Nu, certe ne. Estas eble nur 200 aktivaj homaranistoj en la E-movado, kaj homaranismaj organizoj malaperas ofte pro manko de intereso. La plejpartego de Esperantistoj ne kredas je homaranismo. Legu historion de la movado. Kiam Zamenhof kreis homaranismon, la elstaruloj de tiu tempo petegis al li publike deklari ke estas neniu deviga ligo inter Esperanto kaj lia persona religia projekto cxar malmulte de homoj ne konsentis kun homaranismo (cxar gxi estas escence Hilelismo) kaj kredis ke skandalumus la movadon.
Horse hockey. The purpose of school is education. An atmosphere in which bullying is commonplace is not one that is conducive to education. Schools have every business stamping out bullying if they expect their students to learn. I know I didn’t have a great deal of interest in my classes when I was spending most of my time in a sweat wondering how I was going to be mocked and tormented that day. I can’t believe you’re agonizing over how the poor bullies are having their freedom to bully infringed.
Unmitigated horseshit! I will bet you that every single state in the union has laws regarding assault and harassment, with no exclusionary clauses regarding school students or gay people.
Yeah, it’s common experience. So is the circumstance of preschoolers wetting their pants. We toilet-train them so they won’t be offensive assholes when they’re grown. And I see no reason to avoid doing the same with bullies.
Ostracism, shunning, and disapproval aren’t assault or harassment. They are forms of inaction. If a student is flushing another student’s head in the toilet, as the television cliche goes, I would certainly object. But ignoring a student, not letting him participate in a clique, not picking him for your team in gym class, etc. are not covered by any laws.
Yeah, the right to association is a First Amendment right too. But I think you’ll find that much of “ostracism, shunning, and disapproval” is covered under harassment statutes to the extent that they don’t just cover the failure to include but the taking of steps to set apart as despicable.
And IMHO you’re defending a social climate that is indefensible. If we can waste the time of our Congress, several acre-feet of trees, and several gigabytes of Internet space arguing about the morality of stem cells, we can certainly take the time and trouble to change the attitudes of secondary-school students to keep such BS from happening and being considered “acceptable.”
No one said they have to be forced to socialize with anyone. However, shunning usually comes along with harassing those who choose not to shun the chosen outcast.
And I find this attitude of your’s disgusting. I’m not gay, but I WAS bullied, and to say that “kids will be kids” and it’s just a part of school is ridiculous. Can we say Columbine?
Schools have rules as well as laws. Students are held to a higher standard of behavior than what is merely legal. This is largely because students are legally required to be in school and do not have the same freedom to simply walk away from dangerous or uncomfortable school situations that they would out in the rest of the world.
If you must use pejoratives to “categorize” me, I prefer the term “geek”. But this isn’t a trick I’d try often if I were you, unless you’re looking to be banned.
At my second high school I was a cool student. I’ve got the photos and yearbooks to prove it. I never picked on anyone though, and I never approved of it. None of the cool students at that school did. Why? Because such things were not cool.
I would venture to guess that most former “cool” students from schools where such things were acceptable now care about people being picked on, because most adults recognize bullying as socially unacceptable behavior. Most adults do care about “people getting picked on”, especially if those people are innocent children. Those that do not feel this way are usually suffering from some form of personality disorder or mental illness. That you, as an adult, would not merely defend bullying but attempt to portray it as some sort of legal right speaks volumes about your mental and emotional stability, or lack thereof.
Sorry, you’re wrong. The vast majority of people throughout history have had no problem with homosexuality. And even today, most people have no problem with it.
Here in america, 51% said that homosexuality is an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”.
Yeah, and birth defects and cancer can be part of growing up and are perfectly legal. Does that mean we should stop prenatal care for pregnant mothers, chemotherapy and other aggressive anti-cancer measures?
Or do you think there need to be some bad things in life to weed out those who are less strong? I mean, you can’t honestly think an argument that odious is going to meet with agreement amongst those uof us with functional spines…
So let me make sure I understand this: I’m a member of an anti-bullying email list. Every other day or so, I hear about at least one of the following:
Court case brought because a student was bullied/abused/physically abused to the point of hospitalization
Suicide of a teen (or, in some cases, not quite a teen) due to bullying. This is not restricted to this country, by the way.
Anti-bullying steps being taken to ensure A) no more of the first thing I listed and B) no more of the second.
So are these anti-bullying programs, if they’re being run or sponsored in any way by pro-gay groups (who may or may not, but would and probably should, include aspects of "bullying someone for being gay, or because you think they might be gay, or because it’s fun to call someone a faggot or dyke and slam his or her head into a locker, is wrong. It will not be tolerated), they are imposing their own moral code on someone?
And here I thought violence was something we always said was wrong outside the context of a movie or television show (and even then…). Silly me. It’s not a universal thing, it’s The Gay Moral Police.
:rolleyes:
You could, interestingly enough, say the following about Fred Phelps.
However, bullies are, by virtue of the violence they propagate against other people, expressly not following the law. There’s nothing in any state lawcode (or there bloody well ought not to be) that says “WHEREAS: no person shall inflict bodily injury on another … oh, wait, unless they’re in school. That’s okay.”
Do you read the arguments you make before you submit them, or do you have some random list of Incredibly Offensive Posts that you submit depending on the situation? There’s three already in this thread.
Oh, heaven forbid we make school safe for everyone. I mean, school is for learning, sure, but it’s also for getting your personal belongings stolen, getting a concussion, a bloody nose, … it’s like boxing except it’s not allowed.
Let’s say a majority of people believe Christians ought to be crushed by rocks for their beliefs … after all, they “wanna be different”. Would you support that or not?
[sub]Bets on whether he’s gonna answer “But Christians are a majority of people in this country, so your argument does not compute” or something similar to completely ignoring the hypothetical?[/sub]
Wow, yet another argument that relies wholly on stereotypes, generalizations and your personal worldview. Both of my sisters are “former cool students” who do and did care about people being picked on. They didn’t do it themselves because they realize what an awful thing it is to do. In fact, one of the most popular people I knew when I was in high school … prefect of my hall freshman year, member of the disciplinary comittee, three-sport varsity athlete and valedictorian of the class … was not a bully. Actively tried to help me improve my situation in school. When he came back a few times after his graduation he was always kind to me. Most of the graduates snubbed me and went back to being “the cool kids” with their old friends.
He never took that road out. And I’m guessing, just guessing, that’s part of what made him so many of the things he was.
Chris Block, if you’re reading this, thanks:)
So, UnoMondo, which side of the fight will you be on?
Just as an aside, as proof that I am aware of the saying that actions speak louder than words, I have emailed the POTUS a copy (revised a tad) of my “I do not dream alone” post. A little preamble, so to speak, and a clarification of the general “you” I use there. But other than that it is nearly identical to my post. I am thinking about sending it to General Powell and anyone else whom y’all feel would be bettered (and, more importantly, who is in a position to help) by reading it.
Is anything going to happen specifically because I emailed it? No idea. Maybe nothing. But maybe something. And if I don’t tell him, I can’t complain when he doesn’t do anything to respond to my (lack of, if I don’t sent it) request for redress.
UnoMondo correct me if I am wrong, but to me it seems like you think bullying isn’t really a problem because it is something everyone deals with. The problem I have with this is that there is a difference between bullying by one or two people and bullying by the majority of a population. A ‘geek’ may be bullied by a few mean people, but may be treated regularly by most other people. In high school, if you are gay or perceived as gay, everyone looks at you differently. If you are lucky, all that happens is people whisper about you behind your back. If you aren’t, you have an entire student body that is united against you. That is simply unacceptable.
Google’s your friend, Paddy… until reading your post, I knew no more than you do, but here’s what I found
Human Rights Campaign: hrc@hrc.org (There are other e-mail addresses for particular things, like reporting hate crimes, joining their mailing list, etc.; find them at www.hrc.org )
Barney Frank: Send hard copy to:
Congressman Barney Frank
2252 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515-2104
(202) 225-5931
(Because of his extensive involvement in national issues in behalf of gays and lesbians and his need to be the representative for Massachusetts 4th District as well, he will not respond to unsolicited e-mails from outside his home district – a reasonable step given his national prominence, I think.)
Ah, okay. I thought since you’d suggested them, and given that you’ve been more active in GLBT issues in past years than I have, you mighta known:)
Re: Barney Frank, what you’re saying, then, is that to be sure that the sender qualifies for a response, said sender needs to be from the Massachusetts 4th district, yes? However, one could send a friendly email letting him know he isn’t alone.
Anyway. Sent to Ms. Anderson and “to whom it may concern” at HRC, since their site was too difficult for me to navigate to find an actual person.
And hell, I’m not sleepy. Sending a copy to both state senators. I’d email my delegate, too, but HRC couldn’t seem to figure that out.
It is impossible to have a meaningful educational curriculum without enforcing sort of moral viewpoint. No, you can’t force students to accept or associate socially with those they disapprove of. You can force them to behave in a civil manner while they’re at school though.
Some schools teach kids that they should make fun of people based on sex, race, religion, or nationality. I don’t see what would be so horribly wrong with teaching them that making fun of people for sexual orientation was also unacceptable.
