Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Required to attend LGBT training at colleges.. right or wrong?

  1. #41
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Good to know that you're more interested in protecting yourself than possibly killing someone else.
    Wow..that was quite a leap.

    But the point is that it has nothing to do with the actual reason for driving after a few beers, other than the punishment.
    ...hey, you yourself said all you need to know is the punishment.

    Same as the college training. It's about the outcome, not the reasoning behind it.
    The outome is sort of important, don't you think? We can not make people feel good about gays...we can make them them not discriminate (or face consquences)

    There is unequal treatment of everyone at some point. I guess it depends on what you believe equates to unequal treatment as it relates to women.
    Let's just say...over the past 50 years, the average woman have had to put up a lot more harassment, lack of opportunity, lower pay, and other discrimination than the average man. Some of it still goes on, though it's better than it was 50 years ago.

    they will definitely enroll, just to create a reason to bitch. Christian groups are no different than any of the other groups we've been talking about. They want to be victims. They want the attention. They want to create an environment that breeds contempt. Just as with the LGBT groups, the Christian groups either want you to agree with their point of view or you aren't worthy of being around. It's not good enough to just tolerate people now. You are expected to accept everyone. That's just not going to work.
    Doesn't mean we give up and let everyone treat each other with contempt.
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #42
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    It's not just infants and toddlers. Some places it's kids up to 9 or 10 years old, depending on their weight/size. I would stop that mandate, for sure. Do I think infants and toddlers should ride in one? Sure I do, and I would put mine in one. Are you going to put your 9 or 10 year old son in a booster seat in your car? I highly doubt it.
    I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat?

    What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

    Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your gut? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age)

    What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 08:51 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  3. #43
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat?

    What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

    Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your guy? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age)

    What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?
    Some real stats:

    Buckling children in age- and size-appropriate car seats, booster seats, and seat belts reduces the risk of serious and fatal injuries:

    • Car seat use reduces the risk for death to infants (aged <1 year) by 71%; and to toddlers (aged 1–4 years) by 54% in passenger vehicles.2
    • Booster seat use reduces the risk for serious injury by 45% for children aged 4–8 years when compared with seat belt use alone.3
    • For older children and adults, seat belt use reduces the risk for death and serious injury by approximately half.4
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #44
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat? [

    What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

    Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your guy? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age)
    I'd use my best judgment. For instance, driving on the freeway, I'd have my kid (maybe up to age 3/4) in a car seat. Not above that, though. Now, if I'm driving out to a lake, or up a mountain, or something no on the main road, the kid is probably going to be sitting up front with me. You know why? Because I, personally, am a safe driving. I just turned 40. Never had a speeding ticket, never been is as much as a fender bender. But, because of insurance companies having to charge such high rates because of frivolous lawsuits, I am still required to follow the same rules. It's pretty much a "Minority Report" type country we are living in today. That's not freedom. That's not what any of our founders would have fought for.

    What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?
    No. Nor would it as a stat from anything else. You know how many videos, briefings, commercials, etc, I've seen about what cigarette smoking does? I'm quite aware of what it does, yet I still choose to smoke. And, actually, even if I'm not craving one, an anti-smoking commercial will make me want to go outside and have one.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,328
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?
    I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

    If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?
    No, its more that since over the past 3-4 years we have seen MORE and more instance of anything Religious getting sued out of school, how is it then its ok to effectively force people to attend something that is IMO anti-religious (Since not one religion iirc allows or accepts LGBT people).
    Its imo Hypocritical.

  6. #46
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Some real stats:

    [/SUP][/LIST]
    These stats assume you are getting in an accident.

  7. #47
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    I wonder what the argument would have been if the school would have said "We are having a mandatory training class on how to properly treat Christians with respect".

  8. #48
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.
    Someone transferring in from Liberty or Regent might just really not know better.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  9. #49
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.
    I'll be honest, last year we had an employee (contractor) "come out" as transgender and informed everyone he would be transitioning to a she over a period of a few months...I didn't know much about the whole deal and how it all goes down.

    I think we, for the most part, wanted to treat this person with dignity and respect...he was generally a well-liked and respected employee...but there were some questions about some things.

    There are also, I think, still some people that have been born and raised in a small town somewhere that have never actually met a gay person, to their knowledge...it's a fear of the unknown thing. I was at a shop camp-out one time with my wife...sitting around the campfire talking about whatever with the gang...one guy starts going some commentary about Jews and how he is sure they are probably wonderful people, but he said he'd never actually met a Jew. Of course, he had, he just didn't know it, I informed him he was sitting next to one...


    No, its more that since over the past 3-4 years we have seen MORE and more instance of anything Religious getting sued out of school,
    I think you are confusing public schools and private schools. We have many religiously-based private schools that do all sorts of religious training, mandatory church attendence, etc. and no liberals are complaining.

    how is it then its ok to effectively force people to attend something that is IMO anti-religious (Since not one religion iirc allows or accepts LGBT people).
    It is a private school. I also don't think it is anti-religioius to treat gay people with respect.

    Its imo Hypocritical.
    I think your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the issue.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 09:35 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,328
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I wonder what the argument would have been if the school would have said "We are having a mandatory training class on how to properly treat Christians with respect".
    From all the evidence we have seen over the past 3-4 years, it wouldn't have even gotten past the proposal level before getting sued for being a violation of 'separation of church and state'.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •