Bob,
Sometimes my friend, I get the impression you would not even eat food that agreed with you.
What is there to criticise?
The curriculum "stresses that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD/HIV" and reminded the Post that parents have the option to exclude their kids from lessons on "methods of prevention."
Moral corruption of children is not solely the responsibility of Liberals. I went to an English Catholic boarding school a more Conservative education you could not wish to hope for. Whilst two wrongs do not make a right, believe me I was subjected to far worse than any sex education class could teach.
Your moral indignation does seem to me to be somewhat subjective. I suspect like most people my moral compass was derived from my parents. Now as devout Catholics I am sure they would wholeheartedly approve of the fact that the curriculum "stresses that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD/HIV"
I am also sure they would find the insults, references to men having sex with buffalos, turds , the majority of the jokes on the jokes thread, and the “moral dilemma” thread on a public forum, available to anyone old enough to read, equally reprehensible and morally corrupting.
In this country when Conservatives, Liberal et all get on the moral high horse they tend to hark back to Victorian times when everyone was so moral and preached it. However, things are not always what they seem. Just look at John Fowles book the French Lieutenants Woman
"Outside of marriage, your Victorian gentleman could look forward to 2.4 [sexual encounters] a week," Mike (Jeremy Irons) coolly calculates after Anna (Meryl Streep) has read to him the statistics according to which, while London's male population in 1857 was 1 1/4 million, the city's estimated 80,000 prostitutes were receiving a total of 2 million clients per week. And frequently, Anna adds, the women thus forced to earn their living came from respectable positions like that of a governess, simply having fallen into bad luck, e.g. by being discharged after a dispute with their employer and their resulting inability to find another position.
This brief dialogue towards the beginning of this movie based on John Fowles's 1969 novel succinctly illustrates both the fate that would most likely have been in store for title character Sarah (Meryl Streep in her "movie within the movie" role), had she left provincial Lyme Regis on Dorset's Channel coast and gone to London, and the Victorian society's moral duplicity: For while no virtues were regarded as highly as honor, chastity and integrity; while no woman intent on keeping her good name could even be seen talking to a man alone (let alone go beyond that); and while marriage - like any contract - was considered sacrosanct, rendering the partner who deigned to breach it an immediate social outcast, all these rules were suspended with regard to prostitutes; women who, for whatever reasons, had sunk so low they were regarded as nonpersons and thus, inherently unable to stain anybody's reputation but their own.
At the risk of sounding supercilious, there were several Brits who although I didn’t always agree with I did consider the voice of reason and look forward to their posts who no longer partake in these discussions.
I suspect this is because they came to the conclusion that frankly their American cousins don't give a toss about their opinions so it was not worth posting.
I feel they have a point.
Sometimes my friend, I get the impression you would not even eat food that agreed with you.
What is there to criticise?
The curriculum "stresses that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD/HIV" and reminded the Post that parents have the option to exclude their kids from lessons on "methods of prevention."
Moral corruption of children is not solely the responsibility of Liberals. I went to an English Catholic boarding school a more Conservative education you could not wish to hope for. Whilst two wrongs do not make a right, believe me I was subjected to far worse than any sex education class could teach.
Your moral indignation does seem to me to be somewhat subjective. I suspect like most people my moral compass was derived from my parents. Now as devout Catholics I am sure they would wholeheartedly approve of the fact that the curriculum "stresses that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD/HIV"
I am also sure they would find the insults, references to men having sex with buffalos, turds , the majority of the jokes on the jokes thread, and the “moral dilemma” thread on a public forum, available to anyone old enough to read, equally reprehensible and morally corrupting.
In this country when Conservatives, Liberal et all get on the moral high horse they tend to hark back to Victorian times when everyone was so moral and preached it. However, things are not always what they seem. Just look at John Fowles book the French Lieutenants Woman
"Outside of marriage, your Victorian gentleman could look forward to 2.4 [sexual encounters] a week," Mike (Jeremy Irons) coolly calculates after Anna (Meryl Streep) has read to him the statistics according to which, while London's male population in 1857 was 1 1/4 million, the city's estimated 80,000 prostitutes were receiving a total of 2 million clients per week. And frequently, Anna adds, the women thus forced to earn their living came from respectable positions like that of a governess, simply having fallen into bad luck, e.g. by being discharged after a dispute with their employer and their resulting inability to find another position.
This brief dialogue towards the beginning of this movie based on John Fowles's 1969 novel succinctly illustrates both the fate that would most likely have been in store for title character Sarah (Meryl Streep in her "movie within the movie" role), had she left provincial Lyme Regis on Dorset's Channel coast and gone to London, and the Victorian society's moral duplicity: For while no virtues were regarded as highly as honor, chastity and integrity; while no woman intent on keeping her good name could even be seen talking to a man alone (let alone go beyond that); and while marriage - like any contract - was considered sacrosanct, rendering the partner who deigned to breach it an immediate social outcast, all these rules were suspended with regard to prostitutes; women who, for whatever reasons, had sunk so low they were regarded as nonpersons and thus, inherently unable to stain anybody's reputation but their own.
At the risk of sounding supercilious, there were several Brits who although I didn’t always agree with I did consider the voice of reason and look forward to their posts who no longer partake in these discussions.
I suspect this is because they came to the conclusion that frankly their American cousins don't give a toss about their opinions so it was not worth posting.
I feel they have a point.
