CDZ Are we teaching our children the right things?

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I'd hope no kids are reading this thread. It would be a terrible example to set for them.

The irony of this place gets so thick you could spread it on a freakin' bagel.

My question is answered, thanks.
.

 

[Pilot1]

No we are not. The teacher's unions (Democrat Operatives) are forcing school districts to spend way too much time on liberal/progressive indoctrination. Diversity, multi culturalism, fake inclusiveness, intolerance of conservative views, anti male bias, etc are all a problem n our schools, and universities.

 

[Pete7469]

Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives

Perfect example right here.

If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?

Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.


.

 

[Picaro]

Well, it helps when alleged 'academics' running school systems wouldn't be caught dead telling all the facts to kids, like Lincoln's support of even tougher Black Codes in Illinois in the 1850's that made it impossible for black people to make a legal living in that state, plus the fact they used convict labor in those days as well, i.e. slavery under a different name, that we get such dumb claims that 'only Democrats supported slavery n stuff', along with silly whining over Confederate statues, and other dumbassery, like the fact that during the 1960's Harlem's percentage of black voters was around the same as Mississippi's, since 'liberal' New York City had literacy tests, as did California and 18 other northern and western states in those days, as the Civil Rights Acts only affected a few southern states when passed; the Acts didn't affect the rest of the country until Nixon's Presidency, and the 'Sunset laws' attached to the bills expired and reviewed when he gave black radicals the racial quotas system, made desegregation the law nationwide, and of course this was followed by the bussing riots in such 'enlightened liberal' cities like Boston; 'liberal' cities and California have been where most of the race riots occurred ever since, which makes all the South bashing ridiculous, of course.

Anybody want to know the truth about 'abolitionists', the GOP and its racism need only read the elections of Lincoln, particularly the 1862 mid-terms and the 1864 election to see what a lie it is that 'Republicans were fighting against rayssism n stuff'. They weren't then and they never have since.

 

[Picaro]

Well, I'd hope no kids are reading this thread. It would be a terrible example to set for them.

The irony of this place gets so thick you could spread it on a freakin' bagel.

My question is answered, thanks.
.

Are you posturing again? Sorry your troll threads never live up to your required parroting about how 'sensible' you are n stuff.

 

[candycorn]

Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives

Perfect example right here.

If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?

Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.


.

The Democrats used to be the conservatives.
They were responsible for a lot of (not all of) the Jim Crow laws, the opposition to integration, and opposition to busing.

Today, if we had the same codes and laws on the books, conservatives would still be opposed to them only the conservatives identify as Republicans more often than Democrats.

Really, do you have any historical literacy at all?

 

[candycorn]

Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives

Perfect example right here.

If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?

Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.


.

The Democrats used to be the conservatives.
They were responsible for a lot of (not all of) the Jim Crow laws, the opposition to integration, and opposition to busing.

Today, if we had the same codes and laws on the books, conservatives would still be opposed to them only the conservatives identify as Republicans more often than Democrats.

Really, do you have any historical literacy at all?

There's not really any utility in the we did this and they did that game - unless folks today are personally responsible. The messageboarders are so mad at each other because of silly extrapolations like that which some people say as an aside to try and bicker a point - but really, some people take that and internalize it as anger when you wouldn't even think to blame someone today for something that happened in the 1960s in real-life discourse.

You're one of the ones that is better than doing that shit. C'mon, playa!!

I didn't think I was really baiting anyone. Isn't it public knowledge that the Democrats founded the KKK, were heavily in power in the Jim Crow South, opposed busing and a lot of the civil rights legislation in the 60's? The Democrats abandoned the principles behind the organizations and the ordinances....

 

[Moonglow]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

 

[Moonglow]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?

So you're okay with It; we already know Democrats are completely baffled as to why it's wrong, we wouldn't want you to lose all your associates over a fashion diffrence.