(Untitled)

Mar 18, 2005 19:23

Leave a comment

Comments 13

ryadevi March 19 2005, 02:51:21 UTC
Erm...interesting. I'm loving the implicit irony.

I'm glad no one at our school reacted like that; we actually seemed to get something (positive) out of it. Who would've thought?

Reply

raisingmeup March 19 2005, 15:17:20 UTC
haha yeah i know. surprise surprise.

Reply


mitsuaami March 19 2005, 04:38:00 UTC
Literally, I was listening to people after the presentation saying !@#$ like.. "I liked every part except for the homosexual part." I hate how people can be so PC about everything and then when it comes to homosexuality/bisexuality, people are negative. Northville. Meh.

California has been making me go so mehhhhh lately.

Reply

raisingmeup March 19 2005, 15:21:29 UTC
i knowww... i think that the homosexuality part was one of the best. people go around saying

"silly faggot, dicks are for chicks"

and laughing their asses off, but when it comes to something positive about the 10% of our population that "butters their bread" that way, then oh no! hush hush everything.

Reply


numero_8 March 19 2005, 14:47:53 UTC
yowsah

Reply

raisingmeup March 19 2005, 15:22:48 UTC
yeah. parents need the "talk" more than we do.

Reply


funstuffinabox March 19 2005, 19:18:59 UTC
Talk about overreacting! I'm not familiar with California law, but it seems odd to me that schools have to notify parents of every little event that takes place. If there's a way to email the author of that article, I might ask him/her about it ( ... )

Reply

numero_8 March 19 2005, 22:10:41 UTC
theres one major fault with your argument, the "church group" had nothing to do with writing the article, they just published it. that would be like saying that Yahoo! advocates the bombing of mosques in the mideast because they run stories about them..

(and the poem about the rape was quite graphic, probably not all that appropriate for middle-schoolers.)

Reply

funstuffinabox March 20 2005, 16:06:01 UTC
You're right: I probably shouldn't have jumped to assumptions about the group/article/lawsuit, but I do think certain aspects of my arguement are probably true in this case ( ... )

Reply

numero_8 March 20 2005, 17:44:28 UTC
arguments must be based on facts, you have a total of zero that support anything about the group writing it. you could have said "how do you know that ghandi didn't come back from the dead and write that article" and have just as much backing as thinking that someone from the group did. and the part about it being church-related, of course it is, i didnt think that was in question.

six year olds also get raped, but would you go into a first grade class room and describe how a guy ripped at your panties and forced himself upon you while you screamed? things need to be put into context.

and to wrap this up, the article mentioned nothing about hating gays. the parents merely had a problem with the portrayal to their students. sure, it was probably an overreaction, but they are entitled, just as people are entitled to sue mcdonald's because they get fat.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up