people who annoy him for sure
yup they do, for sure. How is that relevant?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
people who annoy him for sure
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-06 15:56:53)
lol
Tu Stultus Es
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.lowing wrote:
As I said numerous times now. Contributions made by women, blacks etc. that were historically relevant. are recognized because what they did was historically relevant, not because they were women or blacks.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
From a Yahoo article:Not sure how this is any different.California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
notice how MLK's accomplishments does include being black? Why should Joe BLow's historically revelant accomplishments include being gay?
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
You kinda missed my point a bit there but that's nothing new. All I was saying is they teach an assignment or two about how a historical figure who was openly gay lived their life. It's not exactly intrusive or a big deal by any means. Making a mountain out of a molehill, there are far important issues.lowing wrote:
this.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah true. But making it compulsory means little will change. They already teach history involving gay people. All they'd have to do is an assignment here or there focussing on someone who was gay. Meh.
Anyone that did anything of historical value is already being recognized in history or their historical contribution. Now they want to add a footnote by his name that, says " oh yeah, and he did that being gay"? Basically they want to add a historical significance to being gay.
.
Black history is understandable because being black was at the heart of our history. Being gay was not.
For a group of people that want nothing more than to be "equal" they sure are going out of their way to ensure they get special treatment, special recognition, and special acknowledgment. It is bullshit.
"Gay" is a class of people because of the way society handles it. Gay people can't get married (same-sex marriage) in a lot of places. Gay people get excluded from certain jobs. Gay people are even subjected to violent treatment because of who they are.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html
Leave it to California to dream up this bullshit.
Gay is not a class of people. It is not a race and being gay has nothing to do with their accomplishments in history. Bullshit like this is the same thing as teaching the "fat people history" Highlighting the accomplishments of fat people, when their weight has nothing to do with their accomplishments of finding a cure for polio or inventing the light bulb.
So I understand why they want to have this material taught (to reduce homophobia at large), but drawing attention to a group in such a manner just cements their place as a separate entity. I don't think it's a good idea at all to make distinctions like that when teaching history.
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.AussieReaper wrote:
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.lowing wrote:
As I said numerous times now. Contributions made by women, blacks etc. that were historically relevant. are recognized because what they did was historically relevant, not because they were women or blacks.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
From a Yahoo article:
Not sure how this is any different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
notice how MLK's accomplishments does include being black? Why should Joe BLow's historically revelant accomplishments include being gay?
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
Name one job that is not available to gay people. and one one group of people that has not been the target of violent treatment.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Gay" is a class of people because of the way society handles it. Gay people can't get married (same-sex marriage) in a lot of places. Gay people get excluded from certain jobs. Gay people are even subjected to violent treatment because of who they are.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html
Leave it to California to dream up this bullshit.
Gay is not a class of people. It is not a race and being gay has nothing to do with their accomplishments in history. Bullshit like this is the same thing as teaching the "fat people history" Highlighting the accomplishments of fat people, when their weight has nothing to do with their accomplishments of finding a cure for polio or inventing the light bulb.
So I understand why they want to have this material taught (to reduce homophobia at large), but drawing attention to a group in such a manner just cements their place as a separate entity. I don't think it's a good idea at all to make distinctions like that when teaching history.
How do you want this made simpler?lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.AussieReaper wrote:
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.lowing wrote:
As I said numerous times now. Contributions made by women, blacks etc. that were historically relevant. are recognized because what they did was historically relevant, not because they were women or blacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
notice how MLK's accomplishments does include being black? Why should Joe BLow's historically revelant accomplishments include being gay?
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
Both groups were fighting for equal rights. And gay community still are.
I mean, how hard is that to comprehend? If schools are to teach the fight for civil rights, the struggles of the gays should not be excluded because you're a homophobe.
Everyone knows he was black.lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.AussieReaper wrote:
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.lowing wrote:
As I said numerous times now. Contributions made by women, blacks etc. that were historically relevant. are recognized because what they did was historically relevant, not because they were women or blacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
notice how MLK's accomplishments does include being black? Why should Joe BLow's historically revelant accomplishments include being gay?
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
So what? If it turned out Ben Franklin was gay, does that change anything historically, the man has done? and you think everyone should know he was gay?Jaekus wrote:
Everyone knows he was black.lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.AussieReaper wrote:
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-06 20:35:37)
Exactly.lowing wrote:
So what?Jaekus wrote:
Everyone knows he was black.lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.
It was not relevant to what he actually accomplished.Jaekus wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
So what?Jaekus wrote:
Everyone knows he was black.
A black man championing equal rights for people of his own race (for all people, really).lowing wrote:
It was not relevant to what he actually accomplished.Jaekus wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
So what?
And you say his race isn't relevant??
LMAO
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-06 20:38:22)
Ahh no I am a homophobe, just add it to the list. THe teach the fight for civil rights, they do not teach who was black and who wasn't that fought for it.AussieReaper wrote:
How do you want this made simpler?lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.AussieReaper wrote:
Pretty sure MLK was fighting for black's rights.
As much as the gay community are fighting for equal rights.
But fuck, how could you draw that conclusion?
Both groups were fighting for equal rights. And gay community still are.
I mean, how hard is that to comprehend? If schools are to teach the fight for civil rights, the struggles of the gays should not be excluded because you're a homophobe.
Nope, not relevant, we would have arrived to the civil rights movement with or without MLK being black or white.Jaekus wrote:
A black man championing equal rights for people of his own race (for all people, really).lowing wrote:
It was not relevant to what he actually accomplished.Jaekus wrote:
Exactly.
And you say his race isn't relevant??
LMAO
How is it you consistently miss the point on a whole range of issues? Actually, don't bother, I know why.
What point are you trying to make? THat MLK is historically relevant because he was black? I disagree, I think he was historically relevant because of the civil rights movement.Jaekus wrote:
How is it you consistently miss the point on a whole range of issues? Actually, don't bother, I know why.
Um, okay?lowing wrote:
Ahh no I am a homophobe, just add it to the list. THe teach the fight for civil rights, they do not teach who was black and who wasn't that fought for it.AussieReaper wrote:
How do you want this made simpler?lowing wrote:
Plenty of people fought for black rights including plenty of white people. MLK is known ans is historically relevant for what he did during the civil rights movement NOT for being black.
Both groups were fighting for equal rights. And gay community still are.
I mean, how hard is that to comprehend? If schools are to teach the fight for civil rights, the struggles of the gays should not be excluded because you're a homophobe.
"Teach the fight for civil rights by including the gay struggle, but don't teach who was gay because we don't teach who was black!"
That is your argument? wtf
Maybe they should teach English too.
You've GOT to be kidding me.lowing wrote:
Name one job that is not available to gay people. and one one group of people that has not been the target of violent treatment.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Gay" is a class of people because of the way society handles it. Gay people can't get married (same-sex marriage) in a lot of places. Gay people get excluded from certain jobs. Gay people are even subjected to violent treatment because of who they are.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html
Leave it to California to dream up this bullshit.
Gay is not a class of people. It is not a race and being gay has nothing to do with their accomplishments in history. Bullshit like this is the same thing as teaching the "fat people history" Highlighting the accomplishments of fat people, when their weight has nothing to do with their accomplishments of finding a cure for polio or inventing the light bulb.
So I understand why they want to have this material taught (to reduce homophobia at large), but drawing attention to a group in such a manner just cements their place as a separate entity. I don't think it's a good idea at all to make distinctions like that when teaching history.
Tell you what, you go ahead give me the historical relevance if it turns out Lincoln sucked a dick.AussieReaper wrote:
Um, okay?lowing wrote:
Ahh no I am a homophobe, just add it to the list. THe teach the fight for civil rights, they do not teach who was black and who wasn't that fought for it.AussieReaper wrote:
How do you want this made simpler?
Both groups were fighting for equal rights. And gay community still are.
I mean, how hard is that to comprehend? If schools are to teach the fight for civil rights, the struggles of the gays should not be excluded because you're a homophobe.
"Teach the fight for civil rights by including the gay struggle, but don't teach who was gay because we don't teach who was black!"
That is your argument? wtf
Nope, name a job gays are not allowed to do. and name one group of people that has never been targeted for violence.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding me.lowing wrote:
Name one job that is not available to gay people. and one one group of people that has not been the target of violent treatment.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Gay" is a class of people because of the way society handles it. Gay people can't get married (same-sex marriage) in a lot of places. Gay people get excluded from certain jobs. Gay people are even subjected to violent treatment because of who they are.
So I understand why they want to have this material taught (to reduce homophobia at large), but drawing attention to a group in such a manner just cements their place as a separate entity. I don't think it's a good idea at all to make distinctions like that when teaching history.
lowing wrote:
Nope, name a job gays are not allowed to do. and name one group of people that has never been targeted for violence.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding me.lowing wrote:
Name one job that is not available to gay people. and one one group of people that has not been the target of violent treatment.
Pretty much this ^
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-06 21:10:11)
Wow.lowing wrote:
Tell you what, you go ahead give me the historical relevance if it turns out Lincoln sucked a dick.AussieReaper wrote:
Um, okay?lowing wrote:
Ahh no I am a homophobe, just add it to the list. THe teach the fight for civil rights, they do not teach who was black and who wasn't that fought for it.
"Teach the fight for civil rights by including the gay struggle, but don't teach who was gay because we don't teach who was black!"
That is your argument? wtf
You really think that teaching gay rights = teaching sexual acts.
Good one, chief.