00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kingkavvvv just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Transgender in Health Education

4,228 Views | 54 Replies

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-23 19:25:21


At 10/22/15 07:44 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: In the future know who the heck I am talking to before wasting my time.

Or, perhaps you could leave the person's name on the post, or if somebody makes the mistake I did, instead of wasting your own time doing a bunch of ad hominem and ad hoc psychological analysis and such you could more reasonably say "oh, Avie made a mistake....let me real quick point that out to him politely, see if he acknowledges it and apologizes and moves on with his day like I am". Unless you're just here to pick fights as I increasingly suspect you are.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-23 23:44:38


At 10/23/15 06:36 PM, Sonic wrote: No longer will we have to live for the pure purpose of procreation, we are not designed to breed, we are simply vessels in this horrible meaning of life with the purpose to do nothing but influence others to far left ideologies.

Yes, because the existence of gay and transgender people has stopped straights from screwing like rabbits...

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-24 05:27:42


Seasons,

You asked what we think about the “educational part of this matter,” but I’m not convinced that any discussion of your school’s education policy can be separated from opinions about the legitimacy of transgenderism or homosexuality. I suspect that the reason some of the teachers in your school are pushing back against this part of the curriculum has to do with a belief — intuited or informed — that the truly pernicious rhetoric is that which is being turned out by the advocates of the LGBT cause, and that any attempt to counter that rhetoric with their own “rhetoric-laced teaching” is perfectly justifiable. Indeed, I am far more sympathetic toward those disgruntled teachers than I am to the social engineers who are feverishly trying to force their half-baked agenda into the minds of children. Academically speaking, the question of the social or moral legitimacy of transgenderism and homosexuality is far from being settled in favor of those who support these habits, or dispositions, or whatever you want to call them.

Bible thumpers aside, there is a significant proportion of the learned class that remains skeptical of the moral claims issued by the LGBT — and for good reason. The so-called “scientific evidence” advanced in defense of homosexuality and transgenderism is beset by less than satisfactory data collection methods, and researchers’ conclusions are often more conjectural than concrete. Indeed, some of these peer-reviewed researchers explicitly say that sociological factors may still be determinants in the emergence of homosexual and transgender tendencies. No surprise there, for anyone who puts some thought into the matter. But even philosophical arguments in favor of homosexuality and transgenderism are not immune to serious challenge. The most common philosophical fallback position in this debate is the libertarian no-harm principle. Yet, as I have stressed in various posts on this forum, the no-harm principle proves to be a double-edged sword for many of those who wield it. Whether we define harm in physical or psychological terms, we find ourselves confronting other sexual or identity-based conditions whose related practices we find morally repellent and, more important, worth suppressing via law and social norms. This, despite the fact that many of these still-closeted groups do not harm others as a matter of course.

At any rate, the kids at your school may be failing tests and flunking out, but I fail to see how steamrolling a transgender-friendly policy into the curriculum is going to solve those problems.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-24 09:50:37


At 10/24/15 05:27 AM, Devsonx wrote: Whether we define harm in physical or psychological terms, we find ourselves confronting other sexual or identity-based conditions whose related practices we find morally repellent and, more important, worth suppressing via law and social norms. This, despite the fact that many of these still-closeted groups do not harm others as a matter of course.

So you would choose the harms of severe mental health issues, homelessness, and suicicde to a few over mild moral discomfort of a possible but ever shrinking many?

Also, where does the nature v. nurture argument come in here? It wasn't brought up before.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-24 20:24:45


At 10/24/15 09:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So you would choose the harms of severe mental health issues, homelessness, and suicicde to a few over mild moral discomfort of a possible but ever shrinking many?

Also, where does the nature v. nurture argument come in here? It wasn't brought up before.

I would simply choose not to incorporate pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender topics into the curriculum. I leave the decision to run away from home or to commit suicide to the discretion of the afflicted.

I don't understand the thrust of your second question concerning nature and nurture.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 18:31:15


At 10/24/15 08:24 PM, Devsonx wrote: I would simply choose not to incorporate pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender topics into the curriculum. I leave the decision to run away from home or to commit suicide to the discretion of the afflicted.

Again, you're choosing the mild moral harm of a minority to the severe emotional harm (cause by those who have the moral objection) t oa few? I know the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but that doesn't apply equally in all cases. When the harm to the many is small even in its aggregate and the harm to the few is so extreme, than the needs of the few very much outweigh the needs of the many.

So, it's a very obvious choice for schools to do what they can to avoid the massive harm to the small, in this case teaching about homosexuality and transgenderism, even when a very small harm, the moral indignation of thin skinned control freaks, may result to many.

I don't understand the thrust of your second question concerning nature and nurture.

You brought it up. I was telling you it is irrelevant to the discussion so far.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 19:52:46


At 10/23/15 07:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 10/22/15 07:44 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: In the future know who the heck I am talking to before wasting my time.
Or, perhaps you could leave the person's name on the post, or if somebody makes the mistake I did, instead of wasting your own time doing a bunch of ad hominem and ad hoc psychological analysis and such you could more reasonably say "oh, Avie made a mistake....let me real quick point that out to him politely, see if he acknowledges it and apologizes and moves on with his day like I am". Unless you're just here to pick fights as I increasingly suspect you are.

Oh, so sorry, but the fact that you were responding to comments you didn't post should have been a BIG clue.
No, I am not here to pick fights, my comments are well within the subject at hand.
You however??? Well let's just say it is akin to the pot calling the kettle black :-)

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 20:05:05


At 10/21/15 09:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/21/15 08:40 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: The schools job is to educate, the parents are the ones responsible for raising their kids.
Schools should restrict themselves to purely academic education
The problem is that schools have ALWAYS taught social norms and rules. The only reason people don't want this taught is because they don't like homosexuality and Transgenderism.

"The problem is that schools have ALWAYS taught social norms and rules." How is that a problem?
"The only reason people don't want this taught is because they don't like homosexuality and Transgenderism."
Thus... Social norms.
Here is the big question, why would you want to "teach" to children social ad-norms such as homosexuality and Transgenderism?
What is your motivation?
We know people like you have one, and it is far from altruistic.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 20:14:20


At 10/24/15 09:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/24/15 05:27 AM, Devsonx wrote: Whether we define harm in physical or psychological terms, we find ourselves confronting other sexual or identity-based conditions whose related practices we find morally repellent and, more important, worth suppressing via law and social norms. This, despite the fact that many of these still-closeted groups do not harm others as a matter of course.
So you would choose the harms of severe mental health issues, homelessness, and suicicde to a few over mild moral discomfort of a possible but ever shrinking many?

Also, where does the nature v. nurture argument come in here? It wasn't brought up before.

Well... Yes it was. Not in that specific, but if you teach that homosexuality is ok you are teaching against nature because nature intends procreation and homosex cannot oblige. All this as parents nurture only to see their nurturing dismissed by schools and people such as yourself.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 20:24:56


At 10/22/15 11:28 AM, NekoMika wrote:
At 10/21/15 09:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/21/15 08:40 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: The schools job is to educate, the parents are the ones responsible for raising their kids.
Schools should restrict themselves to purely academic education
The problem is that schools have ALWAYS taught social norms and rules. The only reason people don't want this taught is because they don't like homosexuality and Transgenderism.
I really hope over the next decade that people can be more open minded rather than automatically fearing everyone who's not not straight, pretty damn silly at this point.

"automatically fearing everyone who's not not straight"
I fear stupidity only... and you scare me.
To think that such a lazy mind may one day vote. That's how we got saddled with Obama ya know.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-25 20:49:17


At 10/25/15 06:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Again, you're choosing the mild moral harm of a minority to the severe emotional harm (cause by those who have the moral objection) t oa few? I know the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but that doesn't apply equally in all cases. When the harm to the many is small even in its aggregate and the harm to the few is so extreme, than the needs of the few very much outweigh the needs of the many.

So, it's a very obvious choice for schools to do what they can to avoid the massive harm to the small, in this case teaching about homosexuality and transgenderism, even when a very small harm, the moral indignation of thin skinned control freaks, may result to many.

You brought it up. I was telling you it is irrelevant to the discussion so far.

I've never been fully convinced that the utilitarian principle is the most authoritative. Similarly, avoiding harm also may not be the most authoritative principle. Rather, I'm more interested in discerning what is right or proper — that is to say, what is good — with respect to resolving this particular question. There are many parents who are genuinely very distraught and anguished by their child's claim to be homosexual or transgender; likewise, there are many children who are genuinely very distraught and anguished by their parents' refusal to treat their claims of homosexuality or transgenderism seriously. (For the moment, I respectfully reject your assumption that one group's anguish is patently less psychologically harmful than the other.) I would be interested in these emotions only to the extent that an investigation into the Good may reveal one set of feelings to be more legitimate than the other, insofar as the more legitimate set of feelings express a sort of lament that a child or parent has fallen so far from the truth.

Beyond that, in terms of resolving this dispute, I have very little interest in feelings nor am I moved by the reality that some distraught people run away from home and commit suicide. There are people who have suffered far greater pains: people who have watched their loved ones be killed by terrorist hostage takers; who have had their major limbs amputated due to a necrotizing disease; and who have lost all of their possessions in a natural disaster — and who have weathered these soul-rending hardships without resorting to suicide. If I am going to sympathize with anyone, I am going to reserve my own feelings for those people who have experienced the onslaught of a true catastrophe. Killing yourself because your father thinks you're nuts for being very persistent about wanting to engage in the mimetic exercise of pretending to be a member of the opposite sex? Probably an overreaction.

At any rate, preserving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people may be good; avoiding harm may be good. But let's first see if we can discern what the Good actually is before subscribing to this or that doctrine.

Regarding nature vs. nurture, I never used that particular expression. If you're referring to my comment about how some researchers suggest that sociological factors may influence homosexual or transgender dispositions, I disagree with your assessment: that point is entirely relevant to the discussion.


At 10/25/15 07:52 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Oh, so sorry, but the fact that you were responding to comments you didn't post should have been a BIG clue.

Ok, let's try it another way: I made a mistake, I admit to that. Being such a fucking asshole about it is a reflection of you though more then it is me.

No, I am not here to pick fights, my comments are well within the subject at hand.

Well, except for the bit where you spent all that time just ripping into me when like I said there was an easier way to handle it and the general combatative tone I get from some of your stuff.

You however??? Well let's just say it is akin to the pot calling the kettle black :-)

I'm a mod bud, that's what the shiny gold aura means, I'm not here to troll or fuck with anybody. I argue and debate no more then what is within the rules of the forums and this section in specific.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-26 01:20:45


At 10/25/15 08:14 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Well... Yes it was. Not in that specific, but if you teach that homosexuality is ok you are teaching against nature because nature intends procreation and homosex cannot oblige.

Planet is overpopulated by several BILLION in terms of the human species. How do we know that since homosexuality is basically settled as a signal coming from within the genes or brain chemistry of a person to say "be attracted to your same sex" as the brains of straight people (like you and I I'm guessing) says "be attracted to the opposite sex" that this isn't nature deciding to eliminate some of the excess breeding options from the most overly successful breeding species we have records for?

All this as parents nurture only to see their nurturing dismissed by schools and people such as yourself.

Here's an interesting thing you may not be aware of: In states like mine, certain taxes (in our case property taxes) are used in the formulation of school funding REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN. So myself, I'm a single, childless male paying taxes in my state which go towards educating children that aren't my own. By your argument, even though I'm paying in to educate these kids, I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on how or what the state chooses to educate them on, because I'm not their parent. Does that seem fair and logical to you?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-27 20:10:28


At 10/25/15 11:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 10/25/15 07:52 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Oh, so sorry, but the fact that you were responding to comments you didn't post should have been a BIG clue.
Ok, let's try it another way: I made a mistake, I admit to that. Being such a fucking asshole about it is a reflection of you though more then it is me.

No, you didn't make "a" mistake, you made repeated mistakes, 7 in one post to be exact.
But I guess when your sole interest is to demean and not debate you tend to miss little details as you respond abusively to replies to comments you never wrote.
And I never cursed at you.
So what was that about reflection Mr. Moderator?


No, I am not here to pick fights, my comments are well within the subject at hand.
Well, except for the bit where you spent all that time just ripping into me when like I said there was an easier way to handle it and the general combatative tone I get from some of your stuff.

How did I rip into you Avie???
Basically all I said was "That was a response to orangebomb, not you."


You however??? Well let's just say it is akin to the pot calling the kettle black :-)
I'm a mod bud, that's what the shiny gold aura means, I'm not here to troll or fuck with anybody. I argue and debate no more then what is within the rules of the forums and this section in specific.

What's a mod bud???
I know what you mean, you're a moderator Ooo! Tell me, did they give you a purple sash and shiny badge along with the gold aura?
The way I see it your foul mouth shows your lack of courtesy and civility.
You shouldn't be a moderator, you should be banned.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-27 20:21:29


Is there a betting pool as to whose alt this is?


BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-27 21:02:26


At 10/26/15 01:20 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 10/25/15 08:14 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Well... Yes it was. Not in that specific, but if you teach that homosexuality is ok you are teaching against nature because nature intends procreation and homosex cannot oblige.
Planet is overpopulated by several BILLION in terms of the human species. How do we know that since homosexuality is basically settled as a signal coming from within the genes or brain chemistry of a person to say "be attracted to your same sex" as the brains of straight people (like you and I I'm guessing) says "be attracted to the opposite sex" that this isn't nature deciding to eliminate some of the excess breeding options from the most overly successful breeding species we have records for?

Wow! Several billion??? Bunk.
The worlds population is about 7.2 billion, and since "several BILLION" is more than two, it is at least, according to you, overpopulated by 3 billion people. Are you saying that this Earths limit is 4+ billion people? Do you know that the population is predicted to peak at nine billion+ in about 2050 with no foreseeable problem?
You are spewing bunk to cover for propaganda. Your "genes or brain chemistry" theory to make procreation not what nature intends is laughable.


All this as parents nurture only to see their nurturing dismissed by schools and people such as yourself.
Here's an interesting thing you may not be aware of: In states like mine, certain taxes (in our case property taxes) are used in the formulation of school funding REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN. So myself, I'm a single, childless male paying taxes in my state which go towards educating children that aren't my own. By your argument, even though I'm paying in to educate these kids, I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on how or what the state chooses to educate them on, because I'm not their parent. Does that seem fair and logical to you?

You pay taxes because that is the law of the land. Obeying the law does not entitle you to have any say in how a parent may raise his/her child.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-27 23:00:53


At 10/27/15 09:02 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Wow! Several billion??? Bunk.

Here's a decent wiki article on the subject. Just to prove I'm not pulling the concern out of my ass or posing a question that is completely from thin air.

You are spewing bunk to cover for propaganda.

How is it propaganda if I'm the only person suggesting it? Or at least the only person I know of?

Your "genes or brain chemistry" theory to make procreation not what nature intends is laughable.

How do we know what "nature intends" or demands? We know homosexually happens in humans, it happens in other species too. Clearly there is something "naturally occurring" that makes it happen. Perhaps it's part of the "natural selection" process whereby nature is eliminating the possibility down to a certain number of breeding pairs. Just spit balling.

You pay taxes because that is the law of the land. Obeying the law does not entitle you to have any say in how a parent may raise his/her child.

But it's my money, and laws are changeable. Also you again assume every child has parents or a support system at home that is educating them about issues like this. Seasons CLEARLY pointed out to you that in his school this is not the case, and there are other areas as well. It must be nice to live in this hypothetical world of yours where the answers are so easy.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-28 15:56:33


At 10/25/15 08:14 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Well... Yes it was. Not in that specific, but if you teach that homosexuality is ok you are teaching against nature because nature intends procreation and homosex cannot oblige. All this as parents nurture only to see their nurturing dismissed by schools and people such as yourself.

Well, it's established you're not in favor of homosexuality...but how about pedophilia? I thought you'd be the right person to ask, since you're constantly watching videos of little girls singing, in addition to your apparent history of posting on image boards which share images of extremely underage children. Hmm...did I just step on your toes?

Warning for other users: be careful Googling this dude, the results are so bad this is the message that shows up on the bottom of the search page: "Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page."

@aviewaskewed what's your take on this?


BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-28 19:21:21


At 10/27/15 11:00 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Seasons CLEARLY pointed out to you that in his school this is not the case, and there are other areas as well. It must be nice to live in this hypothetical world of yours where the answers are so easy.

Thank you for saving me from typing a long response.


Click here and we'll become good friends.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-28 19:23:31


At 10/28/15 03:56 PM, Feoric wrote: @aviewaskewed what's your take on this?

If you're asking aviewaskewed private citizen, sounds pretty disgusting. But I'm guessing you're asking aviewaskewed the mod. In which case I'll say as long as it's not something that's cropping up over here, then there's nothing I can do. If our friend wants to BRING such things over here....then I'm going to say it once, and only once: Don't. We don't play that here, that comes straight from the tippity top of the site.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

At 10/28/15 03:56 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 10/25/15 08:14 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Well... Yes it was. Not in that specific, but if you teach that homosexuality is ok you are teaching against nature because nature intends procreation and homosex cannot oblige. All this as parents nurture only to see their nurturing dismissed by schools and people such as yourself.
Well, it's established you're not in favor of homosexuality

No, that has not been established, but I am certainly not in favor of homosexuality at the expense of heterosexuality. But that seems to be more than your little brain can absorb.

:...but how about pedophilia?

How about it?
:I thought you'd be the right person to ask, since you're constantly watching videos of little girls singing
No, I watch videos of people singing some of who happen to be little girls, most are not.
:in addition to your apparent history of posting on image boards which share images of extremely underage children.
Name one site. You are walking on thin ice.
:Hmm...did I just step on your toes?
No, but you may have just cut your own throat.

Warning for other users: be careful Googling this dude, the results are so bad this is the message that shows up on the bottom of the search page: "Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page."

That is a lie, I invite all to google my name at will and click on "images", there is no such message.
Now that you, Feoric, have seen fit to slander me on a public forum, I will not rest till you pay the price.


@aviewaskewed what's your take on this?

Yea Avie, I'm interested as well Mod.

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-28 22:49:16


At 10/28/15 10:03 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Name one site. You are walking on thin ice.

Note: I wouldn't actually click any of the links here.

"I like jail bait pics (don't tell my ma) but what keeps me up late is good discussion and good debate. ... Quote from: jmcg1213 on June 22, 2015, 10:22:00 PM"

Coupled with you watching dozens of videos of preteen girls on YouTube and commenting on them. lmao you're pathetic and sick in the head.

That is a lie, I invite all to google my name at will and click on "images", there is no such message.
Now that you, Feoric, have seen fit to slander me on a public forum, I will not rest till you pay the price.

Seek help, pedo.


BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-30 22:11:07


This thread has run its course. Requesting a lock. @NekoMika


Click here and we'll become good friends.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-31 14:34:27


At 10/28/15 10:03 PM, jmcg1213 wrote: Yea Avie, I'm interested as well Mod.

I stated my take. Let's move on from it since it's a personal attack and a derail that I'd rather just move on from. If you guys don't want to do that, I'll be forced to press the issue.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Transgender in Health Education 2015-10-31 14:35:09


At 10/30/15 10:11 PM, Seasons wrote: This thread has run its course. Requesting a lock. @NekoMika

Ask and ye shall receive.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature