Gay High

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm not talking about "Oh you're such a faggot." I'm talking about someone screaming that at you while bashing you so badly you're lying in a pool of your own blood.

It doesn't matter, Natoma.

Other people get bashed, and yet there's no school "for them", nor should there be.

The bashers to this extreme should be prosecuted, conviceted, and tossed out. If that means that every heterosexuasl is tossed out for bashing, and "all that's left" in the public school is "nice gay folk", then so be it.

This school is a last resort for the safety of the students.

And who evaluates who needs "protection", and what about non-gays who need "protection?"

I do however have an issue with people who believe this school exists merely because someone got called a name and wants out.

Personally, I believe that irrespective of how "severe" whatever threats or actions occurred, the school only applies to gay students.

I would have less of an issue (though I would still have a significant issue) if this school was for "anyone" who had such "severe" issues. But as far as I can tell, it's ONLY for those of "non straight" sexual orientation.

I repeat though, when such severe crimes take place (we have laws against them, and school rules against them, you know), the perpetrator of the crime is to be tried, convicted, and punished.

You don't remove the "affected gays" from the situation and then let the few "severe" bullies just move on to the next target.

You remove the bullies.

 

[London Geezer]

However, if your Jewish school can't survive on the vouchers (and other private funding), then I don't agree with the government having special entitlement programs to prop up those schools.

why not? because u're not one of them? because u don't care if someone gets bullied? as long as it doesnt happen to u it's fine?

do u expect the school to just close down? and let all those people who can potentially be bullied in the "free world" for the first psycho to beat them to death? not like it's never happened, especially in the US... oh wait, u use machine guns there, silly me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

because it costs less to open a "safe area" than to crack down EVERY SINGLE PERSON bullying other people...

REally? Natoma is just talking about these really severe cases, not just those who "pick on" gays.

It's really that tough to crack down on the relatively FEW individuals responsible for these really bad crimes?

gosh u people are just economically clueless...

And you people are morally clueless.

I'd GLADLY PAY MORE TAXES to do it the right way (if that is the case), than pay LESS taxes and do it the wrong way.
Here you are lecturing us on morality and the right thing to do, and then you say that this is a "financially" better solution?

this school is the cheapest thing u're gonna get, so don't complain.

Again, even if true, I'm not complaining because of the money. I'm complaining because the money is being spent the WRONG WAY.

if the government wanted to arrest (and support once in prison) every person guilty of bullying other people, the tax would rise of like 100000 times more than opening this little school for 170 frikking students.... jesus...

Talk to Natoma. We're not apparently concerned with the normal, average, every-day bully here. Sheesh.

 

[London Geezer]

You don't remove the "affected gays" from the situation and then let the few "severe" bullies just move on to the next target.

You remove the bullies.

AS I SAID, it's cheaper, and therefore u guys will pay less tax, to just move all those affected, than to arrest, put on trial and convict every single person guilty of such things.

if u complain about tax raises, then u shouldnt cause u got the cheap deal.

if u complain about "it's not lawfully correct" then yes, of course everyone will agree that every single person guilty of a crime should be put into jail. is it viable? is it ever going to happen? let's be realistic...

 

[London Geezer]

I'd GLADLY PAY MORE TAXES to do it the right way (if that is the case), than pay LESS taxes and do it the wrong way.

well i guess that explains a lot...

 

[Natoma]

Because we don't have publicly funded muslim or jewish schools.

Are you for or against School Vouchers? They are publicly funded "coupons" that allow students to attend private schools. So your hard earned tax dollars are going to allow students to not even participate in the public school system. Where's the outrage?

If the school gets its money from vouchers, I'm OK with that, assuming every child has access to the voucher program. Even if they were gay and went to a gay school, I'd be ok with that. Or jewish and went to a jewish school. Or muslim and went to a Islamic school. (All, assuming, of course, they meet the minimum requirements set forth by the state concerning performance, curriculem, etc).

However, if your Jewish school can't survive on the vouchers (and other private funding), then I don't agree with the government having special entitlement programs to prop up those schools.

The voucher program in some states is only for economically disadvantaged students. However in other states, it is for all students, even those who are already in the private/religious school system and can afford it. So your tax dollars could be going to help students who don't even participate in the school system that drains your tax dollars. Not only that, but one problem some legislators have against School Vouchers is that the schools that receive the vouchers can use them to enhance the infrastructure of the school and better themselves, with public funding, even though by definition they are private institutions.

Btw, Hetrick Martin existed for almost 20 years without NYC funding. It was smaller, but it was still running fine. They were generally able to support around 50 students. The NYC funding has allowed it to expand to 100-150 students, but it isn't like the institute only came into existence due to public funding.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I suppose I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Russ.

I would answer the same way that Russ did. If Vouchers are distributed eqaully, then I have little problem with it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Btw, Hetrick Martin existed for almost 20 years without NYC funding. It was smaller, but it was still running fine.

And it should continue to do so without public NYC fuinding.

They were generally able to support around 50 students. The NYC funding has allowed it to expand to 100-150 students, but it isn't like the institute only came into existence due to public funding.

Where are all the "successful graduates" / alumni of the program over the past 20 years? You would think they would be giving back significantly so that others can benefit just as they have.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'd GLADLY PAY MORE TAXES to do it the right way (if that is the case), than pay LESS taxes and do it the wrong way.

well i guess that explains a lot...

Indeed, it does.

It shows the hypocriticial nature of the left. You chastize the right for being selfish an unwilling to pay more than their fair share of taxes. You chastize OUR morailty and describe it as money whording and greedy, etc.

And yet you just proclaimed that "hey, it's cheaper, so it's better." If that's not the definition of self-serving, "only looking after what it costs, not what is right", then I don't know what is.

 

[Natoma]

Btw, Hetrick Martin existed for almost 20 years without NYC funding. It was smaller, but it was still running fine.

And it should continue to do so without public NYC fuinding.

They were generally able to support around 50 students. The NYC funding has allowed it to expand to 100-150 students, but it isn't like the institute only came into existence due to public funding.

Where are all the "successful graduates" / alumni of the program over the past 20 years? You would think they would be giving back significantly so that others can benefit just as they have.

Where do you think a lot of the private funding came from?

Btw, you didn't speak on the private school vouchers portion of my post.

The voucher program in some states is only for economically disadvantaged students. However in other states, it is for all students, even those who are already in the private/religious school system and can afford it. So your tax dollars could be going to help students who don't even participate in the school system that drains your tax dollars. Not only that, but one problem some legislators have against School Vouchers is that the schools that receive the vouchers can use them to enhance the infrastructure of the school and better themselves, with public funding, even though by definition they are private institutions.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The voucher program in some states is only for economically disadvantaged students.

And I disagree with that.

However in other states, it is for all students, even those who are already in the private/religious school system and can afford it.

And I agree with that. Whether or not "you can afford it" has no bearing on whether or not you should be given preferential treatment by the government as to where you spend your tax dollars.

So your tax dollars could be going to help students who don't even participate in the school system that drains your tax dollars.

Presumably, if I have the OPTION to participate in the school voucher program, then I also have a certain degree of control on how "my" school tax dollars are spent.

Not only that, but one problem some legislators have against School Vouchers is that the schools that receive the vouchers can use them to enhance the infrastructure of the school and better themselves, with public funding, even though by definition they are private institutions.

True, which is why there should not be any restrictions on which private institutions must be "excluded" from vouchers. If the governemnt excludes certain private institutions (such as gay schools), then it would be wrong, and not giving me a fair choice.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Btw, you didn't speak on the private school vouchers portion of my post.

Geezus...give me a minute already.

Read above.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Where do you think a lot of the private funding came from?

Where did the initial private funding come from? Should the funds grow more and more from Alumni exponentially as more and more graduate?

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

london-boy,

because it costs less to open a "safe area" than to crack down EVERY SINGLE PERSON bullying other people... gosh u people are just economically clueless... this school is the cheapest thing u're gonna get,

Basic principle of my life: Everyone should be responsible for their own actions.

I am not concerned with doing the cheapest, I am concerned with doing the right thing. There should be no public Jewish only schools, no public Catholic only schools, no public Black only schools, no public White only schools, and no public Gay abused only schools. Segregation in public schools = bad.

The people that do these terrible crimes (not just name calling) to gays....... Jews, Catholic, fat, nerds, heck to anyone should be taken to justice. Make the people that break the law responsible for their actions!

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[London Geezer]

Indeed, it does.

It shows the hypocriticial nature of the left. You chastize the right for being selfish an unwilling to pay more than their fair share of taxes. You chastize OUR morailty and describe it as money whording and greedy, etc.

And yet you just proclaimed that "hey, it's cheaper, so it's better." If that's not the definition of self-serving, "only looking after what it costs, not what is right", then I don't know what is.

NO NO NO NO hold on, don't jump on the usual "yeah all u non americans do is criticise our views etc" crap.

all i asked becasue it was not extremely clear was:
option (1) if u complain about tax raise, then do THIS
option (2) if u complain about what is right and what is less right, then do THIS...

i never judged. well maybe i did when u said that u don't give a shit about the Geneva Convention "just because it's something outside the american continent therefore shouldn't touch the american constitution". that pretty much puts u on the same level as Iraq and every other country that did NOT sign the Geneva Convention. which by the way DOES overrule any other constitution of signatory countries. whether u like it or not. the fact that US doesn't really follow it doesn't mean anything. well it does mean A LOT but i don't think we need any more civilised america-criticism here if u guys can't take it.

 

[notAFanB]

this topic is pretty interesting since both sides clerly have different priorities.

if u complain about tax raises, then u shouldnt cause u got the cheap deal.

that's not what they are protesting about. not being well versed in American legal specifics it appears that Joe DeFuria believe such actions runs against the coherence of the US constitution.

feel free to correct me on this if you like.

if u complain about "it's not lawfully correct" then yes, of course everyone will agree that every single person guilty of a crime should be put into jail. is it viable? is it ever going to happen? let's be realistic...

nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested jailed everyone, only that punishment (in whatever form) should be targeted at the perpertrators where possible, and if it's possible why not?

[/quote]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

NO NO NO NO hold on, don't jump on the usual "yeah all u non americans do is criticise our views etc" crap.

Where did I say non-americans? I said liberals / leftists.

all i asked becasue it was not extremely clear was:
option (1) if u complain about tax raise, then do THIS
option (2) if u complain about what is right and what is less right, then do THIS...

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

that pretty much puts u on the same level as Iraq and every other country that did NOT sign the Geneva Convention.

OK....whatever you say.

well it does mean A LOT but i don't think we need any more civilised america-criticism here if u guys can't take it.

Yeah...so in other words, you think it's right for the governement to discriminate based on sexual preference? I thought the Geneva Convention was against anyone doing that sort of thing?

Come back and criticize America when you have some logical and legitimate gripes.

Oh, and BTW what does the Geneva Convention say when one Religion bans gays from their group? That religion is being discrimintory, right? Should the religion be forced to accept gays? But then aren't you discriminating against a Religion?

Gee, these things aren't always so clear-cut, are they?

 

[London Geezer]

nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested jailed everyone, only that punishment (in whatever form) should be targeted at the perpertrators where possible, and if it's possible why not?

well OBVIOUSLY it is not working. if it were, crime wouldn't exist. so therefore one of the cheapest and most viable solutions would be to attract the victims to other places. u cannot attract the perpetrators, however u can attract the victims.
OF COURSE i'm not saying it's right, all i'm saying is that it is still the most viable solution at this moment in time.

 

[notAFanB]

NO NO NO NO hold on, don't jump on the usual "yeah all u non americans do is criticise our views etc" crap.

he did not imply that. What he is refering to if I'm not mistaken is political groups an common arguements made by opposing camp 'not' related to nationality.

 

[London Geezer]

i think we're just going in circles. maybe neither of us is being clear about our own positions...
i don't see how this school is "discriminatory" towards Gay people. however u seem to think that it is...
the school is for people who were at one point of their lives in danger for whatever reason. it will not provide "the best education evah" like someone said. it will be a simple public school like any other. the only difference is that "troubled" gay people are the only ones allowed in and that is because they can get the support they need and cannot find in other schools.
being "fat" or, dunno, "having freckles" might be a cause of bullying, however i don't see how well "Schools for fat people with freckles" will do.... firstly because the whole issue of being "fat" is radically different from "being gay". someone might be overweight but not consider him-herself fat, and u can always lose weight if u want/need to. u cant "turn back" from being gay. that is why it is part of the convention on human rights.
u still completely fail to acknowledge the Geneva Convention, maybe because it doesnt occupy much of your time or thoughts. but i'm sorry to say that without that convention this world would be in a state of misery like it was in the 19th century.