As quickly as we move forward, someone is trying to drag us kicking and screaming back to the 19th century....
Link (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/17/1883121/west-virginia-abstinence-assembly/?fb_action_ids=4083731592157&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224083731592157%22%3A165588533605379%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224083731592157%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D&mobile=nc)
QuoteA West Virginia high school student is filing an injunction against her principal, who she claims is threatening to punish her for speaking out against a factually inaccurate abstinence assembly at her school. Katelyn Campbell, who is the student body vice president at George Washington High School, alleges her principal threatened to call the college where she's been accepted to report that she has "bad character."
George Washington High School recently hosted a conservative speaker, Pam Stenzel, who travels around the country to advocate an abstinence-only approach to teen sexuality. Stenzel has a long history of using inflammatory rhetoric to convince young people that they will face dire consequences for becoming sexually active. At GW's assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that "if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you" and "I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you're going to be promiscuous." She also asserted that condoms aren't safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection.
Campbell refused to attend the assembly, which was funded by a conservative religious organization called "Believe in West Virginia" and advertised with fliers that proclaimed "God's plan for sexual purity." Instead, she filed a complaint with the ACLU and began to speak out about her objections to this type of school-sponsored event. Campbell called Stenzel's presentation "slut shaming" and said that it made many students uncomfortable.
GW Principal George Aulenbacher, on the other hand, didn't see anything wrong with hosting Stenzel. "The only way to guarantee safety is abstinence. Sometimes, that can be a touchy topic, but I was not offended by her," he told the West Virginia Gazette last week.
But it didn't end with a simple difference of opinion among Campbell and her principal. The high school senior alleges that Aulenbacher threatened to call Wellesley College, where Campbell has been accepted to study in the fall, after she spoke to the press about her objections to the assembly. According to Campbell, her principal said, "How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?" Campbell alleges that Aulenbacher continued to berate her in his office, eventually driving her to tears. "He threatened me and my future in order to put forth his own personal agenda and make teachers and students feel they cant speak up because of fear of retaliation," she said of the incident.
Despite being threatened, Campbell is not backing down. She hopes that filing this injunction will protect her freedom of speech to continue advocating for comprehensive sexual health resources for West Virginia's youth. "West Virginia has the ninth highest pregnancy rate in the U.S.," Campbell told the Gazette. "I should be able to be informed in my school what birth control is and how I can get it. With the policy at GW, under George Aulenbacher, information about birth control and sex education has been suppressed. Our nurse wasn't allowed to talk about where you can get birth control for free in the city of Charleston."
Campbell's complaints about her high school reflect a problematic trend across the country. There are serious consequences when figures like Stenzel repeatedly tell young Americans that contraception isn't safe. Partly because of the scientific misinformation that often pervades abstinence-only curricula, an estimated 60 percent of young adults are misinformed about birth control's effectiveness — and some of those teens choose not to use it because they assume it won't make any difference. Predictably, the states that lack adequate sex ed requirements are also the states that have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
Some of Campbell's fellow students at GW High School are also rallying for her cause. They plan to take up the issue at a local board of education meeting, which is scheduled for Thursday evening.
Update: Via Twitter, Wellesley College has confirmed that Campbell doesn't need to worry about her spot next year:
Wellesley College @Wellesley
Katelyn Campbell, #Wellesley is excited to welcome you this fall. http://bit.ly/13jqRet
You gotta look at the principal's side of things ... I mean, what's he gonna do now with all the scarlet letters he's ordered? :hmm:
QuoteUpdate: Via Twitter, Wellesley College has confirmed that Campbell doesn't need to worry about her spot next year
Somehow, I don't think that was ever in any doubt. :lol:
Wondered how long it'd take this to get posted on Languish :lol:
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
I have no comment.
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
I loved the anti-drug cop in the clown outfit. Lolwut?
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
I don't remember any of those.
Of course, if they were in high school, it is entirely possible I skipped out on them to go get high. :hmm:
Quote"I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you're going to be promiscuous."
That would have my cue to stand up during the assembly and give her a big wink of the eye
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 11:01:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
I don't remember any of those.
Of course, if they were in high school, it is entirely possible I skipped out on them to go get high. :hmm:
:D Yo dawg, we heard you like drugs so we put drugs in your drug assemblies!
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
We had those as well. We also had the ones urging us not to kill ourselves, with special "video guest" Kirk Cameron giving us valuable encouragement. One or more of them had that horrible Whitesnake "Here I Go Again" song as the into and/or conclusion.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
We had those as well. We also had the ones urging us not to kill ourselves, with special "video guest" Kirk Cameron giving us valuable encouragement. One or more of them had that horrible Whitesnake "Here I Go Again" song as the into and/or conclusion.
So basically, it was the perfect recipe for people
to actually kill themselves.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
I loved the anti-drug cop in the clown outfit. Lolwut?
"Don't do drugs in school, or the only job you will be able to get when you grow up is to wear a clown suit in school assemblies".
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
We had one on domestic violence with that Yellow Dress play.
Also on the dangers of chewing tobacco. I saw that one right before going to the dentist.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
:hmm:
The states with the highest push for abstinence have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. These are also the same states who are pushing to outlaw abortion, or at least make it incredibly difficult to get one especially for teens.
Yes... generally harmless.
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
:hug:
We didnt get any of those boring ones. The only one I remember was about the dangers of electrical wires which was pretty cool becuse they set up live electrical wires in the gym and showed us all kinds of ways they could destroy things. The lessons learned may not have been what the school intended however as most of us were trying to figure out how to replicate what we had seen.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 11:12:35 AM
We didnt get any of those boring ones. The only one I remember was about the dangers of electrical wires which was pretty cool becuse they set up live electrical wires in the gym and showed us all kinds of ways they could destroy things. The lessons learned may not have been what the school intended however as most of us were trying to figure out how to replicate what we had seen.
Our domestic violence one wasn't boring...it was actually very creepy.
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
My kids did have abstinence-only sex education in school. :mellow:
It wasn't directed at you personally, derspiess. Rather that those kinds of "educations" are a major concern.
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 11:01:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
I don't remember any of those.
Of course, if they were in high school, it is entirely possible I skipped out on them to go get high. :hmm:
You're also ten years older than I am. Priorities changed between the 80s and the 90s. Plus, you
were super high.
Honestly, I don't think we had very many assemblies at all. I remember a couple for drug use, a couple related to the Calgary Olympics, a couple for the Canada Winter Games in 1995, and one for a federal election where the Liberal candidate told off some kid who was giving him a hard time about the war on Alberta.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:10:11 AM
:hmm:
The states with the highest push for abstinence have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. These are also the same states who are pushing to outlaw abortion, or at least make it incredibly difficult to get one especially for teens.
Yes... generally harmless.
In my lifetime WV was always a pretty liberal state when it came to abortion. And the teenage pregnancy rate is due to simple redneckedness :P
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
My kids did have abstinence-only sex education in school. :mellow:
It wasn't directed at you personally, derspiess. Rather that those kinds of "educations" are a major concern.
Abstinence only eduction is of course better known as a failure to provide sex education.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
My kids did have abstinence-only sex education in school. :mellow:
It wasn't directed at you personally, derspiess. Rather that those kinds of "educations" are a major concern.
Abstinence only eduction is of course better known as a failure to provide sex education.
:yes:
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 11:01:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
I don't remember any of those.
Of course, if they were in high school, it is entirely possible I skipped out on them to go get high. :hmm:
You're also ten years older than I am. Priorities changed between the 80s and the 90s. Plus, you were super high.
Honestly, I don't think we had very many assemblies at all. I remember a couple for drug use, a couple related to the Calgary Olympics, a couple for the Canada Winter Games in 1995, and one for a federal election where the Liberal candidate told off some kid who was giving him a hard time about the war on Alberta.
You was that kid, right?
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
How is that a swing and a miss?
You responded to a post talking about abstinence only education and said "At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year." "These things" presumably refers to assemblies about abstinence only education.
If your's were assemblies about birth control, then clearly you did not have "a couple of THESE things each year" but a couple of other things.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
We never got any of these, seeing as we were in Canada. We had our assemblies to prevent drug use.
We had those as well. We also had the ones urging us not to kill ourselves, with special "video guest" Kirk Cameron giving us valuable encouragement. One or more of them had that horrible Whitesnake "Here I Go Again" song as the into and/or conclusion.
And that would have been back before Kirk Cameron went crazy too. Wow, high class.
This student should have handled this better.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:17:57 AM
This student should have handled this better.
I'm going to regret asking this but...
How so?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 11:17:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 11:15:30 AM
You're also ten years older than I am. Priorities changed between the 80s and the 90s. Plus, you were super high.
Honestly, I don't think we had very many assemblies at all. I remember a couple for drug use, a couple related to the Calgary Olympics, a couple for the Canada Winter Games in 1995, and one for a federal election where the Liberal candidate told off some kid who was giving him a hard time about the war on Alberta.
You was that kid, right?
No, the candidate was a friend of my parents. The kid was a shit-kicking hillbilly.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
Not a slut but a whore eh? Glad we cleared that up.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2013, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
Not a slut but a whore eh? Glad we cleared that up.
I bet she has a purse full of whore pills, given to her by queen of the whores Sandra Fluke.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:19:14 AM
I'm going to regret asking this but...
How so?
Better, as in not so poorly.
Her response was suboptimal and therefor wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:17:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
A swing & a miss! We didn't have abstinence-only sex education. We were taught about birth control methods starting in 7th grade. They even had a stupid cartoon called "Captain Condom" that we had to watch.
How is that a swing and a miss?
You responded to a post talking about abstinence only education and said "At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year." "These things" presumably refers to assemblies about abstinence only education.
If your's were assemblies about birth control, then clearly you did not have "a couple of THESE things each year" but a couple of other things.
So you're saying that because abstinence was pushed in the assemblies we had abstinence-only education? Despite the fact that we were taught in class about all birth control methods?
Maybe we only had one abstinence assembly each year & the rest were anti-drug, don't kill yourself, and really bad bands that couldn't get proper gigs.
They also had one or two "movie days" each year where the school raised money by renting a VHS movie and charging us a couple bucks each to watch it :lol: Always thought that was illegal.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2013, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
Not a slut but a whore eh? Glad we cleared that up.
Attention-whore :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:17:57 AM
This student should have handled this better.
LOL, OK teach!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 11:26:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:17:57 AM
This student should have handled this better.
LOL, OK teach!
No shit. I mean, the first thing I always did when I disagreed with something at school was to contact the local press and get the ACLU involved.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:36:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 11:26:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:17:57 AM
This student should have handled this better.
LOL, OK teach!
No shit. I mean, the first thing I always did when I disagreed with something at school was to contact the local press and get the ACLU involved.
SARCASM DETECTED
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:19:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:17:57 AM
This student should have handled this better.
I'm going to regret asking this but...
How so?
I am not sure what Grumbles has in mind but as much as I agree with your objection to only having abstinence lectures as a substitue for sex education it is not clear to me why an injuction was required. In my view her actions distract us from the strength of her argument.
Of course the fact that she acted disproportionately to what had occurred is probably why this came to the attention of languish in the first place so I suppose there is something to be said for that.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:24:23 AM
Her response was suboptimal and therefor wrong.
What are the potential downsides to the way she handled it?
It's very possible she's an annoying person. She is a teenager after all. Actually given her age it's impressive she handled it at all, and not in the worst possible way.
But all that aside I'm not seeing any downsides to the way she acted.
Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2013, 11:42:30 AM
What are the potential downsides to the way she handled it?
It's very possible she's an annoying person. She is a teenager after all. Actually given her age it's impressive she handled it at all, and not in the worst possible way.
But all that aside I'm not seeing any downsides to the way she acted.
She is telling the newspaper that people who were ashamed of themselves at the assembly are "sluts." They should be able to opt out of being called "sluts" by this girl. Being referred to in the newspaper as a slut is potentially very damaging to them emotionally.
Alright, I'll concede that her actions may have been suboptimal, but maintain that they were better than expected.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 11:41:58 AM
I am not sure what Grumbles has in mind but as much as I agree with your objection to only having abstinence lectures as a substitue for sex education it is not clear to me why an injuction was required. In my view her actions distract us from the strength of her argument.
Of course the fact that she acted disproportionately to what had occurred is probably why this came to the attention of languish in the first place so I suppose there is something to be said for that.
It was escalated to that level because of how the principal handled it. She didn't immediately go to the media.
EDIT: Wait. I went back and read the article again. She did immediately go to the ACLU. Not convinced that that's a bad thing, per se, mostly because I can't see how else she could have gotten anyone's attention.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:36:07 AM
No shit. I mean, the first thing I always did when I disagreed with something at school was to contact the local press and get the ACLU involved.
Eh she is a kid, she is filled with the fires of righteousness. Irrationally thinking she can make a difference and shit.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2013, 11:42:30 AM
What are the potential downsides to the way she handled it?
It's very possible she's an annoying person. She is a teenager after all. Actually given her age it's impressive she handled it at all, and not in the worst possible way.
But all that aside I'm not seeing any downsides to the way she acted.
She is telling the newspaper that people who were ashamed of themselves at the assembly are "sluts." They should be able to opt out of being called "sluts" by this girl. Being referred to in the newspaper as a slut is potentially very damaging to them emotionally.
Maybe she's trying to reclaim the term and spin it into a more positive light. :)
Slut acceptance? The place for that is college :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:56:56 AM
Slut acceptance? The place for that is college :contract:
It seems you have issues with any kind of acceptance that has to do with women being okay with themselves. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:46:09 AM
She is telling the newspaper that people who were ashamed of themselves at the assembly are "sluts." They should be able to opt out of being called "sluts" by this girl. Being referred to in the newspaper as a slut is potentially very damaging to them emotionally.
Slut shaming is a feminist buzzword for using shame to control women's sexuality or some such. She is just using their lingo.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 11:56:56 AM
Slut acceptance? The place for that is college :contract:
It seems you have issues with any kind of acceptance that has to do with women being okay with themselves. :hmm:
IT KEEPS THEM IN THEIR PLACE
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 12:05:08 PM
IT KEEPS THEM IN THEIR PLACE
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-GgAtntN6LjA%2FUE5I7Hu2s3I%2FAAAAAAAADvg%2FpiF9RX_zt0o%2Fs1600%2Fcaveman%2Bdragging%2Bwoman.jpg&hash=007e46df2ca1dd5634de0cb4b1d9fcbf30192bc7)
Good for her :)
She should have just skipped the assembly to have sex under the bleachers. That's what I would have done. That's what I probably did, because I don't remember ever having an assembly about sex or pregnancy.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2013, 11:42:30 AM
What are the potential downsides to the way she handled it?
It's very possible she's an annoying person. She is a teenager after all. Actually given her age it's impressive she handled it at all, and not in the worst possible way.
But all that aside I'm not seeing any downsides to the way she acted.
She is telling the newspaper that people who were ashamed of themselves at the assembly are "sluts." They should be able to opt out of being called "sluts" by this girl. Being referred to in the newspaper as a slut is potentially very damaging to them emotionally.
Maybe she's trying to reclaim the term and spin it into a more positive light. :)
Some one should try to reclaim the terms "hooker", "coke fiend", and "murderess" while they are at it.
Somehow I doubt that she sincerely believed her status at Wellesley would be imperilled.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
Somehow I doubt that she sincerely believed her status at Wellesley would be imperilled.
Probably. But if the principal made the threat, that's still not cricket and she was right to raise it.
Assuming the facts are as stated, she's clearly milking the drama, but he's a blustering asshole. Given the overall backwards-ness of the assemblies he was pushing, one can overlook a certain amount of drama-llama behaviour in a HS kid. Less willing to overlook a (presumably adult) principal being a blustering asshole, particularly in such a crappy cause.
And let's not forget the blatant 1st amendment violation by hosting this freak show in the first place.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
Somehow I doubt that she sincerely believed her status at Wellesley would be imperilled.
Probably. But if the principal made the threat, that's still not cricket and she was right to raise it.
Dunno why he would have made the threat, unless he thought she was going to Wesleyan instead of Wellesley :)
I think Obama just needs to invite both of them to Washington for a beer summit to talk it over.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
And let's not forget the blatant 1st amendment violation by hosting this freak show in the first place.
Giving abstinence talks is a 1st amendment violation? :unsure:
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 01:50:01 PM
Assuming the facts are as stated, she's clearly milking the drama, but he's a blustering asshole. Given the overall backwards-ness of the assemblies he was pushing, one can overlook a certain amount of drama-llama behaviour in a HS kid. Less willing to overlook a (presumably adult) principal being a blustering asshole, particularly in such a crappy cause.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
And let's not forget the blatant 1st amendment violation by hosting this freak show in the first place.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
And let's not forget the blatant 1st amendment violation by hosting this freak show in the first place.
Freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion!
I might take this a bit more seriously if it wasn't from Think Progress. Is there a more even handed version of the story?
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 01:50:01 PM
Assuming the facts are as stated, she's clearly milking the drama, but he's a blustering asshole. Given the overall backwards-ness of the assemblies he was pushing, one can overlook a certain amount of drama-llama behaviour in a HS kid. Less willing to overlook a (presumably adult) principal being a blustering asshole, particularly in such a crappy cause.
Something tells me her parent(s) may be encouraging her drama.
Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2013, 11:50:58 AM
Alright, I'll concede that her actions may have been suboptimal, but maintain that they were better than expected.
Meri and others argued in another thread that something was wrong and a teacher should be fired because a lesson wasn't the best possible lesson. I'm demonstrating how stupid that approach is by using it here.
I don't actually have a stance here, because I don't believe either side of the story. I think the girl is lying, and so is the principal. I can't tell the relative extent of their lies, though.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Meri and others argued in another thread that something was wrong and a teacher should be fired because a lesson wasn't the best possible lesson.
Ah, I'd wondered why grumbler got so worked up in that thread.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FKatelyn-Campbell-300x276.jpg&hash=488a425d335cce83606345c8ce9b522dca457401)
2/10. Would not bang.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 18, 2013, 02:30:54 PM2/10. Would not bang.
You probably shouldn't be banging high school students anyhow.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 02:54:31 PM
You probably shouldn't be banging high school students anyhow.
:lol: ;)
She'll fit right in at Wellesley, anyhow.
She has a bright future in Human Resources.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 02:58:19 PM
She has a bright future in Human Resources.
Caliga can be her mentor.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Meri and others argued in another thread that something was wrong and a teacher should be fired because a lesson wasn't the best possible lesson.
:huh:
I did what? I said that I didn't think it was a good lesson. I don't remember even once saying that anyone should be fired for it.
But again, as I often say around here, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Giving abstinence talks is a 1st amendment violation? :unsure:
Quoteadvertised with fliers that proclaimed "God's plan for sexual purity."
Sounds like a religious message to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Giving abstinence talks is a 1st amendment violation? :unsure:
Quoteadvertised with fliers that proclaimed "God's plan for sexual purity."
Sounds like a religious message to me.
From what I've gathered the assembly included no religious messages.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Giving abstinence talks is a 1st amendment violation? :unsure:
Quoteadvertised with fliers that proclaimed "God's plan for sexual purity."
Sounds like a religious message to me.
From what I've gathered the assembly included no religious messages.
True, we dont know what was actually said but since the advertising for the talk had a religious message the smart money is on the talk being of a similar tone.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:34:55 PM
From what I've gathered the assembly included no religious messages.
If a "faith-based, Christ-centered" organization informs everyone in writing that the messages they are delivering at an assembly are "God's plan" then anything they say at that assembly is presumptively a religious message.
Jefferson High are our rivals!
Chick looks like the nerd girl from 90210.
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
Freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion!
:blink: Dude, have you heard of the anti-establishment clause? At best, this could be a grey area if it was an extracurricular activity hosted at the school. Endorsing "God's plan for sexual purity" during school activities is anything but okay.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 18, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
Freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion!
:blink: Dude, have you heard of the anti-establishment clause? At best, this could be a grey area if it was an extracurricular activity hosted at the school. Endorsing "God's plan for sexual purity" during school activities is anything but okay.
:lol:
Do you not know Berk at all?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:34:55 PM
From what I've gathered the assembly included no religious messages.
If a "faith-based, Christ-centered" organization informs everyone in writing that the messages they are delivering at an assembly are "God's plan" then anything they say at that assembly is presumptively a religious message.
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant. And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
She didnt go to the meeting ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
She didnt go to the meeting ;)
Then how does she know what was said during it? Second-hand from other kids. Come on, you *know* they'd mention religious stuff if there had been any.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
She didnt go to the meeting ;)
Then how does she know what was said during it? Second-hand from other kids. Come on, you *know* they'd mention religious stuff if there had been any.
You have gone off the rails badly.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant. And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
Just out of curiosity, is there a non-faith-based organization that believes that abstinence is the only real option?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:02:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
She didnt go to the meeting ;)
Then how does she know what was said during it? Second-hand from other kids. Come on, you *know* they'd mention religious stuff if there had been any.
You have gone off the rails badly.
Yeah. And I have GUNS :o
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant. And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
Just out of curiosity, is there a non-faith-based organization that believes that abstinence is the only real option?
Dunno.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant. And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
Just out of curiosity, is there a non-faith-based organization that believes that abstinence is the only real option?
:D
:face:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant. And you'd think that the kids offended by this woman would be mentioning religious messages if there had been any-- that's red meat for the ACLU.
Just out of curiosity, is there a non-faith-based organization that believes that abstinence is the only real option?
:D
:face:
Shooting off in the :face: is a very controversial form of birth control.
We call that "the Ide Method".
A school assembly hosting this would be amusing. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 04:14:19 PM
Shooting off in the :face: is a very controversial form of birth control.
We call that "the Ide Method".
A school assembly hosting this would be amusing. ;)
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 04:14:19 PM
Shooting off in the :face: is a very controversial form of birth control.
We call that "the Ide Method".
A school assembly hosting this would be amusing. ;)
:lol:
I sense a possible career choice for Ide opening up ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2013, 04:14:19 PM
Shooting off in the :face: is a very controversial form of birth control.
We call that "the Ide Method".
A school assembly hosting this would be amusing. ;)
It's good for the skin, baby.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2013, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
:hmm:
The states with the highest push for abstinence have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. These are also the same states who are pushing to outlaw abortion, or at least make it incredibly difficult to get one especially for teens.
Yes... generally harmless.
What demographic/neighborhoods in the state are getting pregnant early.
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 10:41:12 AM
Hmmm... On the one hand, I hate the lies and nonsense of the abstinence-only movement. On the other hand, I also hate fucking busybodies. You just know this girl is a terrible person.
She may or may not be a slut, but she's definitely an attention whore.
At my WV high school we had a couple of these things each year. IIRC nobody was required to attend but you had to go to a study hall that was presided over by the most hated teacher. So we went, sat quietly or snickered under our breath when they tried to sell us on abstinence, and when it was over we were glad that it at least got us out of a couple of classes that day.
Maybe it did prevent someone somewhere from having sex before they were ready, dunno. But it was generally harmless.
The states that push abstinence only sex education consistently having the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs suggests that in fact this isn't harmless, either generally or specifically.
Ignorance is never "harmless", even if some people can see through it.
FWIW a different article I read about this the other day mentioned in it that West Virginia actually has pretty good state-level policies on contraception and etc, but because of weak oversight of schools a lot depends on how it gets implemented since county school boards and principals can get away with ignoring State promulgated rules for years due to lack of compliance investigation.
This (http://www.dailymail.com/News/201304110267) local Charleston, WV paper is a bit more informative.
QuoteThursday April 11, 2013
Abstinence presentation causes stir at GW
by Shay Maunz
Daily Mail staff
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A visiting sex education speaker who emphasizes abstinence sparked controversy this week with an hour-long assembly at George Washington High School that some students found objectionable.
The speaker was Pam Stenzel, who travels the nation giving talks about the dangers of sex before marriage.
Her approach to sex education is to focus on the dangers of sex and the virtues of abstinence above all else. Her speaking style is abrasive.
"Really what I would call what it was is slut-shaming . . . she picked on girls who were sexually active," said Katelyn Campbell, a GW senior. "I know there were several girls who left the assembly crying because their feelings were so hurt."
No video of her speeches in Charleston were provided to the Daily Mail, but unsanctioned videos of similar talks are available at Youtube.com. Audio of her presentation at GW is available here.
The YouTube videos show Stenzel telling crowds of teenagers that "abortion is painful," that "no one has ever had more than one partner and not paid," and that a girl taking birth control "becomes 10 times more likely to contract a disease - that girl could end up sterile or dead."
Colin Hearn, president of Enlightened Communications and Stenzel's publicist, squarely rejected the notion that her teachings are "faith based" but said she's a publicly religious woman. Stenzel has a degree in psychology from Liberty University, according to her website.
Her visit here was sponsored by Believe in West Virginia, a religious group.
The group booked Stenzel for an engagement at St. Timothy Lutheran Church -- she spoke there Monday, the evening before she went to GW and Riverside high schools -- and then approached the schools with an offer to bring Stenzel there, too, and to foot the bill.
"She shared a message that expresses her opinion, and it's one that we were in support of," said John deBlecourt, Believe in West Virginia executive director. "It's not a particularly religious message. Her message is that abstinence is the safest."
Riverside Principal Valery Harper said she's heard no complaints since Stenzel was at Riverside, but students at GW have been vocal in their opposition to the assembly.
Superintendent Ron Deurring said he fielded a handful of complaints this week. One student said a parent has taken the issue to the American Civil Liberties Union.
GW Principal George Aulenbacher sat through the assembly with his students Tuesday and said it contained no religious content or mistruths and he didn't think it was inappropriate.
Students tell a different story.
"She really contributed negatively to the sexual environment at GW," Campbell said. "She used a lot of scare tactics to keep people from having sex . . . all her facts were hyperbolic or unreasonable."
Senior Julia Foley didn't attend the assembly but says she's heard plenty about it since - mainly students shocked by Stenzel's tendency to yell into the microphone or her admonition that "there's no condom for the heart."
"I just didn't think they'd bring someone in to talk about stuff like that," Foley said. "A lot of people were offended by it, and you're not going to change someone's mind that way."
Tuesday's presentation was an aside from the students' usual lessons in sexual health, which happen in classrooms throughout the year. State code requires that curriculum to emphasize abstinence but include information on other forms of birth control.
So, said Brenda Isaac, the school system's head nurse, even if they didn't get that information from Stenzel, students are getting it in school.
"Personally I like to see a whole comprehensive lesson," Isaac said. "But that happens in their classes."
Margaret Chapman Pomponio, executive director at West Virginia Free, a Charleston-based pro-choice group, said West Virginia's legislative code supports a relatively comprehensive form of sex education, though the system often breaks down during implementation.
Pomponio heard about the controversy surrounding Tuesday's assemblies this week. She called talks like Stenzel's "dangerous."
"It's not only disappointing, it's outrageous that a speaker would provide not just inaccurate facts but judgmental rhetoric aimed at hurting students," she said. "Using fear and scare tactics does not help our youth, and we know when young people are given medically accurate information, they're able to make informed decisions."
Becky Jordon, a member of the Kanawha County Board of Education, was at the assembly Tuesday, sitting with staff (her son attends GW, and she wanted to see Stenzel speak). Jordon thought there was "nothing inappropriate" about Stenzel's presentation and said that if scare tactics were employed, they were appropriate.
"You know what?" Jordon said. "I think STDs are scary. I think having a baby as a teenager is scary."
Contact writer Shay Maunz at [email protected] or 304-348-4886.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant.
Actually motivations matter quite a lot - see the Supreme Court's decisions in McCreary and Van Orden, which turned on the purpose behind what appeared to be identical monuments.
But here the problem is not motivation. It is the message itself.
Imagine a representative of a religious organization gives the following speech:
"I am here today to tell you God's plan for X. God's plan for X is a . . . b . . . c . . . etc."
That is unambiguously a religious message. Whether a,b, or c are capable of secural construction is irrelevant because they are being presented as a religious injunction.
Now take the same example, but instead of beginning the speech with the "God's plan" language, the speaker passes out a flier that contains those same words. I.e. he says the same thing, but in writing instead of orally.
That doesn't change the case at all. The message is still exactly the same, whether it is written or spoken or some of both. It is still "do a,b,c, because that is what God wants."
And the fact that a,b,c just happen coincidentally to be evangelical doctrine as to matter X is just icing on the cake.
So, some of the kids at the event told everyone there that they were sexually active and then the woman berated them for having sex? Is that right?
Why would ...
What...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Disagree. It could still be a secular message. Their motivations behind the secular message are not relevant.
Actually motivations matter quite a lot - see the Supreme Court's decisions in McCreary and Van Orden, which turned on the purpose behind what appeared to be identical monuments.
But here the problem is not motivation. It is the message itself.
Imagine a representative of a religious organization gives the following speech:
"I am here today to tell you God's plan for X. God's plan for X is a . . . b . . . c . . . etc."
That is unambiguously a religious message. Whether a,b, or c are capable of secural construction is irrelevant because they are being presented as a religious injunction.
Now take the same example, but instead of beginning the speech with the "God's plan" language, the speaker passes out a flier that contains those same words. I.e. he says the same thing, but in writing instead of orally.
That doesn't change the case at all. The message is still exactly the same, whether it is written or spoken or some of both. It is still "do a,b,c, because that is what God wants."
And the fact that a,b,c just happen coincidentally to be evangelical doctrine as to matter X is just icing on the cake.
I'll grant you that the brochure was inappropriate, but I don't see any evidence of religion in the speaker's actual message.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb.vimeocdn.com%2Fts%2F309%2F529%2F309529601_640.jpg&hash=e78a6a0617e1665242e473b552e9a5dc3946cfea)
Would not bang.
Bio: http://pamstenzel.com/MeetPam.aspx
Her "talk": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ezYNWIDB0
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2013, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 03:34:55 PM
From what I've gathered the assembly included no religious messages.
If a "faith-based, Christ-centered" organization informs everyone in writing that the messages they are delivering at an assembly are "God's plan" then anything they say at that assembly is presumptively a religious message.
I thought that faith-based was OK now, thanks to our friends at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 18, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
Freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion!
:blink: Dude, have you heard of the anti-establishment clause? At best, this could be a grey area if it was an extracurricular activity hosted at the school. Endorsing "God's plan for sexual purity" during school activities is anything but okay.
If you fold a copy of the Constitution so that the Establishment Clause and the anti-establishment clause touch, do they annihilate each other according to E=mc
2?
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2013, 05:27:42 PM
If you fold a copy of the Constitution so that the Establishment Clause and the anti-establishment clause touch, do they annihilate each other according to E=mc2?
:face: That's what I get for pulling my copy of the Constitution from the Negative Zone. :P
All of our assemblies were about winning football or basketball games.
The messages we got worked pretty well for basketball, but not at all for football.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 05:13:36 PM
Bio: http://pamstenzel.com/MeetPam.aspx
Her "talk": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ezYNWIDB0
Listened to the first video. Nothing about God. Don't know if it's accurate, but we had a lot of people come to talk to us about drugs who weren't exactly honest. We also had some strange guy raving against racist maps.
Tim's maps are jingoist, not racist.
map sucks
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 07:06:53 PM
Tim's maps are jingoist, not racist.
I've always remember this guy's crank theory on how the Mercator projection is a racist plot against Africans.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 05:13:36 PM
Bio: http://pamstenzel.com/MeetPam.aspx
Her "talk": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ezYNWIDB0
Listened to the first video. Nothing about God. Don't know if it's accurate, but we had a lot of people come to talk to us about drugs who weren't exactly honest. We also had some strange guy raving against racist maps.
Why do they always have to be porkers teaching this shit. Just once they should bring in a hottie. Those kids aint paying attention to shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 07:06:53 PM
Tim's maps are jingoist, not racist.
I've always remember this guy's crank theory on how the Mercator projection is a racist plot against Africans.
The problem with the Mercator projection is that it distorts the actual sizes of land masses. Some folks have noted that it makes Africa look a lot smaller than it actually is (and Greenland as almost the same size as Africa(!)). This is supposed to be a slight against Africans, apparently. Its only real use nowadays is for navigation, as it's still really accurate for that.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 18, 2013, 07:19:40 PM
Why do they always have to be porkers teaching this shit. Just once they should bring in a hottie. Those kids aint paying attention to shit.
Because hot chicks can get real jobs. Duh.
I like her motto though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshoppamstenzel.com%2Fimages%2FProduct%2Fmedium%2F36.jpg&hash=fdc178fb7db6fb0e5a20aeec56859b39f46236ad)
We should all strive to go the distance.... :perv:
Quote from: 11B4V on April 18, 2013, 07:22:44 PM
I like her motto though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshoppamstenzel.com%2Fimages%2FProduct%2Fmedium%2F36.jpg&hash=fdc178fb7db6fb0e5a20aeec56859b39f46236ad)
We should all strive to go the distance.... :perv:
Great, the Cake song popped into my head.
Every time I hear that song I think of my nigga JD McDuffie. R.I.P, JD. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb.vimeocdn.com%2Fts%2F309%2F529%2F309529601_640.jpg&hash=e78a6a0617e1665242e473b552e9a5dc3946cfea)
Would not bang.
Pam Stenzel likes pretzels.
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb.vimeocdn.com%2Fts%2F309%2F529%2F309529601_640.jpg&hash=e78a6a0617e1665242e473b552e9a5dc3946cfea)
Would not bang.
Pam Stenzel likes pretzels.
Looks damaged, also has an eating disorder
ugh, annoying accent too, judging by the video:
"I WAHNT to talk to you WAAAAN AHN WAAAAN"
I'm guessing she also WAHNTS a pickle and sport peppers AHN her HAAAAAT DAAAAAAAGS.
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 07:27:35 PM
Pam Stenzel likes pretzels.
If only. Takes a lot more than pretzels to get that big.
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2013, 07:31:46 PM
ugh, annoying accent too, judging by the video:
"I WAHNT to talk to you WAAAAN AHN WAAAAN"
I'm guessing she also WAHNTS a pickle and sport peppers AHN her HAAAAAT DAAAAAAAGS.
ebonics. wigger speak.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 07:27:35 PM
Pam Stenzel likes pretzels.
If only. Takes a lot more than pretzels to get that big.
Deep fried soft pretzels smothered in cheez whiz.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 07:06:53 PM
Tim's maps are jingoist, not racist.
I've always remember this guy's crank theory on how the Mercator projection is a racist plot against Africans.
The problem with the Mercator projection is that it distorts the actual sizes of land masses. Some folks have noted that it makes Africa look a lot smaller than it actually is (and Greenland as almost the same size as Africa(!)). This is supposed to be a slight against Africans, apparently. Its only real use nowadays is for navigation, as it's still really accurate for that.
He seemed to think he had a map with no distortion which is mathematically impossible, at least for a rectangular map. Guy was a nutter.