Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 09-20-2007, 10:20 PM

This would be a *very* healthy attitude, save that we try to put sex ed in schools, but ironically have to cater to the values of the ignorant who have "theological" objections, because it just doesn't work that way. Case in point, just within my mothers generation is was simply **not** talked about. In fact, it was so not talked about that my mother thought she was bleeding to death when she had her first period, she pretty much had no clue about anything, and she even freaked the first time my dad tried to French kiss her. She also got married before she got out of high school, and never went on to college.

See, the problem is, the same clowns whose dangerous and absurd views on the subject we cater to, by letting them keep their kids out of the class, are also trying to gut the classes, and replace them with ones that leave **all** kids as ignorant as my mother was. Sadly, so long as parents are so indoctrinated into ignorance and focused on how they must be right, because it just seems icky and anti-Jesus to do it otherwise, then the rest of us have to a) force *real* education to happen, and b) hope that most of the parents of just as ignorant, but less stupidly ignorant, and won't notice that we are actually teaching their kids anything. If they do notice.. Sadly, they are bound to side of the loonies, on the grounds that its OK to teach A, B and C, but never D, because D is just *wrong* somehow to talk about. Sadly, that can be used to describe damn near "anything" you teach. Reading? Well, book A, B and C are OK, but, "How dare you let my kid read 'Catcher in the Rye'!?!" Name a subject, and I am sure there is "something" in it that one or both parents, of some kids, would irrationally object to, on no better grounds that what they either imagine it promotes, to if they think its "appropriate" for a girl/boy to be doing "that sort of thing". Gives me a headache sometimes just thinking about some of the blatant stupidity I have seen better parents and some school, over some of the most ludicrously silly nonsense or delusional projection of motives/imaginary consequences.

Oh, and BTW, just to clear something up. 99% of furries are just as anti-bestiality as normal people. Its play acting, or personal association with the traits of some animal species, or one of a variety of other things, none of which really have anything to do with wanting to mount a horse the wrong way. Most of them, even if they where willing to consider going beyond what they think, would reject it on the grounds that animals are not, as a rule, sufficiently sapient to be equal partners in such a relationship. That is in fact almost a direct quote of the conclusions reached by the majority on a furry news server I posted on for a while. I left mainly because almost no one posted any good art to the server and the only other thing anyone ever did was 1-2 people who constantly trolled for political discussions, in which they showed a **completely** and total lack of ability to learn anything, but just repeated the same silly assertions every time they brought some subject up. I got tired of the intellectual leftist equivalent on there or going to a right wing website. Same inability to learn, same refusal to acknowledge any point made by the other side, same sort of, "This is true.. is true.. true.. ue... e...", posting. Only difference was, on usenet, they can't just delete posts by people that don't pander to their viewpoint. lol Still, it was only one constant fool, and one guy I 90% agreed with, but liked to go all, as he called it, "Radical Deconstructionist" on me, when ever certain subjects cropped up. It just wasn't worth sticking around for the rare times someone posted good art.

In any case, of all the posters, probably 20 regulars, only two suggested that, in principle, there wasn't anything "wrong" with sleeping with animals, other than some drastically overblown odds of disease, etc. (which are probably lower than contracting one of several types of herpes doing it with a human. After all, cold sores "are" a form of herpes, and that effects like what 25% of the populous or something?), but that they wouldn't personally do it themselves either. That is kind of a far cry from the idea that furries are all closet animalphiles.

09-20-2007, 10:20 PM	#41
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Re: Sex & Violence This would be a very healthy attitude, save that we try to put sex ed in schools, but ironically have to cater to the values of the ignorant who have "theological" objections, because it just doesn't work that way. Case in point, just within my mothers generation is was simply not talked about. In fact, it was so not talked about that my mother thought she was bleeding to death when she had her first period, she pretty much had no clue about anything, and she even freaked the first time my dad tried to French kiss her. She also got married before she got out of high school, and never went on to college. See, the problem is, the same clowns whose dangerous and absurd views on the subject we cater to, by letting them keep their kids out of the class, are also trying to gut the classes, and replace them with ones that leave all kids as ignorant as my mother was. Sadly, so long as parents are so indoctrinated into ignorance and focused on how they must be right, because it just seems icky and anti-Jesus to do it otherwise, then the rest of us have to a) force real education to happen, and b) hope that most of the parents of just as ignorant, but less stupidly ignorant, and won't notice that we are actually teaching their kids anything. If they do notice.. Sadly, they are bound to side of the loonies, on the grounds that its OK to teach A, B and C, but never D, because D is just wrong somehow to talk about. Sadly, that can be used to describe damn near "anything" you teach. Reading? Well, book A, B and C are OK, but, "How dare you let my kid read 'Catcher in the Rye'!?!" Name a subject, and I am sure there is "something" in it that one or both parents, of some kids, would irrationally object to, on no better grounds that what they either imagine it promotes, to if they think its "appropriate" for a girl/boy to be doing "that sort of thing". Gives me a headache sometimes just thinking about some of the blatant stupidity I have seen better parents and some school, over some of the most ludicrously silly nonsense or delusional projection of motives/imaginary consequences. Oh, and BTW, just to clear something up. 99% of furries are just as anti-bestiality as normal people. Its play acting, or personal association with the traits of some animal species, or one of a variety of other things, none of which really have anything to do with wanting to mount a horse the wrong way. Most of them, even if they where willing to consider going beyond what they think, would reject it on the grounds that animals are not, as a rule, sufficiently sapient to be equal partners in such a relationship. That is in fact almost a direct quote of the conclusions reached by the majority on a furry news server I posted on for a while. I left mainly because almost no one posted any good art to the server and the only other thing anyone ever did was 1-2 people who constantly trolled for political discussions, in which they showed a completely and total lack of ability to learn anything, but just repeated the same silly assertions every time they brought some subject up. I got tired of the intellectual leftist equivalent on there or going to a right wing website. Same inability to learn, same refusal to acknowledge any point made by the other side, same sort of, "This is true.. is true.. true.. ue... e...", posting. Only difference was, on usenet, they can't just delete posts by people that don't pander to their viewpoint. lol Still, it was only one constant fool, and one guy I 90% agreed with, but liked to go all, as he called it, "Radical Deconstructionist" on me, when ever certain subjects cropped up. It just wasn't worth sticking around for the rare times someone posted good art. In any case, of all the posters, probably 20 regulars, only two suggested that, in principle, there wasn't anything "wrong" with sleeping with animals, other than some drastically overblown odds of disease, etc. (which are probably lower than contracting one of several types of herpes doing it with a human. After all, cold sores "are" a form of herpes, and that effects like what 25% of the populous or something?), but that they wouldn't personally do it themselves either. That is kind of a far cry from the idea that furries are all closet animalphiles.