Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Santorum on Pornography

Santorum on Pornography (Page 3)
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You're not trying at all.
For a start you are ignoring the fact that the 33% who still do go and have sex are less well-prepared for it. Arguing that they learn about the biology and STIs in science or health classes or wherever means that we are no longer talking about abstinence ONLY education which I keep telling you is the batshit crazy part.
I'm pretty sure that the discussion of "Abstinence" only education doesn't preclude either describing reproduction in something like a biology class, or generally explaining that engaging in sexual activity can lead to sexually transmitted diseases.

What isn't taught in places that emphasis abstinence are the details on the function, use and method of obtaining varied contraceptives in order for the children to engage in behavior they are not yet old enough to be responsible for.

I also tried to find statistics to figure out what percentage of high school aged or younger girls get pregnant and get STD's (to figure out how many where likely saved by abstinence training), but they all seem to irrationally include adult females (18-19 years old) and don't really break it down so you can easily find percentage and the total population. I gave up after about 5 minutes. What we do know is that studies have shown that abstinence eduction decreases sexual activity. Whether or not that's the best goal is an area of reasonable debate.

If I cast my mind back to my school days, the girls who got pregnant were pretty much easy to predict from day one. They were not sort of girls who would look anything up on the internet (even nowadays) beyond asking FaceBook and they absolutely were the sort of girls who would put themselves in the sort of situation I was alluding to, usually with pushy, older boys who didn't know much more than they did but pretended otherwise to get what they wanted.
They were girls who were usually the victims of poor parenting, which likely heightened their lack of self esteem. I believe that typically, abstinence programs act to combat these sorts of handicaps by emphasizing self-worth and the benefits you can obtain by respecting yourself, and your body. That's not the sort of thing that is normally taught when classes teach you how to minimize the negative effects of getting into situations with older, pushy boys who don't respect you, when you have no respect for yourself. It's enabling victimization with fewer consequences.

It's like the difference between teaching a child not to touch a hot stove, or to go ahead and touch the hot stove if you are curious, but be sure you only touch it for a second, and you're less likely to get burned. Even if you get the lesson on not touching the stove, there will be some who do anyways. However, when you have fewer people overall touching the stove (which they shouldn't be doing), you are more likely to have fewer overall burns. I think it's much smarter to teach people to not touch the stove in the first place, then to assume they will and teach them how to do it with a minimum of injury.

Again ... reasonable difference of opinion, described prior using unreasonable hyperbole.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What we do know is that studies have shown that abstinence eduction decreases sexual activity. Whether or not that's the best goal is an area of reasonable debate.
One study may have shown this. Most/all previous studies showed that abstinence only does not work. Perhaps the difference in goals is the problem. The government, the healthcare service and most reasonable people are trying to cut the number of unwanted children, pregnancies and STIs. You apparently just want to stop people having sex.



Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They were girls who were usually the victims of poor parenting, which likely heightened their lack of self esteem. I believe that typically, abstinence programs act to combat these sorts of handicaps by emphasizing self-worth and the benefits you can obtain by respecting yourself, and your body. That's not the sort of thing that is normally taught when classes teach you how to minimize the negative effects of getting into situations with older, pushy boys who don't respect you, when you have no respect for yourself. It's enabling victimization with fewer consequences.
Its not always as seedy as it sounds. If boys weren't pushy at all, then no-one would ever have any sex.
The problem is that even someone you could normally trust will throw their own sense out the window if they get horny enough. Its also not always deliberately misleading, some people think they know these things when they don't.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's like the difference between teaching a child not to touch a hot stove
It really isn't that much like this at all. The act of touching a stove is not fun for most people. The consequences are relatively shorter-term than an HIV infection or a baby.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 11:26 PM
 
Hard core pornography has no redeeming value. The same goes for "snuff" films. Free "speech" involves actually making a statement whereas none of those have anything to do with making a "statement" of any kind. They are simply a form of depraved "entertainment".

People could argue that they have a right to be "entertained" but to try to equate that crap with "speech" actually hurts the cause of retaining free speech.

The damage caused to free speech when purveyors of it try to use the "Free speech" argument is similar to what tabloids and gossip/rumour blogs do to legitimate journalism and the free press.

I really don't give a crap how much people in the "business" try to claim that pornography causes no harm because it absolutely does cause psychological damage to both those who "view" it and those who participate in making it. There are a lot of porn and sex addicts who are in support groups because they now have a distorted idea of what sex and sexuality is all about. Pornography objectifies people and dehumanizes the viewer.

At the end of the day, no man or woman is an island and everyones choices ultimately effects people around them and society as a whole. Unless if you actually live on a private island you have to live within some community standards.

Consider something for a moment, just because you "can" do something it does not mean that you "should" do it. Respect yourself and your fellow human beings to have some self control and self respect.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2012, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
The damage caused to free speech when purveyors of it try to use the "Free speech" argument is similar to what tabloids and gossip/rumour blogs do to legitimate journalism and the free press.
The reason this is a free speech issue is your argument hinges on an objective determination of which is which.

This doesn't exist.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2012, 06:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One study may have shown this.
I think I quoted two places where it was shown to have worked and that was after about 2 seconds during a Google search. Again, reasonable debate. Not "batshit crazy."

It really isn't that much like this at all. The act of touching a stove is not fun for most people.
Okay. Change "touching a stove" to playing Russian Roulette, which can give people quite a rush. Should we educate children not to play, or teach them how to best insure they don't blow their heads off when they are sure to try?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2012, 07:44 AM
 
I think eating habits might be a better analogy. Sure you don't die if you go without sex, but they are both natural urges, both can be pleasurable and bad for you. Where is the donut abstinence education campaign?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2012, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
Hard core pornography has no redeeming value.
Sure it does, it's great for the economy.

Our moral beliefs pertaining to hard core pornography or pornography in general are irrelevant. It is going to exist regardless of what legislation exists, and it is certainly going to exist on the internet unless we want a great American firewall and pay the government to monitor the internet. Why would we ever do such a thing when it is far more economically sensible to keep what we have now? Avoiding hard core pornography if this is not your thing is not a tricky thing to do.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 03:35 PM
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/op...-party.html?hp
Santorum, whose name aptly comes from the same Latin root as sanctimonious, went on Glenn Beck’s Web-based show with his family and offered this lunacy: “I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college,” because colleges are “indoctrination mills” that “harm” the country. He evidently wants home university schooling, which will cut down on keggers.

His wife, Karen, suggested that her husband’s success is “God’s will” and that he wants “to make the culture a better culture, more pleasing to God.”
Nuttier and nuttier.

Go ahead, anyone, defend the lunacy.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sure it does, it's great for the economy.

Our moral beliefs pertaining to hard core pornography or pornography in general are irrelevant. It is going to exist regardless of what legislation exists, and it is certainly going to exist on the internet unless we want a great American firewall and pay the government to monitor the internet. Why would we ever do such a thing when it is far more economically sensible to keep what we have now? Avoiding hard core pornography if this is not your thing is not a tricky thing to do.
How about requiring porn sites to go with the .xxx domain? That would minimize people going to the wrong White House web site (.com v .gov).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 04:34 PM
 
Because then you have to determine what is and isn't porn for everything.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 04:47 PM
 
Do you consider RedTube and YouPorn pornography sites?

EDIT: There is the Miller Test

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:
Look up prurient in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]
prurient |ˈproŏrēənt|
adjective
having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters : she'd been the subject of much prurient curiosity.
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 26, 2012 at 04:57 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
It's not like that test wouldn't have to be performed. Who performs it? Who watches over those people? Who pays for it?

The Miller Test is also problematic because, for example, the contemporary community standards in Utah are wildly different than the contemporary community standards in... well, anywhere.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
How about requiring porn sites to go with the .xxx domain? That would minimize people going to the wrong White House web site (.com v .gov).
I'm fine with the idea behind this, but I think as policy it would be idiotic.

For starters, this will be very difficult to coordinate internationally, but also it will open up the floodgates to court cases challenging the definition of pornography (is Playboy pornography?), and compromises to reroute .xxx requests to .com addresses to circumvent basic parental software that simply filters based on domain suffix. At the end of the day it will accomplish very little. There is already parental software out there designed to filter access to known porn sites based on the site's domain/IP address, is this somehow insufficient?

Besides, if we are going to go out of our way to keep sex away from underage eyes, why don't we do the same thing with violence and other disturbing imagery?

The bottom line is that keeping porn away from kids is a parenting issue, not a technological one.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Besides, if we are going to go out of our way to keep sex away from underage eyes, why don't we do the same thing with violence and other disturbing imagery?
Because violence is fine. Only sex, nudity and bad language is immoral Didn't you know?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 12:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sure it does, it's great for the economy.

Our moral beliefs pertaining to hard core pornography or pornography in general are irrelevant. It is going to exist regardless of what legislation exists, and it is certainly going to exist on the internet unless we want a great American firewall and pay the government to monitor the internet. Why would we ever do such a thing when it is far more economically sensible to keep what we have now? Avoiding hard core pornography if this is not your thing is not a tricky thing to do.
By using your logic, we should just let children drink alcohol and smoke since it would be "good for the economy". Perhaps we should not bother with laws against drinking and driving too because those pesky laws get in the way of a good time right?

You do understand concept that no man is an island? That means that your choices can have a negative effect on not only yourself but people around you. That is why we have laws in the first place. Your "rights" are tempered by the potential damage that they might do to society as a whole and other people.

I think adultery should be criminalized. Why? Because it is not a victimless crime and it costs society harm financially as well as morally. Broken homes result in a higher incidence of crime and higher usage of mental health resources. Children are often harmed by it and they are innocent victims.

At the very least, it should carry a heavy fine or "no fault" divorce should be abolished. If only one of the people in a marriage cheated on their spouse, the injured party should get sole custody of the children, alimony and possession of the house. That rule should apply equally to men and women.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
By using your logic, we should just let children drink alcohol and smoke since it would be "good for the economy". Perhaps we should not bother with laws against drinking and driving too because those pesky laws get in the way of a good time right?
This would not be using my logic, this would be using a straw man argument.

When my jerking off to porn affects my physical health and/or puts you in direct harm and costs you money, let me know. Until then, the two are completely incomparable.

You do understand concept that no man is an island? That means that your choices can have a negative effect on not only yourself but people around you.
I do understand this.

That is why we have laws in the first place. Your "rights" are tempered by the potential damage that they might do to society as a whole and other people.
Potential damage? That's a pretty slippery slope... Maybe all alcohol should be banned? Over-the-counter drugs? Paint? Guns? Knives?

What the government bans and permits is a pretty arbitrary assessment based on a number of factors, many of them arguably flawed (e.g. pot). If you want to put porn in the same category as heroin or cocaine you are going to have to come up with some concrete evidence of negative physical and or mental effects. There are hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions of porn consumers that are not sex offenders or addicts and lead perfectly normal lives.

I think adultery should be criminalized. Why? Because it is not a victimless crime and it costs society harm financially as well as morally. Broken homes result in a higher incidence of crime and higher usage of mental health resources. Children are often harmed by it and they are innocent victims.
And how on Earth would this be enforced and/or proven? Do we really want 239048902348 court cases of alleged adultery surrounding divorce? I see your logic here, but with all due respect, practically speaking this is a terrible idea. For starters, these legal cases and arrests might be more traumatic than the offense itself, if you are really interested in the welfare of the children. Do you want the child's parents with a criminal record and having difficulty finding a job to support themselves and pay child support because a court found them guilty? This compounds the problems you are trying to solve, no?

At the very least, it should carry a heavy fine or "no fault" divorce should be abolished. If only one of the people in a marriage cheated on their spouse, the injured party should get sole custody of the children, alimony and possession of the house. That rule should apply equally to men and women.
Politicians of course would also find loopholes to ensure that they are not arrested, and the rich will probably pay off their former spouses to avoid a criminal record, putting others at a disadvantage in finding a job, enlisting in the military, and doing other things that would be hindered by having a criminal record.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 05:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
At the very least, it should carry a heavy fine or "no fault" divorce should be abolished. If only one of the people in a marriage cheated on their spouse, the injured party should get sole custody of the children, alimony and possession of the house. That rule should apply equally to men and women.
And what about marriages where people have no children and do not cheat but simply don't wich to be together any more? Should it be criminal for them to split?

Also, custody of children should not be decided based on something so straightforward. What if a woman who is married to an abusive man finds solace elsewhere? Should a drunken, violent scumbag be given kids to look after?

I see where you are coming from and I'll assume you mean well but you really haven't thought it through.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 06:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think eating habits might be a better analogy. Sure you don't die if you go without sex, but they are both natural urges, both can be pleasurable and bad for you. Where is the donut abstinence education campaign?
In pretty much all the schools and even in some governments. "Healthy" eating choices are being mandated without choice. This is to the point where there was a story on all the newswires where a teacher made a kid throw out the lunch his mom made and was forced to eat the school lunch because the food his mom made didn't meet the guidelines the government imposed. This wasn't a lunch loaded with candy and junk - we're talking about a turkey sandwich and some fruit.

Some places (NYC for instance) businesses have dictated to them what types edible ingredients are or are not allowed to be used in preparing food so that people are not given a choice as to what they ingest by mandating we not eat things that are less healthy for us.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 27, 2012 at 07:03 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 07:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/op...-party.html?hp

Nuttier and nuttier.

Go ahead, anyone, defend the lunacy.
Which part? That higher education entities indoctrinate kids from the left? I haven't really done the background work. David Horowitz has however, and he's a pretty smart guy I think.

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students - David Horowitz (1 of 8) - YouTube
Amazon.com: Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (0020049055366): Ben Shapiro: Books
Liberal Indoctrination? by Daniel Luzer | Washington Monthly

Or that Santorum's wife thinks that our creator, who has given all American's their rights, would like for our culture to be less filled with things that he has communicated (through scripture) displeasure with and thinks that Rick could help?

I can't speak for God or Mrs. Santorum's feelings.

However, I can see again where reasonable differences of opinion are being compared to insanity, which tells me there are people out there afraid of ideas they can't beat with their own.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 10:40 AM
 
Does higher education indoctrinate kids if the subject matter they are discussing is not political science?

This whole premise is absurd. You can study a whole myriad of subjects that have nothing to do with politics, where politics are not approached in a classroom setting or at all discussed in any sort of formal setting. Casual conversations about politics that are completely incidental to the subject matter that happen to go against your beliefs are not indoctrination just because the dude you are talking with also happens to be a teacher, they are just casual conversations with a random person no more or less qualified to have an opinion than anybody else.

Sorry, you cannot really be politically indoctrinated by your early music teacher, unless that indoctrination involves the use of the sackbutt. This word just doesn't apply.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Does higher education indoctrinate kids if the subject matter they are discussing is not political science?
Does it? That's what's up for debate. Can it? Most assuredly unless you think that they only topic where there are liberal or conservative views are political.

Sorry, you cannot really be politically indoctrinated by your early music teacher, unless that indoctrination involves the use of the sackbutt. This word just doesn't apply.
How about a music history course where the professor makes a concerted (no pun intended) effort to focus on the use of song and music during cultural struggles. For instance, labor movement songs, songs chronicling a rise against the "establishment" which sought to influence historical "change," and the use of music in the anti-war movement, etc.

How do I know that this is possible? I took such a course in college.

ANYTHING can be made political, and often times it is.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
But if the person expressing these viewpoints is not somebody with credentials in politics, this is no more indoctrination than voluntarily listening to a political podcast, watching cable TV news, or listening to your dentist rant about politics.

P.S. stop indoctrinating me with all of your silly conservative posts, thank you!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
In pretty much all the schools and even in some governments. "Healthy" eating choices are being mandated without choice. This is to the point where there was a story on all the newswires where a teacher made a kid throw out the lunch his mom made and was forced to eat the school lunch because the food his mom made didn't meet the guidelines the government imposed. This wasn't a lunch loaded with candy and junk - we're talking about a turkey sandwich and some fruit.
That was here in Chicago.

As usual, the story was sensationalized nine ways to Sunday.

There is no such policy. There are guidelines.

One teacher got overzealous about the guidelines and was ultimately reprimanded for it.

Sky is still in sky, no falling to report.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Which part?
It figures it would be you.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Most quality higher education (and lower education tbh) institutions indoctrinate people to be free-thinkers and to question things. This is what people like Santorum dislike and they call it indoctrination in order to make it sound bad but what he would do given the chance is much worse so its just typical conservative hypocrisy. Business as usual.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Which part? That higher education entities indoctrinate kids from the left? I haven't really done the background work. David Horowitz has however, and he's a pretty smart guy I think.

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students - David Horowitz (1 of 8) - YouTube
Amazon.com: Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (0020049055366): Ben Shapiro: Books
Liberal Indoctrination? by Daniel Luzer | Washington Monthly
I started in on the videos. He lost me when he insisted the idea there are racial, class, and gender hierarchies is an "opinion".

I don't know about old white dude, but I'm ****ing swimming in it over here.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Most quality higher education (and lower education tbh) institutions indoctrinate people to be free-thinkers and to question things. This is what people like Santorum dislike and they call it indoctrination in order to make it sound bad but what he would do given the chance is much worse so its just typical conservative hypocrisy. Business as usual.
The question is are they teaching students HOW to think or WHAT to think.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 01:41 PM
 
My recollection from college was it was both.

I'm not going to claim it was balanced, but a claim of indoctrination is equally wrong.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The question is are they teaching students HOW to think or WHAT to think.
An absolutely valid point, but then why are grievances usually filed with liberal rants attached (e.g. damn liberal leftist elites trying to brainwash our children) when the subject matter involved is pretty much irrelevant here if the complaint is that kids are not being assisted in becoming critical thinkers? This argument only works if these people have an equal problem with conservative ideology being introduced in the same way.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
David Horowitz has however, and he's a pretty smart guy I think.
There's the problem; you think.


I can't speak for God or Mrs. Santorum's feelings.

However, I can see again where reasonable differences of opinion are being compared to insanity, which tells me there are people out there afraid of ideas they can't beat with their own.
Like Rick Santorum, who would love nothing more than to turn our government into a theocracy.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The question is are they teaching students HOW to think or WHAT to think.
If you are genuinely open minded, its how, if you aren't, it doesn't matter which they teach, you won't know the difference.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
There's the problem; you think.
Instead of just being told, and to accept. I know. Thinking is a lot harder.

Like Rick Santorum, who would love nothing more than to turn our government into a theocracy.
Or to make eating babies legal. (insert your own made up allegation here)
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
It figures it would be you.
It figures you simply offer insult and accusation, but when it comes to substance, you fall short.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2012, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But if the person expressing these viewpoints is not somebody with credentials in politics, this is no more indoctrination than voluntarily listening to a political podcast, watching cable TV news, or listening to your dentist rant about politics.
Except for the part about it being part of your "education" which you are tested on and required to learn, all under the auspices that young people should listen to those teaching it because the people giving the information are smart and should be listened to.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It figures you simply offer insult and accusation, but when it comes to substance, you fall short.
This from a guy who believes Obama wasn't born an American.
Too funny.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Thinking is a lot harder.
No comment.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
This from a guy who believes Obama wasn't born an American.
Too funny.
...and that it should be legal to eat babies (insert your own exaggerated or completely false position here).
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No comment.
There's an old saying about keeping quiet when you don't have anything intelligent to add. Thanks for adhering to it!
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
OK, gentlemen, let's review why I started up this thread again:

On the president’s efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, “I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely … The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.”
He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure. And he floated the idea of requiring that universities that receive public funds have “intellectual diversity” on campus.
He is saying that Obama's plan to send more people to college is "indoctrination", then further goes on to state (without citation) that this indoctrination consists of these kids deciding to leave their "faith commitment" behind. His implication is clear: the vast Left-Wing conspiracy has specifically set up college as a place to strip people of their religious views, and Barack Obama is front and center in the plan to secularize the country. (Is a four-year degree necessary for Indoctrination? How many credits until you matriculate as a Heathen?)

I think that's a batshit-crazy statement. Here's a simpler one: if a child has been taught a single world view all his life and is never exposed to anything challenging his beliefs, then heads off to a college where they have to live in a dorm with people of all faiths (and of none), then whose "fault" is it if they change their beliefs? Does the child have any free will of their own? Does "Freedom of Religion" mean freedom from hearing anything that contradicts your specific views?

The more plausible explanaiton is that colleges encourage discussion of all viewpoints, and some people (of all political persuasions) can only understand their own beliefs. There's plenty of Intellectual Diversity, without Rick Santorum crying that since college doesn't preach his world view all the time, somehow it's corrupting our youth.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
The more plausible explanaiton is that colleges encourage discussion of all viewpoints, and some people (of all political persuasions) can only understand their own beliefs. There's plenty of Intellectual Diversity, without Rick Santorum crying that since college doesn't preach his world view all the time, somehow it's corrupting our youth.
Not really all that plausible, since a large part of higher education does NOT encourage discussion of all viewpoints. Conservative or traditional views are to be mocked, ridiculed and if possible banned. "Diversity" doesn't mean an openness to all views and ideas in this case, it means being open and welcoming non-traditional views that challenge the norm while discouraging dissent that represents more traditional values or standards.

We've seen it time and again with conservative speakers having their appearance cancelled at major universities due to threats by faculty and/or students, or being unable to continue speaking due to intolerant intellectuals who believe that opposing views should be shouted down instead of defeated intelligently.

The idea that the academic left champions true "diversity" is a joke. It's enough to give even George Orwell a good laugh.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Except for the part about it being part of your "education" which you are tested on and required to learn, all under the auspices that young people should listen to those teaching it because the people giving the information are smart and should be listened to.

So, random political comments made outside of the class (because in my early music example you wouldn't be able to fit them into classroom curriculum) you feel will be treated as gospel and will be adopted as that listener's new opinion on a political subject?

You must have an extremely low opinion of those attending college/university. By then the vast majority will have learned how to learn and what to pick up on and discard from a mentor. If they don't, the problem is not with the ideas, it's with this weird notion you have that students are going to become clones of their mentors in every way. This is ridiculous.

Then again, you seem to enjoy clinging to your phantom enemies and their phantom positions, I suppose it only makes sense to come up with phantom problems that these phantoms create.

P.S. have you ever been wrong about anything?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
The more plausible explanaiton is that colleges encourage discussion of all viewpoints, and some people (of all political persuasions) can only understand their own beliefs. There's plenty of Intellectual Diversity, without Rick Santorum crying that since college doesn't preach his world view all the time, somehow it's corrupting our youth.

Makes sense to me. The other day he backpedaled and said that he agrees that there should be separation between the state and the church (which I inferred to mean that the state should not impose on the church), but wouldn't say that there should also be separation between the church and state (where the church would impose upon legal matters of the state). This is obviously different subject matter, but is starting to shape a pattern I'm picking up on, which is what you just said: he'll use specific language to get people emotional about the stuff he cares about, but when that language can be used against the stuff he cares about it suddenly doesn't apply. It's pretty much just a manipulation tactic to get people emotionally riled up.

I never thought I'd be agreeing with a Bush, but Jeb is right on this. The GOP lately has become all about appealing to emotions rather than thought and reason, at least so far as Santorum is concerned. I don't know if this is all Santorum's doing or not, but these social issues seem to be what is dominating the news. Maybe this is because the economy is doing better and this is their plan B, or maybe this is just Santorum's agenda working and being carried out, but:

a) these social issues are not going to be deciding issues for this election

b) appealing to us with these social issues on an emotional level is only going to work for some people, and only so far. What is Santorum going to do in a debate against Obama where he is forced to be more concrete and go beyond emotional statements? i.e. *how* will you change our schools? He's sort of said some stuff about what he'd do, but it really doesn't make sense and probably hasn't gotten its scrutiny because of his ability to manipulate with emotional statements. Getting people to home school? If you don't have teaching qualifications you probably shouldn't do that, and having a single parent earning income is pretty difficult. This won't fly with the general public.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 12:42 PM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There's an old saying about keeping quiet when you don't have anything intelligent to add. Thanks for adhering to it!
I thought your admission that you find thinking difficult was beautifully self-explanatory. It explains a lot to the rest of us too I think.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I thought your admission that you find thinking difficult was beautifully self-explanatory. It explains a lot to the rest of us too I think.
Using your brain is a lot tougher than just regurgitating what some talking head told you. I agree. It is self explanatory. However, your apparent admission that you'd rather take the easy, mindless route isn't helping your case any.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, random political comments made outside of the class (because in my early music example you wouldn't be able to fit them into classroom curriculum) you feel will be treated as gospel and will be adopted as that listener's new opinion on a political subject?
No - not my argument, and I explained how a professor would be able to get his political world view into course curriculum.

You must have an extremely low opinion of those attending college/university.
I have an acute understanding of how propaganda and indoctrination can work. You are correct, it would have no effect on some.

P.S. have you ever been wrong about anything?
Yes, but it's an extremely rare occurance.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and that it should be legal to eat babies (insert your own exaggerated or completely false position here).
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I thought your admission that you find thinking difficult was beautifully self-explanatory. It explains a lot to the rest of us too I think.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Using your brain is a lot tougher than just regurgitating what some talking head told you. I agree. It is self explanatory. However, your apparent admission that you'd rather take the easy, mindless route isn't helping your case any.
Let's nudge this back in the right direction.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2012, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not really all that plausible, since a large part of higher education does NOT encourage discussion of all viewpoints. Conservative or traditional views are to be mocked, ridiculed and if possible banned. "Diversity" doesn't mean an openness to all views and ideas in this case, it means being open and welcoming non-traditional views that challenge the norm while discouraging dissent that represents more traditional values or standards.

We've seen it time and again with conservative speakers having their appearance cancelled at major universities due to threats by faculty and/or students, or being unable to continue speaking due to intolerant intellectuals who believe that opposing views should be shouted down instead of defeated intelligently.

The idea that the academic left champions true "diversity" is a joke. It's enough to give even George Orwell a good laugh.
Even if what you say is true, is Barack Obama orchestrating it all specifically to secularize society, as Santorum is implying? Or is it that the people who are most attracted to academic ivory-tower life are the ones who lean left (because the ones who lean right are too busy working at real jobs)?

I do think universities are places that have more inclusive discussion, but if your religious views are more exclusive than inclusive, you will probably feel marginalized.

For instance, when I was in college, the campus group I spent most of my time in was right across the hall from the Gay and Lesbian club in the Student Union, and I saw some things that would make Rick Santorum really throw up! I was able to coexist with these folks, and somehow I didn't catch teh gay from them.

But if someone's religious viewpoint starts from the notion that homosexuality is an affront to God and human nature, well, there really isn't much room for discussion, is there? It's kind of the opposite of inclusive, which is why college folks have such a hard time with it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,