Are They Too Young To Understand?

[TAOWBST]

A bit delayed as I've been away for a day (working my way through 58 messages now) but a reply to Tao's post in reply to mine.

1. Fine.
2. I just meant it sounded as if it could be a slogan. perhaps it, perhaps it isn't. Depends on the motives of whoever said it.
3. It could affect me, it equally well might not. The point I'm making is that no-one can know. If, for example, it embarrassed me it would affect me. If, for example, it offended me it would affect me. Neither of these things are true, but my point is that for any individual they could be. And, therefore, I logically conclude that the original statement is in error as it stands. This is a philosophical point, and only that, I have no intention of offending anyone....
4. Here I do disagree. I maintain speed does not kill. Inappropriate use of speed can lead to undesireable consequences, but I would maintain that is a separate issue. The slogan "Speed Kills" is useful as a simplification, but I suggest it is not accurate when examined more closely. Many things in life are like that - the more closely you look, the more difficult it is to be dogmatic.
5. Because language is all we have to communicate with. If we are sloppy with language, we are sloppy with our communication of meaning. The classic example is "Eats Shoots and Leaves" which I can think could mean at least a couple of things........

All I have to say to this is you need to make your own mind up, wether you find homosexuality offensive, or embarrasing. Personally I shouldn't think either would come into this. By this I mean I don't see how an genuine homosexual person would find this sort of statement offensive, or indeed embarrasing. As for the speed thing, I hardly think "Speed kills" would have the same ring to it, if it were specifically accurate. This is a bit more catchy and easier to remember than a likely more accurate statement. The same applies to any statements like this.

[johnriley1uk]

Well I'm sure we've hit on a truth here that to get a message across, often simplified statements are made that do not necessarily stand up to closer scrutiny.

This is why I believe that we need as much freedom of speech as possible, so that anyone can actually state a contray view without being reviled or shouted down. Newer laws prohibiting viewpoints or declarations of various types, although seeming innocent enough in themselves, are in my opinion a huge danger to our way of life. Even this thread could be prohibited if the noose tightened enough on our ability to maintain our freedom of expression.

These things happen a small step at a time, always for a "good reason", but we do need to protect our future. We need to be able to disagree with the current paradigm.

Thank you, Tao, for an interesting discussion!

[mr_e]

Not all variables can be accounted for, in any situation. Solid "facts" are scarce in issues such as this, but should this be the only obstacle, and the sole reason to refuse such concepts?

What I'm saying is that we have no way to estimate the impact of teaching this (which is on the face of it seems a good idea), because people have some pretty wierd responses to things that sometimes defy prediction. Personally, I feel the issue should be covered by teaching kids about broader values, but if a school feels a need to target the subject, that's fine.

[TAOWBST]

What I'm saying is that we have no way to estimate the impact of teaching this (which is on the face of it seems a good idea), because people have some pretty wierd responses to things that sometimes defy prediction. Personally, I feel the issue should be covered by teaching kids about broader values, but if a school feels a need to target the subject, that's fine.

Yep I'll agree with that.