Speaking of Joy Reid
Printable View
I certainly wouldn't deny that there is a moral stratum to sex/sexuality (one that goes beyond mere considerations of consent, as important as those considerations are). At the same time, I have trouble reconciling this author's suggestions with the statistical fact that abstinence-only sex-ed programs strongly correlate with greater incidence of venereal disease, unplanned/unwanted teen pregnancy, and abortion—the incidence of which I think we can agree we want to reduce. So perhaps there's an important moderation between insisting sexuality and sexual activity is, purely and simply, amoral, and insisting that the answer is, purely and simply, traditional marriage and attendant sexual abstinence outside of that.
Not sure Trueman is suggesting abstinence-only programs. Rather, I think his critique is aimed at the separating/isolating sex from a relational & moral context. There is too little, "this is wrong and there are consequences to immorality" and "this is for other-oriented, committed relationships."
Perhaps; and, if so, like I said, I think it's pretty phenomenologically dubious to separate/isolate sexuality and sex acts from a relational and/or moral context. Even "liberated", "no-strings", "casual" recreational sex exists pretty clearly in a relational and moral context.
Can you elaborate this part? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean here.
Sex-education tends not to underscore that there is a moral and relational context to sex. It tends not to say there are immoral uses of sex with subsequent consequences and that there are narcissistic uses of sex with subsequent consequences. And these scandals evidence it.
It's sad that we can't all agree to just treat people like people. John Roberts said something along the lines of 'If we want racial discrimination to end, we neednto stop discriminating on the basis of race.' It really is that simple, but where's the political advantage in that?
No two groups of Americans have more in common than those in trailer parks and projects, and they vote on polar opposite sides because of race.
Easy for Roberts to say that honestly. The reason we had to create laws to try and prohibit discrimination, was because the ones in power who you are supposed to trust to be fair were abusing their power and discriminating. We had to try and create laws over restaurants not discriminating service based on race, because there were racist restaurant owners discriminating on the basis of race.
Until you've been given the "You're not how I thought you'd be by the look of you" speech by multiple people and you know the implied connotation had to do with what I looked like/my skin color it's a bit crass for Roberts to say that. I've had plenty of managers throw away job resumes/not even offer to call qualified resumes because the name they read was an elongated African-American name.
We'll never end racism completely. That doesn't mean we should sanction it with law.
Any law or policy we put in place in an attempt to correct potential unfairness will only guarantee that we are discriminating against someone else. That isn't making anything better.
what a weird fear to be worried about people who did nothing to child rapists being denied a promotionQuote:
Mike McQueary testified that another Penn State coach had told him that Schiano had talked of seeing Sandusky abusing a boy in the early 1990s.
“Greg had come into his office white as a ghost and said he just saw Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower,”
To not be concerned at the very least how this is shaking out proves that you have no concern for due process as afforded by the constitution. I guess I shouldn't be shocked because you disagree with pretty much all parts of it.
that is far from clear
but carry on i guess
I fail to see the issue with Schiano. Our own elected officials told our military to stand down and let Men rape boys in Afghanistan. If its okay for the President to look the other way at thousands of little boys being raped why should we hold an NFL coach to a higher standard?