Anyone have an opinion about this?
Printable View
Anyone have an opinion about this?
probably everyone does, but I'll bite and give mine.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
First off, Fox News is the last source I'd use to introduce a topic like this due to their history of sensationalism and shaping stories to fit their narrative. There are actually a lot of different sources who've covered this, many who actually try to explain many aspects of the story - such as what's actually being proposed, by who, what they claim they're trying to achieve, who's objecting, why, and whether the reasons for proposing or opposing it make any sense. None of that is typically found on Fox, by the way. Thus their bad reputation - it's not that they have an ideology, it's not even that everything they present follows a single ideology, it's that they don't live up to any journalistic standards. By the way, they can't be defended by saying "others do it" or "MSNBC is just as bad". That's indicting others, it's not defending Fox.
Ok, to the topic. First some premises - 1) American prudery is ridiculous and when extended to medical issues is dangerous. 2) Americans, for better or worse, have long ceded responsibility for many types of education to the public schools. This includes financial, civic, and health topics as well as more purely academic topics. 3) Schools are not expected to allow specific ideological or religious values to constrain the education that they offer.
Despite the wacko who claims they're teaching sexual positions to ten year olds (implying it's some kind of KamaSutra how-to-do-it session) the evidence seems to show that they're interested in two main things - educating children about their health without pretending that certain body parts and functions don't exist, and educating children about safety regarding possible sexual abuse. There are rational arguments to be made regarding specifics of how to go about this, but none of that is to be found on Fox - and that's true of several other media outlets as well. Certainly there are some "on the left" who will knee-jerk react to questioning these specifics as if the whole existence of the program is being challenged. Sadly, they're correct in that fear, but it's still not helpful to refuse to engage with honest questioners.
There's ample evidence that the refusal to educate young children about their bodies and about the existence of predators causes great harm. I don't know if there's any way to show the opposite- that somehow it was better to hide it. People are perfectly willing to scare their children about strangers in the abstract, but that's not sufficient when strangers aren't the only danger. The whole rest of it, the idea that children should know about their own species' bodies, seems pretty obvious but I'll admit it is more subject to ideological objections. I suppose you can make a case that ignorance of certain things is a virtue, but I can't...
It's also a sign of the crazy isolation from nature that modern Americans seem to crave. Any farm kid knew all this stuff long before they went to school, and as far as I can tell there aren't many historical examples of societies this afraid of reproductive biology before the start of the industrial age. And we typically look at recent examples (the cliche'd rather than the actual morals of the Victorians, for example) as foolishly over-repressed.
Hey dude,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
So I agree with you that Fox News sucks. But still they are talking about it, and many people agree with their point of view, so I tend to look at it and examine it despite the fact that I almost always disagree with the propaganda of the entire corporate media machine (MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC, etc....).You'll see me post videos from time to time from many of these corporate media outlets, but don't confuse me posting their point of view with me promoting their point of view. Anyways, Could you please provide me with the articles or other sources of information you were talking about that covered this story more thoroughly from your point of view?
So are you saying that Fox was wrong with their reporting when they said that 1st graders would be taught about homosexuality? If so, whats the real deal?
Thanks.
little hysteria in any of these, and many link directly to the relevant documents. Note that most are local. Since most in the national audience aren't really affected by this, media that targets them can focus more on any sensationalistic aspects. Note also that many of these sources give more emphasis on the complaints - but they generally acknowledge the context of the guidelines and motivation for it.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
https://www.krtv.com/news/helena-sch...g-controversy/
https://helenair.com/news/article_2a...cc4c03286.html
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071312.html
https://www.kfbb.com/news/local/Comm...100487709.html
https://townhall.com/news/religion/2...n_parents_eyes
here's a reasonably thoughtful objection:
https://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/eve...-montanna.html
I didn't say anything regarding homosexuality at all. The phrase being "taught about" something doesn't give much detail. Why single out that particular point, anyway? If the implication is that this is one of the unmentionable ideas for such young children, I completely disagree.Quote:
So are you saying that Fox was wrong with their reporting when they said that 1st graders would be taught about homosexuality? If so, whats the real deal?
Thanks.
Despite all the typing I've done on this, I can't say I find it a compelling issue. It's yet another typical August news-story. But since it fits into the sex/drugs/rock&roll redState/blueState cubbyholes that the media understands, and that their audiences can get emotionally engaged in, it lights up the primitive nervous system. With any luck our civilization will survive long enough to regard this era as amusingly backwards. Sometimes, though, to paraphrase Dirty Harry, I don't feel that lucky.