alt.education

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:37:53 -0700 (PDT), ayatollah obama
wrote:

>On Apr 10, 10:53 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT), last_p...@rogers.com wrote:
>> >On Apr 9, 1:53=A0am, ayatollah obama
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Apr 7, 11:18=A0pm, Raymond wrote:
>>
>> >> > Sorry to post at the top, but after reading this, it would seem if one
>> >> > is Gay they have a right to have their view taught in School, but if
>> >> > one is a Christian, or follow religion they can not. =A0Seems that the
>> >> > Law that lets people say their kids can not hear of god, would apply
>> >> > to them that do not want their kids in school to learn of the
>> >> > homosexual teachings either. =A0What gives here? =A0 When I was went to
>> >> > school the books used to teach the children had to be approved by the
>> >> > B of Education and the teacher could not teach stuff that was no
>> >> > accepted by the curriculum.
>>
>> >> Religion IS taught in school... atheism, Nietzsche's Subjective
>> >> morality. Being queer (sexual orientation impaired) is a lifestyle
>> >> choice, or as I like to say... Not liking sex isn't hereditary
>>
>> >## Dead wrong
>> > Sexual preferences [orientation] are genetic.
>>
>> Sexual BIASES are genetic, or at least an early-developmental
>> thing, however actual "preference" is something added TO the
>> innate bias and more a cultural/circumstantial thing. If you're
>> biased to be very gay, then nobody's gonna talk you into being
>> a hetero. But, if you're biased somewhere in the middle, you
>> could be tweaked in either direction, or both. (everyone seems
>> to forget the "both" option in these discussions - doesn't
>> fit the convenient black & white 'logic'). There's also a
>> 'neither' dimension to the equation.
>>
>> Regardless though, the only real 'solution' to this 'critical
>> issue' is to realize that there ISN'T a critical issue at all.
>> Doesn't matter where you fit in "homo/hetro/bi/neither-space",
>> not in the least. There will be FAR more than enough hetrosex
>> to over-perpetuate the species - and that's all "nature" and
>> Darwin care about.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Following your logic, pedophiles, necrophiles, chicken f'ers, are that
>way because of genetics. That they are pre-programmed to find little
>kids (Mo-man did), dead people, and animals sexually attractive.

You're confusing modern social convention with
what's "natural". No such thing as a pedophile,
necrophile or zoephile so far as 'nature' is
concerned. Rats will hump dead rats, are they
thus "necrophiles" ... or mearly "sexual" beasties
which have spotted something that looks humpable ?
Is the neighbors dog a 'homo' if it humps your leg ?

Nature can provide some definite biases ... or
kinda leave things hangin'. Nature can make something
more or less "sexual" - and then other biases or
circumstances can give that sexuality a more
definite direction, or not.

Beware the fallacy of naming ... creating a name does
not necessarily create a distint THING. Beware the
lure of anthropocentrism and sociocentrism ... the
universe does not revolve around humans or whatever
cultural/philosophical/sociological "truths" they're
generating at the moment.

>I could care less if someone is in a M-M or F-F relationship. Just
>don't expect someone who has got past Jack-n-Jill to buy into your
>bullshit logic. You probably believe in global warming, Bush stole
>both elections, and the great pumpkin.

Sorry, none of the above. Press , try again.

>Use the grey matter between
>your ears, take it off the record mode and switch it to the process
>mode, and stop listening to idiot professors who have no clue how the
>real world works.

Ah ... but YOU know "how it works", right ?

Oddly, so does Hillary, Obama, McCain, Ann Coulter,
Jane Fonda ..... but for some reason they're always
at odds with each other. Strange, eh ? :-)

As for the "professors" ... it's been a LONG time
since I basked in their feeble glow. Most couldn't
find their ass even with their TAs assistance ...