertoo]

That post got me thinking Homeownertoo. If we lived in an intolerant world it would be unlikely that minorities would even exist. It is acting on that intolerance that is evil. Organizations such as the KKK (killing black people, and probably a few whites who they didn't like) and present day Neo Nazis that promote more hatred than those who tolerate things that they might not agree with. Pretty much a live and let live attitude.

People who tolerate things they might not agree with don't promote hatred at all. That comes from both the types you mention and those who demand we actively approve of things we might not agree with.

[steven lloyd]

You clearly have no idea what I was talking about in the above quote, or, for that matter, any comprehension of who are what I am, as your distortion of my words here and elsewhere amply testify.

Perhaps if you came across as less pompous, your intended (?) meaning would be clearer.

BTW, I'm getting a little tired of your amateur-hour psychologizing, which is really just a thinly disguised form of personal attack that you apparently think absolves you from dealing with the content of what people say.

Pot – meet kettle.

... it is postings such as this for which I reserve my well-earned scorn.

And right back acha

[NAB]

Steven, I have to say that I have days where I wish I could express my views civilly on this subject (in fact on many subjects) as well as Homeownertoo usually does, views which for the most part I understand and agree with.

But I am somewhat dismayed (if I understand you correctly) at the suggestions you (as well as others) appear to be making that we need government who can dictate what we individually believe and how we individually deal with it should we disagree, and that the thought police will enforce and ensure that the masses all conform to the idealogy du jour under threat of penalty if we do not. I choose to tolerate such things for the most part, although not support them, associate myself with them, or participate in them in any way other than discussing them should I feel so inclined. I do not consider that hatred, or even infringement of their rights in any way, so long as we have free speech and live in a democracy. Surely it is not your personal intent to wish for otherwise?

I am further dismayed by the idea anyone could support government depriving me and mine of those rights, or turning to personal insults and/or antagonistic/aggressive behaviour as a last bastion of argument to try and back down opposition and constructive discussion and debate. Surely that is also not your belief set and intent?

Nab

[Mr Danksworth]

I'm so sorry that people are intolerant of your intolerance. Must be really hard for you.

[Glacier]

I'm so sorry that people are intolerant of your intolerance. Must be really hard for you.

Do you know the difference between acceptance and tolerance?

[Putz]

I'm so sorry that people are intolerant of your intolerance. Must be really hard for you.

Who is your post directed at? and what intolerance are you speaking of specifically? I want to make sure I'm on the same wavelength.

[hellomynameis]

I for one do not think the government, through our schools, is corrupting a parent’s ability to teach their children anything they want, nor do I think they are violating a parent’s stewardship of their child.

I think, at least in BC, parents already have total control over if their child will receive sex education from the state and if their child will participate in anything directly religious.

Evolution shouldn't be on the 'parental options' table anymore than it already is; that is by way of science electives in the higher grades. Evolution is a fundamental cornerstone of modern biology, every 'public' high school level biology class is obligated to prepare students with the basic subjects they will encounter in a post secondary education.

The minority group that feels evolution is too taboo a subject to be taught already have a solution in semi-private education. Parents that feel strongly on the subject certainly have the force of will to enrol their children into these semi-private schools. Parents that have higher priorities but have a qualm with evolution (or any subject for that matter) also have a virtually unbounded ability and means to involve themselves in their children's education at home, either after school or by home-schooling exclusively.

IMO there is nothing so cementing in a students formal (governmental) education that it cannot be undone and outdone by an involved parent. As it is, the most 'heinous' device currently employed to such a means (in some peoples eyes) is the Corren Agreement. Which in reality allows a student to hold a personal belief that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals will burn in hell and yet that student can still receive an A+. Values imparted by the public education system are no broader than the laws and basic 'golden rules' that our society functions by and are only enforced in 'hallway' altercations. They are not taught as examable (should be a word) and indoctrinating classroom material. When personal belief becomes a right vs. wrong exam in public schools I'll be the first to show up at the Ministry with a torch.

[I Think]

"I am further dismayed by the idea anyone could support government depriving me and mine of those rights, or turning to personal insults and/or antagonistic/aggressive behaviour as a last bastion of argument to try and back down opposition and constructive discussion and debate. Surely that is also not your belief set and intent? "

WHAAAAT - harper wont like that Blabs

[Putz]

Blabs, wow, profound, makes me want to hear more.

[Putz]

I for one do not think the government, through our schools, is corrupting a parent’s ability to teach their children anything they want, nor do I think they are violating a parent’s stewardship of their child.

I think, at least in BC, parents already have total control over if their child will receive sex education from the state and if their child will participate in anything directly religious.

Evolution shouldn't be on the 'parental options' table anymore than it already is; that is by way of science electives in the higher grades. Evolution is a fundamental cornerstone of modern biology, every 'public' high school level biology class is obligated to prepare students with the basic subjects they will encounter in a post secondary education.

The minority group that feels evolution is too taboo a subject to be taught already have a solution in semi-private education. Parents that feel strongly on the subject certainly have the force of will to enrol their children into these semi-private schools. Parents that have higher priorities but have a qualm with evolution (or any subject for that matter) also have a virtually unbounded ability and means to involve themselves in their children's education at home, either after school or by home-schooling exclusively.

IMO there is nothing so cementing in a students formal, governmental, education that it cannot be undone and outdone by an involved parent. As it is, the most 'heinous' device currently employed to such a means (in some peoples eyes) is the Corren Agreement, which in reality allows a student to hold a personal belief that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals will burn in hell and that student can still receive an A+. Values imparted by the public education system are no broader than the laws and basic 'golden rules' that our society functions by and are only enforced in 'hallway' altercations. They are not taught as examable (should be a word) and indoctrinating classroom material. When personal belief becomes a right vs. wrong exam in public schools I'll be the first to show up at the Ministry with a torch.

I had to read this about as many times as you had to edit it. If I read it as you meant and believe it to be, I have a friend with a property in Fla. you might be interested in.

[hellomynameis]

Well I do have a bad habit of posting without proof reading first and then coming back to the post half an hour later to make changes, one at a time.

Was that all you had to say? Btw, I'd buy property in the States right now if I could.

[hellomynameis]

Oh, to sum the bloody thing up for you:

IMO = Alberta's new law = Unnecessary.

[Putz]

Oh, to sum the bloody thing up for you:

IMO = Alberta's new law = Unnecessary.

I wouldn't have expected anything else. Would there be any condition under which you would say it was necessary?

[hellomynameis]

Yes. Wait... No, I change my answer to no, yes?

... How about this:

The detailed opinion I have given should be the one debated as it is less needing of clarification and less open to interpretation. My short 'summation' was offered up as a gimmick and if you want it explained I'm just going to have to retype my more detailed opinion.

"Unnecessary" might not even be the right word.