That is so true. It only makes sense that I got the highest grades in the classes I actually enjoyed and looked forward to going to.
Printable View
That is so true. It only makes sense that I got the highest grades in the classes I actually enjoyed and looked forward to going to.
of course it's not meant to be fun.....................it's purpose is to prepare you to survive the hell that comes after and keeps on going.............year after year.............after year:DQuote:
Originally Posted by OliX
Haha...are we there yet?
I'm not pretending to speak for you, do I look like the great and powerful Oz? What I did do was allude to what you had said. Since apparently you don't want people to take what you say literally, it makes sense (and by that I mean it makes no sense at all) that when someone mentions your own words you think they are putting the words in your mouth (time travel or bodily possession?);Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Such as when you make a statement:
...and then go on to completely contradict it by defining what precisely individuals have the right to do:Quote:
What I have a problem with are rules that affirm and enforce prescriptive social roles, placed by one person or group on another;
Who are you to say that people are in general predictable and unpredictability is the exception and not the rule? Maybe they can't be predictable, even if they so please to be. That's a pretty big "prescription" of human behavior coming from you there.Quote:
Individuals have the right to be predictable if they so please; and exceptions, by definition, will always be the exception.
And you also tell me how I should feel about exercise and what it is supposed to mean:
Why don't you take your own advice?Quote:
You realise how boring it is to take exercise just for the health benefits
The only thing that I can interpret is that you want people to not think that you said what you said, which is best accomplished by just ignoring you all together. I'll have to keep that in mind in the future (or the past?).
Oh dear. Don't ya love it when people get it into their heads that you need a Very Impressive and Thorough Refutation and go on in depth about every subject-irrelevant rhetorical freedom you permitted yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I meant to say that you're misinterpreting what I stand for, and that I wish you wouldn't try to figure out what I think about one thing by what I said about another unless you can do it successfully, especially if you're feeling assertive enough to tell others what I supposedly stand for.
Gawd, do you even understand half of what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
'Individuals' is an all-inclusive category. Every sentient lifeform. It doesn't divide one group from another, and therefore isn't a role (see that "one group on another" clause there?). The essence of the anarchic principle, which is what I am applying here, is that a set of ethics can only be valid if it can be applied universally, without subcategories and exceptions. It doesn't disallow a defined ethical system that attributes rights or even (but preferably minimal) restrictions.
Also, you might note that I'm affirming that individuals have a certain freedom, not denying them one or telling them to take it. That's not a prescription, as it does not involve their behaviour; merely the meta-discussion of their behaviour.
That would be a description. A prescription is when you declare a pattern and seek to make people conform to it. A description is when you observe people and attribute a pattern to it. A description is falsified and discarded when people don't act according to it, although I don't really see that happening here.Quote:
Who are you to say that people are in general predictable and unpredictability is the exception and not the rule? Maybe they can't be predictable, even if they so please to be. That's a pretty big "prescription" of human behavior coming from you there.
Are we reading the same sentence here? I asked you if you agreed with my personal observation that exercise without some sort of fun to it is boring, or at least that this is the perception of a significantly large percentage of people possibly pertaining to the discussion. Where am I enacting any kind of force on you to make you think as I do?Quote:
And you also tell me how I should feel about exercise and what it is supposed to mean:Why don't you take your own advice?Quote:
You realise how boring it is to take exercise just for the health benefits
You seem to be under the horribly oversimplified impression that 'no prescriptive roles and rules enforcing them' is a generic condemnation of 'telling people stuff'. It's just somewhat more specific and nuanced than that.
That's only what you think I meant, but you misinterpreted me, since you can't judge what my intent is based on the words that I use.
Is this clear enough for you? You always tell people what to do and what to think and then you claim that it is wrong for people do just that.
Let's get past all the complete bullshit of the last few posts and focus on what I really said; but I'll leave you out of it: the dogmatic acceptance of gender and power roles is in contradiction with ... ideals of sexual (and any other personal) liberation.
Ok, so I guess I am totally wrong to think that is what you also think. Ok, good. now that we got that out of the way, Please, let's go back to talking about whatever the hell this thread is supposed to be about. I don't even remember anymore.
I believe what bothers me the most about this is the double standard. Pole Dancing, with it's derogatory connotations, is primarily a sexualised performance of a female dancing for a male in order to entice him to think with his pants and therefore his wallet.
In our schools the biggest sex talk we got was about abstinence. I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the country/world but where I went to school in the deep south of the US, Sex was Dirty, Wrong and of the Devil. Anything to do with pleasure and the human body was taboo.
Here we have a school Demonstrating what is primarily considered by the world at large to be something akin to a mating ritual of the most dubious variety to a bunch of people that are curious, granted, but also considered to be under age to even know what sex is all about.
The wrong part here is the hypocrisy. Telling students that sex is something for adults, that it is wrong for them to act on the urges and feelings they have in the swing of puberty and then demonstrating something that is considered to be sexual, however innocuous the actual demonstration is, is just out to confuse those poor little developing minds.
In reality I don't like the taboo placed on sex and the industry that has sprung up around it, but I respect why it's there. The sex industry is not a nice safe happy place, it probably never will be no matter how acceptable it becomes because of the "broken" aspects and the fact that sex workers are considered easy prey because they are willing to put a price on things most people would never dream of doing, and trying to sanitise it for the sake of getting lazy horny pubescent teens in shape is just going to minimise the taboo and get a lot of young people into situations they aren't prepared to handle because the education they received on the topic was sanitised. Yes they learn a neat gymnastics routine and they get flexible and in shape and even earn a few points in poise and grace, but they are also misinformed as to what it is they now know. Intentional mis-information is more dangerous than sexualizing the consensually under aged.
~K