What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Then a fetus has more rights than the woman which would invalidate the fetuses ‘rights’ by Archie’s ghost metric

The reason I avoided answering naming specific instances is because it was not germane to the thread topic.

Now this thread has became the same old pointless abortion debate.

The right to life for the fetus trumps all privileges accorded to the mother. Abortion, except when the life of the mother is in immediate danger, is a violation of the rights of the fetus.

 

[Lazybones]

I object to this. As a product of public schooling and a teacher in public schools, there's a ton of interest in moral and character building. It's been in all of the schools and districts I've taught in - in Louisiana, Texas, and Ontario. Same goes for all of the schools my wife has taught at. And attended herself.

Up here, Catholic schools *are* public schools. Morality definitely an interest.

And there are a lot of private schools where 'morality' is more rhetorical than practiced compared to public schools.

Yours is not a fair statement

It may have came out not as intended. Please take that sentence in context with the above conversation. I was responding to the poster above who made the statement that morality has no place in public schools. There are many public schools with great morality and vice versa.

However, part of the reason we go to private school is because they align with our religious and conservative lifestyle. Now we can talk about the kids who go to catholic school who are proclaimed atheist, but that is another conversation. Lol

 

[Lazybones]

it should absolutely be taught to early teens. Biological approaches to sex ed - e.g. systems of reproduction - begin in middle school here and responsible sexual behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, protection and contraception begins in 9th grade. Some of the sexually transmitted diseases are covered in Grade 7.

Here's a sample from the provincial curriculum, with a sample Q&A between teacher and student.



The rate here is about 18 per 1,000 teens. Those numbers are around 30 in Texas and 37.5 in Louisiana.

Drug, alcohol, substance abuse also addressed in middle school - and also vital.

Places with more robust sexual education curricula see decreased teen pregnancy rates, decreased abortion rates, decreased sexual activity. For me, these are all desirable outcomes.

Not to mention all incredibly morally responsible

I don’t know the right age, but it’s not 12 in my opinion. I’m a fan of education, it scares me that it makes teenager think it acceptable to have have sex at that age.

 

[Ayo]

I don’t know the right age, but it’s not 12 in my opinion. I’m a fan of education, it scares me that it makes teenager think it acceptable to have have sex at that age.

sexual education curricula often tell them - explicitly - that it's *not* acceptable to have sex at that age either

When they teach kids about drug abuse and the perils of drug abuse, they are not telling them it's "acceptable" to use drugs.

I am not sure why people think a sexual education curriculum means they are encouraging kids to have sex. It's typically the exact opposite.

And it works. We have volumes and volumes of data that demonstrate this. Falling rates the last 2-3 decades are a direct product of this. Less sexual activity. Less sexual promiscuity. Fewer teen pregnancies. Lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Fewer abortions.

Because kids are being told it's not "acceptable to have sex at" those ages.

You are entitled to your opinion, but experts are making the decisions in enough places that it's having an impact. Abstinence only sex ed or no sex ed or sex ed too late out of parental paranoia/naivete had its day. And the results weren't pretty.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It may have came out not as intended. Please take that sentence in context with the above conversation. I was responding to the poster above who made the statement that morality has no place in public schools. There are many public schools with great morality and vice versa.

However, part of the reason we go to private school is because they align with our religious and conservative lifestyle. Now we can talk about the kids who go to catholic school who are proclaimed atheist, but that is another conversation. Lol

As the poster in question, I can assure that I did not say that and there is no way to reasonably infer that from what I posted. What I said was that morality has no place in deciding on curriculum. You may think comprehensive sex education should not be taught because it goes against your morality, but your morality does not dictate those decisions.

 

[Ayo]

As the poster in question, I can assure that I did not say that and there is no way to reasonably infer that from what I posted. What I said was that morality has no place in deciding on curriculum. You may think comprehensive sex education should not be taught because it goes against your morality, but your morality does not dictate those decisions.

I think morality actually plays a role - morally, we don't want teenage pregnancy and more abortions and teenage STDs and so on. I think it's a moral decision. But I also get what you're saying. But it's not 'moral' vs. 'amoral' as it seems to be coming across. I think it's a matter of morally deciding what we want for teens and preteens. And pregnancy is one of those things we don't. It's a social and moral concern.

What's weird is that I would guess those things are morally desirable for LB, too. So I'm not really clear on the objection. He doesn't want preteens and teens engaging in sexual activity and these are programs that teach about it and discourage the same irresponsibilty he doesn't want to see, either.

His morals here, as I understand them, dictate that he doesn't want kids at these ages having sex and having their lives altered in such profound fashion through a pregnancy or abortion. And broad base sex ed curriculum is based on the same 'morals.' Thus, I would've expected some agreement with this, actually. Kind of surprises me that it's not there

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I think morality actually plays a role - morally, we don't want teenage pregnancy and more abortions and teenage STDs and so on. I think it's a moral decision. But I also get what you're saying. But it's not 'moral' vs. 'amoral' as it seems to be coming across. I think it's a matter of morally deciding what we want for teens and preteens. And pregnancy is one of those things we don't. It's a social and moral concern.

What's weird is that I would guess those things are morally desirable for LB, too. So I'm not really clear on the objection. He doesn't want preteens and teens engaging in sexual activity and these are programs that teach about it and discourage the same irresponsibilty he doesn't want to see, either.

His morals here, as I understand them, dictate that he doesn't want kids at these ages having sex and having their lives altered in such profound fashion through a pregnancy or abortion. And broad base sex ed curriculum is based on the same 'morals.' Thus, I would've expected some agreement with this, actually. Kind of surprises me that it's not there

I will clarify my point. I am referring specifically to moral objections based on religious belief. If it aligns with someone's morality, that's fine. I see the decision to teach comprehensive sex ed in the manner that you described as secular. There is a societal benefit, outside of moral reasons, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and produce an educated populace. Religious objections from people like Lazy have zero place in public schools.

 

[Lazybones]

I think morality actually plays a role - morally, we don't want teenage pregnancy and more abortions and teenage STDs and so on. I think it's a moral decision. But I also get what you're saying. But it's not 'moral' vs. 'amoral' as it seems to be coming across. I think it's a matter of morally deciding what we want for teens and preteens. And pregnancy is one of those things we don't. It's a social and moral concern.

What's weird is that I would guess those things are morally desirable for LB, too. So I'm not really clear on the objection. He doesn't want preteens and teens engaging in sexual activity and these are programs that teach about it and discourage the same irresponsibilty he doesn't want to see, either.

His morals here, as I understand them, dictate that he doesn't want kids at these ages having sex and having their lives altered in such profound fashion through a pregnancy or abortion. And broad base sex ed curriculum is based on the same 'morals.' Thus, I would've expected some agreement with this, actually. Kind of surprises me that it's not there

I actually did agree. I also said I don’t think it is acceptable for a 12/13 year old. I’m going off of the maturity of the kids I’m in contact with daily.

I am also aware of the slippery slope. Unfortunately, there will be the teacher/administrator with a motive and the next thing you know there will be bring your vibrator to school day. I’m obviously being hyperbolic, but not really.

there is a big difference in just say no to drugs vs teaching kids how to cook it in the microwave. Again, the first point I made was, “show me a policy and we can discuss it”. I never said I was 100% opposed

 

[Lazybones]

I will clarify my point. I am referring specifically to moral objections based on religious belief. If it aligns with someone's morality, that's fine. I see the decision to teach comprehensive sex ed in the manner that you described as secular. There is a societal benefit, outside of moral reasons, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and produce an educated populace. Religious objections from people like Lazy have zero place in public schools.

excuse me? My tax dollars gives me the right. Also as a voting member of the public, I can vote and campaign fir people with the SAME RELIGIOUS beliefs as me. don’t question my religious motives when you advocate the killing of babies as a means of birth control.

[Mod edit - Rude and unnecessary]

 

[Ayo]

I actually did agree. I also said I don’t think it is acceptable for a 12/13 year old. I’m going off of the maturity of the kids I’m in contact with daily.

and I'm going with all of my work with kids, too. And the actual programs that are in schools.

I don't know what you mean by "maturity" but in my opinion 12-13 year old students are capable of understanding some of these concepts. And if you think sex isn't on the mind of a lot of 13-year olds, especially with the prevalence of pornography, then you might not know 12-13 year olds as well as you imagine.

In fact, when it comes to pornography I think we aren't doing nearly enough. Kids in elementary school are engaging with pornography. And this doesn't only impact issues around pregnancy and sexuality - it also has to do with the attitudes of boys toward girls and girls toward boys and boys and girls toward themselves.

It's also impacting erectile dysfunction. Teens and 20-somethings experiencing erectile dysfunction and typical medicines not working because the causes aren't the same as are addressed by typical ED pills on the market.

So, I'd like to see more expansive and explicit handling of pornography by schools - because it's definitely out there.

Are they mature enough to watch this porn? I would say no. But they need to be taught about it. Are 12-13 year olds mature enough to have sex? I would say no, again. But they need to be taught about it.

and if you mean 'maturity' by developmental appropriateness of the content, you have experts putting this information together. It's not a bunch of agenda-driven teachers. People that know a *lot* more than both of us.

I am also aware of the slippery slope. Unfortunately, there will be the teacher/administrator with a motive and the next thing you know there will be bring your vibrator to school day. I’m obviously being hyperbolic, but not really.

I don't know of anything like this. A phallic device to demonstrate putting a condom on, maybe.

I think your [Mod Edit - Let's leave terms like paranoia out of the conversations when directed at other members] is largely unfounded based on every system I've worked in and researched.

I also did a fair amount of work on teen pregnancy and schools as part of my PhD work because it intersected some of the work I was doing for my own research -

e.g. Pregnant Bodies, Fertile Minds: Gender, Race, and the Schooling of Pregnant Teens.

So, you can argue 'slippery slope' but unless you can point to something actual and widespread in the curricula, as I said, I think your paranoia is unfounded and unreasonable.

And I'm not sure why you'd opt for this [Mod Edit - Let's leave terms like paranoia out of the conversations when directed at other members] rather than focusing on what's actually being taught and how and what's actually working and why.

I've got two daughters and it's hard for me to understand - if this is important to you as a dad - why you'd spend so much time worrying about things that aren't really an issue rather than what's actually being done.

there is a big difference in just say no to drugs vs teaching kids how to cook it in the microwave. Again, the first point I made was, “show me a policy and we can discuss it”. I never said I was 100% opposed

and I referenced our provincial curriculum, but there are a lot states moving toward comprehensive sex ed and that's a good thing.

Ontario Grade 1-8: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/2019-health-physical-education-grades-1to8.pdf

Ontario Grade 9-12: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/health9to12.pdf

 

[cuddlemonkey]

excuse me? My tax dollars gives me the right. Also as a voting member of the public, I can vote and campaign fir people with the SAME RELIGIOUS beliefs as me. don’t question my religious motives when you advocate the killing of babies as a means of birth control.

[Mod edit - Rude and unnecessary]

You are free to vote for anyone you please. You can advocate for any policy you want.

What absolutely should not happen is politicians at any level making decisions for the community based on their own personal religious beliefs. Comprehensive sex ed serves a legitimate purpose. It is effective.

If you have a problem with the way I engage, PM me or ask a mod to look at it. Please don't derail threads with personal attacks.

 

[SystemShock]

Paraphrasing Salah ad-Din, "all of them, none of them". Normally I am not a single issue voter... issues to me are kind of like attributes and talents in an MMO: I put together the best build I can with what I have.

 

[Intensesaint]

I think your paranoia is largely unfounded based on every system I've worked in and researched.

Is it really helpful to call an opposing viewpoint paranoia?

 

[Ayo]

Is it really helpful to call an opposing viewpoint paranoia?

I think the idea that teachers are going to ask 12- and 13-year olds to bring vibrators to school - joking but then not joking - is paranoid.

Unfortunately, there will be the teacher/administrator with a motive and the next thing you know there will be bring your vibrator to school day. I’m obviously being hyperbolic, but not really.

It's not "paranoid" merely because it's "opposing." I used the word because I think it's an extreme, unfounded concern based on some fear of 'teacher/administrator' with a 'motive' looking for opportunities to ask students to do this.

 

[Andrus]

Ayo... I think that we should all should be careful about using terms when directed at another member that the recipient may very likely be offended by.

Lazybones...

excuse me? My tax dollars gives me the right. Also as a voting member of the public, I can vote and campaign fir people with the SAME RELIGIOUS beliefs as me. don’t question my religious motives when you advocate the killing of babies as a means of birth control.

[Mod edit - Rude and unnecessary]

Stating that you are tired of another member being smug is getting personal. You cannot do that on this board.


Note to all: Frankly guys, just about anything posted on this board that we feel might trigger a flare up will be moderated.

When we launch Tuesday you all may find moderation to be overly heavy on this board particularly, which will be intentional.

No matter how tempted you are, you simply have to leave the personal jabs out of the conversations on this board. - Andrus

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

just for clarity:
Ayo found a position to be 'paranoid' - he's free to state that and then further back up why he thinks the position is 'paranoid' if that is his opinion, correct?

he just shouldn't directly call another poster 'paranoid'
is this correct?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ayo... I think that we should all should be careful about using terms when directed at another member that the recipient may very likely be offended by.

Lazybones...


Stating that you are tired of another member being smug is getting personal. You cannot do that on this board.


Note to all: Frankly guys, just about anything posted on this board that we feel might trigger a flare up will be moderated.

When we launch Tuesday you all may find moderation to be overly heavy on this board particularly, which will be intentional.

No matter how tempted you are, you simply have to leave the personal jabs out of the conversations on this board. - Andrus

Competing with the Disney+ launch? Bold move, boss.

 

[Andrus]

just for clarity:
Ayo found a position to be 'paranoid' - he's free to state that and then further back up why he thinks the position is 'paranoid' if that is his opinion, correct?

he just shouldn't directly call another poster 'paranoid'
is this correct?

Correct! To be clear, I was referencing the first instance of the use of the word paranoid, where the statement was "I think your paranoia is largely unfounded", not the latter instance. Had he stated in the manner of something like "I think that your concerns are largely unfounded" then that simple word substitution would have made all of the difference.

I am not trying to jump on anyone in public. I don't mean to offend anyone in any way. I certainly have no problem with either member whose posts I moderated. I am simply trying to issue some public guidance prior to the official launch hoping that I can get us all on the same page. Part of the reason is so that you all can pass along the same guidance to the new members that come in later, which would help tremendously

Both Ayo's and Lazybones' posts would be considered fairly normal discourse on most sites, but this isn't most sites, and here we want the membership to be cognizant of the fact that we will be looking for anything that my cause debate to escalate into mudslinging on the MCB board.

As an aside, I am seeing a lot of reported posts. That works fine for me during a time when I am trying to adjust to moderating political discourse rather than the discourse I am used to moderating... However, it is at times tiring due to members of either of the most polarized affiliates getting bent out of shape for the slightest perceived offenses by the other side. So it is obvious to me that we are going to have to moderate anything and everything that may be considered offensive on the MCB if we want this to work.

Am I naive to think that mature & intelligent adults can follow simple decorum that requires that they resist the urge to take shots at one another?

Competing with the Disney+ launch? Bold move, boss.

Uh oh! That is happening Tuesday? I was unaware of that.

Relative to that... I am pretty concerned about making an announcement and change like that on SR after that disaster at the dome today. No one is going to be in a good mood this week. Perhaps I should put it off for a few days?

-Andrus