Org Mobile Site
Thread: Lemur's Law: A Test
You may be aware of Lemur's Law: "Any group with the word 'family' in their name is psychotic." Well, my silly little rule is being put to the test.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Sounds suspiciously commie to me.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
You may be aware of Lemur's Law: "Any group with the word 'family' in their name is psychotic." Well, my silly little rule is being put to the test.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Go and see, if they are psychotic they'll go for you before the children, then you'll know the score.You may be aware of Lemur's Law: "Any group with the word 'family' in their name is psychotic." Well, my silly little rule is being put to the test.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter.
I don't think you can classify the disaster we have this year as a "winter". It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
If it's either the Family Research Council or Family Research Institute, the good news is that the SPLC has them listed as hate groups due to their extreme homophobia. A good trolling opportunity, methinks. Take the kids, dress in drag.But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Originally Posted by drone:
If it's either the Family Research Council or Family Research Institute, the good news is that the SPLC has them listed as hate groups due to their extreme homophobia. A good trolling opportunity, methinks. Take the kids, dress in drag.
Nah, I would have recognized one of those two. It's some other thing. Still suspicious.If it's either the Family Research Council or Family Research Institute, the good news is that the SPLC has them listed as hate groups due to their extreme homophobia. A good trolling opportunity, methinks. Take the kids, dress in drag.
And yeah, this winter has been very mild by WI standards. Which means somebody else got our negative thermal energy. Sorry about that!
Fiancee? Congratulations.
We've had a very dreary summer. Still in t shirt and shorts, but dreary grey sky.
We've had a very dreary summer. Still in t shirt and shorts, but dreary grey sky.
I would definitely do a bit of research on the 'family' group hosting it, simply out of principle. While I doubt such an event would have any negative effect on your own children, I would not want even my ~$5 entry fee going to support an organization that is involved in seriously damaging some of society's most vulnerable children. These groups have their family-friendly, wholesome facades - which often involve such events, usually wrapped in religious overtones - and then they have their more sinister lobbying activities.
Down here in Tennessee, where we have just lost another child to anti-gay bullying, the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade, and the 'License to Bully' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
One must assume that these people have given at least a few moments of contemplation to the indescribable pain and misery that would drive children to kill themselves. In response, they have not embraced a 'Christian' response to helping such at-risk children - or even just ignored the issue entirely - but have instead sided with the bullies! They are not only trying to ban any discussion of homosexuality during the critical years when prejudices are learned and acquired, they want to give legal backing to the bullies. It's incredible, it's sad, and it's hurting children. Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects on their self esteem.
/rant
Down here in Tennessee, where we have just lost another child to anti-gay bullying, the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade, and the 'License to Bully' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
One must assume that these people have given at least a few moments of contemplation to the indescribable pain and misery that would drive children to kill themselves. In response, they have not embraced a 'Christian' response to helping such at-risk children - or even just ignored the issue entirely - but have instead sided with the bullies! They are not only trying to ban any discussion of homosexuality during the critical years when prejudices are learned and acquired, they want to give legal backing to the bullies. It's incredible, it's sad, and it's hurting children. Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects on their self esteem.
/rant
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade,
Schools are always a difficult issue when it comes to things like this since while state-run instutions aren't supposed to advance certian social or political values, they are of course impossible to avoid so long as they have classes such as "Sex Education" or "Personal Development" like my school at least had.the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade,
What these Christian lobbyists are trying to do is no different from their opponents that want to teach children that homosexuality is 'natural' and morally acceptable. We can't keep morals out of the classroom entirely so we may as well just fight it out honestly, rather than complaining that the other is always imposing its views.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
and the 'License to Bully' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
Well according to the article it is an attempt to clarify existing laws so that they "may not prohibit [a student's] expression of religious, philosophical, or political views as long as such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or of damage to a student's property."and the 'License to Bully' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
This seems reasonable enough to me. A pupil telling another pupil that they think their homosexuality is sinful is no different from them telling each other that their atheism/religious beliefs are stupid. When such expressions cross the line into harassment can only really be left to the discretion of the teacher, but to ban students from expressing any sort of moral judgements or talking about these issues is stifling and impractical.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects on their self esteem.
The changes in that study are very sharp and sudden, so I wouldn't attribute them to the fact that "kids pick up on stuff". I'll take the point that the amendments appear to have had a negative affect on gay peoples mental well being, although I have to say the results almost seem suspiciously dramatic given that they are supposedly triggered by a political decision that will have no bearing on day to day life for most gay people, and merely reflect prejudices that must have been around for a long time beforehand.Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects on their self esteem.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Schools are always a difficult issue when it comes to things like this since while state-run instutions aren't supposed to advance certian social or political values, they are of course impossible to avoid so long as they have classes such as "Sex Education" or "Personal Development" like my school at least had.
What these Christian lobbyists are trying to do is no different from their opponents that want to teach children that homosexuality is 'natural' and morally acceptable. We can't keep morals out of the classroom entirely so we may as well just fight it out honestly, rather than complaining that the other is always imposing its views.
This is classic creationist thinking, the pretense of two equally valid and opposing opinions, or viewpoints, when there is only one reality and the ideologically inconvenient facts that stem from that reality. This is not about morality or values, it is about reality. Homosexuality exists, it is naturally occurring, and denying that knowledge to children while at the same time teaching that heterosexuality is the only sexuality is damaging to all involved. Just as with evolution, the proclivity of the moral majority to eliminate information from curricula around the country is disturbing. Teaching kids less is never the answer. Schools are always a difficult issue when it comes to things like this since while state-run instutions aren't supposed to advance certian social or political values, they are of course impossible to avoid so long as they have classes such as "Sex Education" or "Personal Development" like my school at least had.
What these Christian lobbyists are trying to do is no different from their opponents that want to teach children that homosexuality is 'natural' and morally acceptable. We can't keep morals out of the classroom entirely so we may as well just fight it out honestly, rather than complaining that the other is always imposing its views.
Anyway, I did not mean to drag Lemur's thread off topic. It does not even look like the group in question is tied to those I was discussing.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that.
That's because the internet teaches us younglings now.Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That's because the internet teaches us younglings now.
Which, frankly, is much preferable in many ways.That's because the internet teaches us younglings now.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that.
Texas tried that and failed.Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Speaks to the parents of Texas, and nothing else.
Yup becuase 8% of the countries population isn't a statistically sgnificgant sample or anythingSpeaks to the parents of Texas, and nothing else.
Its much eaiser to teach them about sex than it will be to pay for the unintended conswquences
Sex ed should be mandatory starting in the 9th grade and for most that will be to late
As someone who has seen the "parental responsibilty" meme tried and failed I don't really have time to entertain thoughts of an idealzied family unit. If you dont teach kids about sex the more STDs and teen pregnancies you get and the whole cycle starts over again
^For me it was 8th grade.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
I completely agree with you. However, the school's job should not be to dance around politically sensitive issues is what I'm saying. If the school is going to teach sex ed in the 6th grade (as was the case when I went to school back in the dizzaay) then it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their kid will act appropriately to the subject matter--gayness included. The thought of parents waiting for the school to broach the subject first is just ridiculous, but I'm sure there are many that do.
1. Raise entitlements for children up to the age of 18.I completely agree with you. However, the school's job should not be to dance around politically sensitive issues is what I'm saying. If the school is going to teach sex ed in the 6th grade (as was the case when I went to school back in the dizzaay) then it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their kid will act appropriately to the subject matter--gayness included. The thought of parents waiting for the school to broach the subject first is just ridiculous, but I'm sure there are many that do.
2. Make states responsible for financing entitlements.
Once the locals see a direct cause and effect between their political choices and the amount of tax they have to pay, they'll stop talking religion and start talking practical solutions.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
What do you mean by entitlements?
Free public education up to 18 and beyond. Free healthcare up to 18. Free public travel up to 18. Generous child support up to 18. Make the state finance it all from state-raised revenue. Religious scruples should disappear once the tax bills come in.What do you mean by entitlements?
User pays should include state level.
My dad explained what a teaser bull was doing when I was four.
My dad explained what a teaser bull was doing when I was four.
Lemur's Law strikes again
Originally Posted by :
Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In a galaxy not so far far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side. The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships.
Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In a galaxy not so far far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side. The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships.
Not the same one, Lemur already ruled that “FRC” out.
Oh sure, I was just pointing out an example of the law in action.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Which means somebody else got our negative thermal energy. Sorry about that!
That would be here. I have ice in my beard when I get to work in the morning. Big round balls of ice.Which means somebody else got our negative thermal energy. Sorry about that!
Curse you!!!
But it leaves the Yeti in a much better mood. However it doesn't help it's smoking habit 
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
That would be here. I have ice in my beard when I get to work in the morning. Big round balls of ice.
Curse you!!!
HoreTore has big round balls in his face every morning.That would be here. I have ice in my beard when I get to work in the morning. Big round balls of ice.
Curse you!!!
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
HoreTore has big round balls in his face every morning.
It was colder today. So now, instead of balls of ice, my beard was completely white around my mouth... Had to wipe it off in the bathroom at work. Can't show it to the kids, ya know...HoreTore has big round balls in his face every morning.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
It was colder today. So now, instead of balls of ice, my beard was completely white around my mouth... Had to wipe it off in the bathroom at work. Can't show it to the kids, ya know...
It was colder today. So now, instead of balls of ice, my beard was completely white around my mouth... Had to wipe it off in the bathroom at work. Can't show it to the kids, ya know...
Condolences to Eastern Europe though. They're getting hit harder than usual and must be miserable.
Been a while HoreTore, good to see you back! 
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO