[ShepherdsDog]

Doesn't sound like she gets freaky in the bedroom.

[BartSimpson]

Levin has reportedly been asked to stay off the New York City subway.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b21_1425483103

[Zipperfish]

That's what Barbara Kay reminds me of.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I will definitely make for interesting dinner conversation with your 12 year old when you chat about anal sex and anal fluid.

Yeah--"don't have unprotected anal sex or you'll end up with AIDS." Probably won't be over dinner, but I'll make sure that is communicated.

So you're just going to skip the whole talk altogether? Yeah, that's some good parenting.

Zip, Just because there's a blue C over to the left of this post, doesn't mean I automatically disagree with the curriculum. Remove your bias and your head from your ass.

I'm not saying that the communication would be coming from you, but likely the child. It would make for some interesting conversation.

I have already had the talk with my son who's 10. We're a very liberal household and are very open and honest with our children.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zip, Just because there's a blue C over to the left of this post, doesn't mean I automatically disagree with the curriculum. Remove your bias and your head from your ass.

I'm not saying that the communication would be coming from you, but likely the child. It would make for some interesting conversation.

I have already had the talk with my son who's 10. We're a very liberal household and are very open and honest with our children.

We're pretty liberal too. It's not unusual for me to cornhole the wife on the table halfway through dinner.

[ShepherdsDog]

ssssooo, haf you shairt these funtuhseeze vit your hausfrau?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

We're pretty liberal too. It's not unusual for me to cornhole the wife on the table halfway through dinner.

No, I'd not call you 'pretty' liberal. More like 'typical' if that makes you feel better.

[Zipperfish]

As for our discussion of homosexuality at home it'll be along the lines of "Chix with chix is OK if they're hot." And for male homosexuality: "A set o' lips is a set o' lips."

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I asked for specifics. This isn't specific at all.

Actually what you said was this.

$1:

Zipperfish wrote:

What specifically is the issue with the curriculum? I haven't heard anyone comment on it at all.

You then went on to mock the right wing for not daring to discuss the actual curriculum. I reminded you that several posts above you there was a point by point critique of the curriculum specifically, and was nice enough to give you a general idea of what was in there. He's reading right out of the curriculum.

Here it is again.



Now you might not like what's in it, or in the other critique of the curriculum from Journalist Barbara Kay, but don't say they don't exist, because that would be what we of the tight right call a lie.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You then went on to mock the right wing for not daring to discuss the actual curriculum. I reminded you that several posts above you there was a point by point critique of the curriculum specifically. He's reading right out of the curriculum.

Here it is again.

Now you might not like what it's in it, or the other critique of the curriculum from Journalist Barbara Kay, but don't say they don't exist, because that would be what we of the tight right call a lie.

Bart posted the curriculum, so why do I need some rabid blowhard to read it to me? A "sexualized climate" is not a specific critique. It's typical Ezra hyperbole.

As for Barbara Kay, she really needs to take the pole out of her ass. They cover that in Grade 4, I think.

I have no idea what my kids are even learning in BC. I know they learned about inappropriate touching, because they were all inappropriately touching themselves and each other for days after.

Not that I'm an overwhelming supporter of the curriculum. School--apart from reading, writing, math and science--is pretty much a load of horsehit anyways, designed to churn out productive lemmings. That's why they'll graduate anyone who shows up on time no matter how dumb they are.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bart posted the curriculum, so why do I need some rabid blowhard to read it to me? A "sexualized climate" is not a specific critique. It's typical Ezra hyperbole.

I encountered similar arguments when I was caught up fighting the promulgation of "The Wantons" in the public schools.

What finally brought the matter to a head was when the Grossmont Union High School District went after a parent who read from the book at a board meeting because the material was, as they termed it, "Obscene".

Turns out none of the board members had bothered to read the book they were defending and they refused to acknowledge that the parent was reading from that same book.

The then-California Attorney General Dan Lungren brought indictments against the entire board for thousands of charges of promulgating obscenity to minors and he based the charges on their own finding that the book they were promoting to high school students was an obscenity!

The matter and the book then quickly went away.

But up to that point we were fighting an uphill battle against the people who upheld the book as some sort of literary masterpiece when, in fact, it is tawdry pornography.

In this case you're wanting to pretend that there's nothing wrong here when a convicted child predator has been instrumental in introducing known grooming methods into an educational curriculum.

By known I'll refer to Oprah Winfrey - a pretty safe person to call a 'liberal' and cite what she lists as Stage Five of the grooming process:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Child-Se ... f-Grooming

$1:

Stage 5: Sexualizing the relationship

At a stage of sufficient emotional dependence and trust, the offender progressively sexualizes the relationship. Desensitization occurs through talking, pictures, even creating situations (like going swimming) in which both offender and victim are naked. At that point, the adult exploits a child's natural curiosity, using feelings of stimulation to advance the sexuality of the relationship.

When teaching a child, the grooming sex offender has the opportunity to shape the child's sexual preferences and can manipulate what a child finds exciting and extend the relationship in this way. The child comes to see himself as a more sexual being and to define the relationship with the offender in more sexual and special terms.

And that's what this curriculum does is it makes very young, pre-pubescent children see themselves as sexualized in order to prepare them and desensitize them to sexual activity.

And the only thing worse than promoting this curriculum is defending it as if it were just another partisan issue.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You then went on to mock the right wing for not daring to discuss the actual curriculum. I reminded you that several posts above you there was a point by point critique of the curriculum specifically. He's reading right out of the curriculum.

Here it is again.

Now you might not like what it's in it, or the other critique of the curriculum from Journalist Barbara Kay, but don't say they don't exist, because that would be what we of the tight right call a lie.

Bart posted the curriculum, so why do I need some rabid blowhard to read it to me?

You don't have to read critique of the curriculum if you don't want to, but don't say it doesn't exist, because again, that would be a lie. How many times do you need to hear it called a lie to understand. Don't say right wing critiques of the specific curriculum don't exist. Whether you like them or not, they do exist.

As to your critique of the critiques I doubt you watched or read them, so if correct what would such personal attacks matter?

[Zipperfish]

$1:

In this case you're wanting to pretend that there's nothing wrong here when a convicted child predator has been instrumental in introducing known grooming methods into an educational curriculum.

And we're back to this. You posted the curriculum. Clearly you didn't read it, because I never saw that part in there. I posted actual snippets of the curriculum a few posts ago. What specifically is the issue with those?

$1:

Stage 5: Sexualizing the relationship

At a stage of sufficient emotional dependence and trust, the offender progressively sexualizes the relationship. Desensitization occurs through talking, pictures, even creating situations (like going swimming) in which both offender and victim are naked. At that point, the adult exploits a child's natural curiosity, using feelings of stimulation to advance the sexuality of the relationship.

Sounds like every mother out there is a pedophile, then.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You don't have to read critique of the curriculum if you don't want to, but don't say it doesn't exist, because again, that would be a lie. How many times do you need to hear it called a lie to understand. Don't say right wing critiques of the specific curriculum don't exist. Whether you like them or not, they do exist.

As to your critique of the critiques I doubt you watched or read them, so if correct what would such personal attacks matter?

So you don't have any problem with the curriculum, then. You just have other people's problems with the curriculum.

[BartSimpson]

Zip, you're tacitly defending the actions of a convicted child molester.