DescentBB

...is where you learn that democracy = terrorism.



...and if you don't agree and/or expose the indoctrination forced on students, you're going to be expelled or worse.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/12/ ... mp-tirade/

what a steaming pile of BS, especially your assumptions. Continue fighting the war AGAINST education, your puppetmasters approve.

callmeslick wrote:what a steaming pile of BS, especially your assumptions. Continue fighting the war AGAINST education, your puppetmasters approve.

I don't know about the assumptions... but I do agree that a human sexuality teacher sitting up there and opining on the election in such terms is a load of BS. That isn't education... that's political indoctrination.

and, that's likely out of context to boot. Don't know about YOUR higher ed experience, but I often had professors go off on assorted tangents completely unrelated to course material, generally at the beginning or end of the allotted class time. Had one prof of molecular genetics who spent an entire class period discussing a perpetual engine he'd bought at a hobby store(but, he did precede that by listing 10 journal articles which were to be read and discussed later). People have to stop getting so worked up by expose videos in an age where my 5 year old granddaughter can operate video editing software. The purpose of this video and the commentary from the idiocracy is to further heap discredit upon the US higher ed system, which is the envy of the planet, the sole remaining strong pillar of our educational system and utterly critical to the future of the nation. There is a plan behind this, and it centers around a largely uneducated populace, since we won't really need a lot workers in the future. The uneducated ones will be malleable peasants. As it worked in, say, the Dark Ages.

The flaw in your reasoning is really the propensity to defend everything…

Sure, discussing politics in the human sexuality class is acceptable, especially under unusual circumstances…but hyperbolic rhetoric like “act of terrorism” is not.

Where is the critical thinking there?

the critical thinking would come in the student CHALLENGING the assertion. Which no doubt happened, either public or private.

The old "out of context" argument. Notice how often the left uses that when caught with there pants down. Show us slick where the prof was talking out of context. As to a student challenging, I suspect the Prof was a big enough wack job that the students were afraid their grades would be knocked down.

woodchip wrote:The old "out of context" argument. Notice how often the left uses that when caught with there pants down. Show us slick where the prof was talking out of context. As to a student challenging, I suspect the Prof was a big enough wack job that the students were afraid their grades would be knocked down.

you once again demonstrate no clue about higher education, despite apparently making false claims about your own. Get a grip, no one is buying your exaggerations and lies. You tell me: was that segment filmed DURING the lecture? Was it commentary as the class was settling in? That is what I mean by context. It matters. Was it really all that important, to anyone?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:The old "out of context" argument. Notice how often the left uses that when caught with there pants down. Show us slick where the prof was talking out of context. As to a student challenging, I suspect the Prof was a big enough wack job that the students were afraid their grades would be knocked down.

you once again demonstrate no clue about higher education, despite apparently making false claims about your own. Get a grip, no one is buying your exaggerations and lies. You tell me: was that segment filmed DURING the lecture? Was it commentary as the class was settling in? That is what I mean by context. It matters. Was it really all that important, to anyone?

The teacher was addressing the class in her role as a TEACHER. She wasn't talking to a single student or a small group aside about her personal opinions.

That is attempted indoctrination.

Perhaps woodchip will eventually realize that courses about human sexuality are usually some of the first to be targeted by repressive governments or religious leaders with dogmatic agendas. So I see nothing out of sorts for this type of talk to be brought forth during a lecture. The only thing I see wrong is bringing in a reference to a specific person who hasn't even gotten into office yet. The lecture should have been a more generalized recitation about the past repression of educational topics that are controversial. However, since woody is not a female and never lived through the early 50's and 60's as one who had to deal with the "no one is to ever talk about human sexuality in a classroom", he would have no inkling about why this topic would be brought up today in the new era of Trump.

Nightshade wrote: That is attempted indoctrination.

another one with no clue about college. At that level, one isn't indoctrinated because some solitary prof says something. Don't sell students short.

Seriously, even my high school kids would (at the best) completely ignore me if I went on some screed that they didn't agree with.

Top Gun wrote:Seriously, even my high school kids would (at the best) completely ignore me if I went on some screed that they didn't agree with.

That would be all the time then.

No, they don't get the luxury of disagreeing with the meat of my class, because they're wrong by default if they cross Newtonian mechanics (in the non-relativistic realm anyway). Science: it works, bitches.

[quote="callmeslick"
you once again demonstrate no clue about higher education, despite apparently making false claims about your own. [/quote]


No more false than the claims you make about your education. As to clues, I was in college while you were still thinking about it. None of my science profs mentioned the Vietnam war even tho the war was winding down. The only profs that did talk about it were the poly-sci ones. And I doubt the drug hazed brain you tried to function under back in your supposed college days, can even recall what your profs were talking about.

tunnelcat wrote: However, since woody is not a female and never lived through the early 50's and 60's as one who had to deal with the "no one is to ever talk about human sexuality in a classroom", he would have no inkling about why this topic would be brought up today in the new era of Trump.

Well you are right TC, not alot of sexuality discussions going on back then. Back then the men opened doors for women and paid the bill for the date. Men were expected to get a job and support the family while the woman was expected to be a full time mother. Comparing now to back then, I don't see we are better off today.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: you once again demonstrate no clue about higher education, despite apparently making false claims about your own.

No more false than the claims you make about your education. As to clues, I was in college while you were still thinking about it. None of my science profs mentioned the Vietnam war even tho the war was winding down. The only profs that did talk about it were the poly-sci ones. And I doubt the drug hazed brain you tried to function under back in your supposed college days, can even recall what your profs were talking about.

[/quote]

generally about the subjects at hand, both in undergrad education(Biochem, Fine Arts minor) and grad school(Biological Sciences). However, I can remember all sorts of off the cuff, off-topic rants and discussions at the edges of the actual lecture time.

woodchip wrote: Well you are right TC, not alot of sexuality discussions going on back then. Back then the men opened doors for women and paid the bill for the date. Men were expected to get a job and support the family while the woman was expected to be a full time mother. Comparing now to back then, I don't see we are better off today.

geezus Christ on a Donkey! Where I live, men still open and hold doors for women. Sadly, we don't really have an economy where MOST people have the luxury of designating one of the two adults in a family as the worker. Oh, and I lived in those days, and there were PLENTY of women who were NOT full time mothers. We are better off today in SOME ways, mainly around respect for minorities and overall freedom of expression. Economically, we are NO WHERE near as healthy, as a society as we were in those days, when we had a 92% top marginal IRS income tax rate, and maintained revenues adequate to build infrastructure and the rest of the things government does that GROW the long term economy.

....and, let's not forget, in THOSE days, the average person lived within their means. Credit was far less utilized except for homes, even car loans were a slow growing new phenomenon, not that widely embraced. Once we entered the era of instant gratification and tacky competition for 'things', the public helped drive the economy father from ideal.

callmeslick wrote:....and, let's not forget, in THOSE days, the average person lived within their means. Credit was far less utilized except for homes, even car loans were a slow growing new phenomenon, not that widely embraced. Once we entered the era of instant gratification and tacky competition for 'things', the public helped drive the economy father from ideal.

Can't argue with you on that.

woodchip wrote:Well you are right TC, not alot of sexuality discussions going on back then. Back then the men opened doors for women and paid the bill for the date. Men were expected to get a job and support the family while the woman was expected to be a full time mother. Comparing now to back then, I don't see we are better off today.

[Deleted - personal shot]

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: However, since woody is not a female and never lived through the early 50's and 60's as one who had to deal with the "no one is to ever talk about human sexuality in a classroom", he would have no inkling about why this topic would be brought up today in the new era of Trump.

Well you are right TC, not alot of sexuality discussions going on back then. Back then the men opened doors for women and paid the bill for the date. Men were expected to get a job and support the family while the woman was expected to be a full time mother. Comparing now to back then, I don't see we are better off today.

Men still open doors for me today, but that could be because I now look like a gray-haired old lady. However, you've missed my point woody. It's not teaching about just biological sex, it's teaching about the entire scope of human sexuality, as in #2 below. Most of that was taboo or considered outright heresy back when I was a kid, especially anything that was considered a deviation from what was understood to be the norm at the time. Time and science has brought change and new understanding. Most of our current high school and college classes concerning human sexuality would be fodder for attack and repression if say, a dogmatic religious leader were to get into power, or at least have the ear of the president. Trump himself is probably not a dogmatic religious nutcase, but Pence certainly fits the bill.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... +sexuality

sexuality [sek″shoo-al´ĭ-te]
1. the characteristic quality of the male and female reproductive elements.

2. the constitution of an individual in relation to sexual attitudes or activity. This is a broad concept that includes aspects of the physical, psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual makeup of an individual. It is not limited to the physical or biological reproductive elements and behavior, but encompasses the manner in which individuals use their own roles, relationships, values, customs, and gender.

Beautiful, but emancipated woman definitely will never be my choice.

sigma wrote:Beautiful, but emancipated woman definitely will never be my choice.

to be fair, that's likely a two way street.

sigma wrote:Beautiful, but emancipated woman definitely will never be my choice.

What's the matter sigma? You don't like self-reliant women who can take care of themselves?

I have all a simple. If a woman begins to position himself above me, I broke up with her once and for all. A smart woman will not let her look smarter than men, even if it really is. I'm not against equal treatment, but should not forget who's the boss in the house. There are many examples where the wise woman performs a positive role of Éminence grise. But for example, Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

Don't take this as an insult sigma, but I'm very happy to be living in the United States and not Russia, where a woman doesn't have to be subservient to a man and can make her own choices in life. So ends my comments and the departure from the OP.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't take this as an insult sigma, but I'm very happy to be living in the United States and not Russia, where a woman doesn't have to be subservient to a man and can make her own choices in life. So ends my comments and the departure from the OP.

I respect you because you are able to take a gun from a wounded husband and go into battle.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't take this as an insult sigma, but I'm very happy to be living in the United States and not Russia, where a woman doesn't have to be subservient to a man and can make her own choices in life. So ends my comments and the departure from the OP.

Patriarchy is almost everywhere else in the world TC. Like you said, you're lucky. That's one of the things that steams me about most of the rest of the world.

Although you wouldn't think if of me, I'm for equal pay and fair and equal treatment of everyone as human beings.

I'm not what your perception of 'a conservative' is in that respect.

ie: If a woman can carry a 200lb man on her back down a ladder (and there are some that can,) they should be able to be firefighters etc.

What I'm NOT for is lowering standards in order to 'accommodate' more people of a certain group. If you're not up to the task (whatever it may be,) you shouldn't jeopardize others' lives or well being just to be 'included.'

and, controversy turns to fascism. These sorts of threats are just modern brownshirts at work
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-prof ... b7Kz&pfr=1

No, here's real leftist terrorism at work:

On Nov. 29, a rumor hit the Internet falsely claiming that Hinz and his ACE hardware stores refused to sell propane and other equipment to the Standing Rock protestors. The fake story spread fast, appearing on Jezebel as well as several other leftie blogs, spawning a hashtag calling for a boycott of Hinz’s store.

“You go from the top of the world to the bottom in about two minutes,” Hinz said. “And scared—very scared.

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/dakota-a ... d-farmers/

they called for a boycott(albeit on false rumors, stupid), and you compare that to someone getting PERSONAL DEATH THREATS?

Nice moral compass! Your masters and their thugs applaud your false equivalency.

Freaking country is heading for a meltdown, instead of decrying this crap from both sides, we have people trying to claim the moral high ground instead.

Idiots!

Spidey wrote:Freaking country is heading for a meltdown, instead of decrying this crap from both sides, we have people trying to claim the moral high ground instead.

Idiots!

frankly, the 'idiots' include folks who find equivalency('from both sides', my ass, no one EVER got death threats or 'we know your house or car' or the like, ever from a left-leaning population, ever) in the situation.

Spidey wrote:Freaking country is heading for a meltdown, instead of decrying this crap from both sides, we have people trying to claim the moral high ground instead.

Idiots!

It would help if the Trump side would quit rubbing our noses in his "win", especially if he really wants to bring the country together like he's stated during a few of his speeches. But I swear, every time there's a damn Trump victory rally, they love to play one song in particular, the Rolling Stones song: "You Can't Always Get What You Want". I'm willing to see how the man does as president once he gets in office, but it's going to be a difficult trek if he keeps riling up that half of the electorate who doesn't like him like some sort of sick fraternity game. Why keep rubbing salt in the wound so that it keeps bleeding? Unless Trump's the type of man who derives pleasure performing torture.