Gay to Straight Program in Arizona Public Schools

[cybercoma]

Alcohol makes me angry sometimes. Hit from the bong perhaps?

Whatever toasts your bagels.

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing my ass off reading this thread. Funniest thing I've read all week .

[sharkman]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing my ass off reading this thread. Funniest thing I've read all week .

No, no, that's perfect. That's about the best response one could hope for with this thread!

[kimmy]

It isn't so easy to tell when somebody is a disingenious as yourself. Do you even bother to look into anything you mentioned? Or is this just another example of a headline fulfilling a prejudice?

I don't have time to go into each one, but anyone with even a bit of curiosity would have found out that the so-called ban on oral sex isn't that at all. It was a measure aimed at minors, non-consenting adults, and in public.

While he claims the law would only be used to prosecute people who prey on minors, that doesn't change the fact that it certainly is a ban on oral sex. That's indisputable from reading the text of the law itself:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361

Cuccinelli voted against an update of the law that would have restricted the scope to minors:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+vot+S03V0137+SB0477

When Cuccinelli says he needs anti-sodomy laws to protect minors from sexual exploitation, what he's really saying is that he's incompetent, because he had other legal options to employ than the "Crimes Against Nature" law which was already known to be unconstitutional.

"My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. Theyre intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country its appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They dont comport with natural law."

-Ken Cuccinelli on banning sex acts.

The Ark isn't at all being subsized by the state. It's a private project, raising private money, taking advantage of some the more recent movies that have featured the story, like Steve Carell's Evan Almighty.

It's a private project, run by Answers In Genesis. It has nothing to do with cashing in on "Evan Almighty" or any other recent movies (*what* recent movies, btw?). Ken Ham and his friends at Answers In Genesis have stated that their goal is to promote their belief that the Noah's Ark story is literal history.

"What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world. What a powerful outreach to teach the world about Gods Word and the message of salvation!"

While there's apparently disagreement on the question of whether tax incentives are a subsidy, there's no question that the Ark Encounter could potentially receive financial benefits from the government.

All of your so-called examples come with caveats which you either didn't want to disclose, or didn't care. Either way, it's shoddy and dishonest. All in an effort to re-inforce more prejudices. Pathetic.

There's no caveats, except in (as AW pointed out) the mistake regarding the claim about Arizona deputies being ordered to carry AR15s 24/7, and the dubious distinction between subsidies and tax incentives regarding the Ark Encounters.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

There's no caveats, except in (as AW pointed out) the mistake regarding the claim about Arizona deputies being ordered to carry AR15s 24/7, and the dubious distinction between subsidies and tax incentives regarding the Ark Encounters.

As I pointed out, most of your examples aren't even pertinent; what one or two individual politicians think about this, that, or the other thing (not even the same issue) is hardly compelling evidence that this practice, likely illegal, "isn't impossible" in the Southern U.S.

Edited September 1, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

As I pointed out, most of your examples aren't even pertinent; what one or two individual politicians think about this, that, or the other thing (not even the same issue) is hardly compelling evidence that this practice, likely illegal, "isn't impossible" in the Southern U.S.

Pertinent to the specific case of "gay conversion therapy"? Or pertinent to the broader theme of social conservatism gone out of control in the southern states?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Pertinent to the specific case of "gay conversion therapy"? Or pertinent to the broader theme of social conservatism gone out of control in the southern states?

Pertinent to what is allowed, what would be a practice, in the public schools of the entire South. There are all sorts of "therapies" in private practice, which is quite a different matter from what takes place in public schools. To say something that is, in all likelihood illegal, "isn't impossible" based on nothing but a satirical piece tells me that it's some people's perceptions that have gone out of control. Along that line, whether or not "social conservatism is out of control" in the southern states is only a perception, and evidently such a perception is sometimes reinforced by a hoax, by people who I would guess have never set foot in a southern state, much less spent any significant amount of time in the South.

My question is this: if things are so bad, so out of control, why did the author of this piece feel as if he needed to resort to satire, faking quotes from real people, photo-shopping a real person's picture, to get people riled up? I would think the truth, realities, would be enough to do it.

[kimmy]

Based on the kinds of news stories that emanate from the southern US on a regular basis, would it really be that surprising to have a state legislature endorse "gay conversion" for public schools?

This wasn't a very good satire piece. "Mandatory" makes this improbable; they would know better than to make it "mandatory". And, had I been the writer I'd have set it in Mississippi or Louisiana instead of Arizona; this seems like more of a Deep South kind of a thing (it's been pointed out that Arizona isn't part of the traditional "South"; they've got their own kind of crazy.) I'd have also made it a fictional schoolboard rather than the whole state.

Nonetheless, the premise was clearly to ridicule hyperactive social conservatism, and there's certainly plenty of it to ridicule.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Based on the kinds of news stories that emanate from the southern US on a regular basis, would it really be that surprising to have a state legislature endorse "gay conversion" for public schools?

"Regular basis?" But yes. Which has been the point some here have been making.

Again.

My question is this: if things are so bad, so out of control, why did the author of this piece feel as if he needed to resort to satire, faking quotes from real people, photo-shopping a real person's picture, to get people riled up? I would think the truth, realities, would be enough to do it.

Edited September 2, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

"Regular basis?" But yes. Which has been the point some here have been making.

Again.

My question is this: if things are so bad, so out of control, why did the author of this piece feel as if he needed to resort to satire, faking quotes from real people, photo-shopping a real person's picture, to get people riled up? I would think the truth, realities, would be enough to do it.

Because the intent was humor, not activism.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Because the intent was humor, not activism.

Not according to the author.

[kimmy]

Not according to the author.

Oh? Did he say otherwise somewhere? I had a quick look for any statements from the author indicating this was anything other than comedy, and didn't see any, but I'd be interested to see anything he had to say.

I did find this video, where two reporters from the Arizona Republic discuss the hoax, and why so many people believed it:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130822arizona-schools-not-implementing-gay-conversion-therapy.html?nclick_check=1

"...but it's also the fact that Arizona has done so much crazy stuff already. We would be the most susceptible state to something like this. If somebody saw this, they would probably be more likely to believe this about Arizona than about almost any other state. ...we have many, many, many issues here. But thankfully we're not *this* crazy."

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Oh? Did he say otherwise somewhere? I had a quick look for any statements from the author indicating this was anything other than comedy, and didn't see any, but I'd be interested to see anything he had to say.

On his Facebook page, Paul Horner said he wrote the story to make it look like it was real.

He says he Photoshopped the governor's photo.

He says he wanted to get people riled up and get them to call their lawmakers, to complain about the gay-to-straight organization.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/23234159/2013/08/22/arizona-denounces-fake-story-about-gay-student-conversion-program

[kimmy]

On his Facebook page, Paul Horner said he wrote the story to make it look like it was real.

He says he Photoshopped the governor's photo.

That's standard practice. Visit The Onion or watch an episode of The Daily Show and you'll find no Photoshopped photos and news stories presented as if they were real.

He says he wanted to get people riled up and get them to call their lawmakers, to complain about the gay-to-straight organization.

Ok then, perhaps he did have activism in mind after all. He certainly seems pleased with the amount of attention his story achieved, and "People Can Change" website still has a disclaimer on their website declaring that the story was a hoax. What of it?

As the Arizona Republic reporter explained above, the whole reason this story took off is that Arizona's reputation for crazy stuff is well known, which led people to believe it could happen. If Arizona wasn't such a ripe target for being lampooned, this wouldn't have gone anywhere.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

That's standard practice. Visit The Onion or watch an episode of The Daily Show and you'll find no Photoshopped photos and news stories presented as if they were real.

I'm quite familiar with The Onion and The Daily Show. That was simply part of the quote, part of his explanation/reasoning, so I included it.

Ok then, perhaps he did have activism in mind after all. He certainly seems pleased with the amount of attention his story achieved, and "People Can Change" website still has a disclaimer on their website declaring that the story was a hoax. What of it?

"Perhaps?" How much clearer could it have been?And I already explained the "what of it" aspect.

As the Arizona Republic reporter explained above, the whole reason this story took off is that Arizona's reputation for crazy stuff is well known, which led people to believe it could happen. If Arizona wasn't such a ripe target for being lampooned, this wouldn't have gone anywhere.

I know nothing of the Arizona Republic or the two people in the video. They could be the opposite side of the Fox News coin for all I know. The story didn't "take off" with everyone by any means, and their explanation as to why it did take off with some people is simply their take on it. There are a certain number of people who will take anything and run with it, especially if it fits their mindset.This story went the "social network route," it wasn't repeated in the MSM, which speaks for why a lot of people ran with it, as I see it. I can't believe some of the stuff I've seen people believe on social networks, and it's not because "it could happen." Throw in what appears to be quotes from real people and a photo of a real person, and you've got a recipe for a lot of people believing anything.

Again. The author had to make stuff up in order to get the reaction he was going for.

Edited September 2, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Again. The author had to make stuff up in order to get the reaction he was going for.

He made up something outlandish and it took off, illustrating that outlandish legislation in Arizona is believable.

[Guest American Woman]

He made up something outlandish and it took off, illustrating that outlandish legislation in Arizona is believable.

Or illustrating that people will believe what they want to believe - without so much as confirming it? As I said, it wasn't believed by all, by any means; what the social network picks up on is hardly legitimate proof of a claim. Again. No MSM picked this story up. As a side note, most Amerricans thought Iraq had WMD, yet they were ridiculed for it; it wasn't seen as proof that it was believable that Iraq had WMD, was it?

Edited September 2, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

it wasn't believed by all

Name me one thing that everyone believes.

[Guest American Woman]

Name me one thing that everyone believes.

The "it wasn't believed by all, by any means" indicates that it wasn't believed by the masses (not even picked up by the MSM). Unlike the belief of WMD in Iraq. I see you skipped right over that. So I'll repeat it now.

Most Americans thought Saddam had WMD, yet they were ridiculed for it; it wasn't seen as evidence that it was believable that Iraq had WMD, was it?

[cybercoma]

Are you asking me if it's evidence that something's believable if most people believe it? The answer is yes, but it's a silly question.

[GostHacked]

Again. The author had to make stuff up in order to get the reaction he was going for.

That is how satire works right? You make up some stuff based on a few facts to get a reaction out of someone?

[Guest American Woman]

That is how satire works right? You make up some stuff based on a few facts to get a reaction out of someone?

Again. My point is, if things are as bad as everyone is saying they are in Arizona, he wouldn't have had to make anything up. I agree that most of the time satire is based on reality, but I don't see what the reality is here. That's what made the Sarah Palin skits on Saturday Night Live so funny. It was based on real events; real quotes. It wouldn't have been nearly as funny if Palin hadn't actually said what Tina Fey was saying in the skits. There is nothing like this going on in the public schools in Arizona. The quotes weren't real. Again. If things are so bad, he should have been able to base it on reality.

Anyway, this shows that some will believe anything/anything that fits their mindset without confirming it. It also shows that for some people, it's proof enough that this it is possible - because some people believed it, based on nothing but a satirical site and social networks. Yet many of those same people don't see the belief of the masses that Saddam had WMD as proof that it was possible that Saddam did have them. Those people were merely idiots.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, this shows that some will believe anything/anything that fits their mindset without confirming it.

That's just your opinion, stated as fact.

[Guest American Woman]

That's just your opinion, stated as fact.

Actually, it is a fact. Some did believe it without confirming it. If they had confirmed it, they would have found out it wasn't true.

[GostHacked]

Again. My point is, if things are as bad as everyone is saying they are in Arizona, he wouldn't have had to make anything up. I agree that most of the time satire is based on reality, but I don't see what the reality is here. That's what made the Sarah Palin skits on Saturday Night Live so funny. It was based on real events; real quotes. It wouldn't have been nearly as funny if Palin hadn't actually said what Tina Fey was saying in the skits. There is nothing like this going on in the public schools in Arizona. The quotes weren't real. Again. If things are so bad, he should have been able to base it on reality.

Well I do have something called 'Florida' , which is NOT satire, but does read like it. That thread got hijacked by the Treven/Zimmerman thing. But shows the really strange stuff that defies even basic logic most of the time.

Anyway, this shows that some will believe anything/anything that fits their mindset without confirming it. It also shows that for some people, it's proof enough that this it is possible - because some people believed it, based on nothing but a satirical site and social networks. Yet many of those same people don't see the belief of the masses that Saddam had WMD as proof that it was possible that Saddam did have them. Those people were merely idiots.

The difference there is that this straight-to-gay program is not as detrimental to people as a war based on complete fabrications.

The satire is what Bush said at the corespondents dinner. 'Those pesky WMD's gotta be around here somewhere!' Making fun of himself. But nice of him to crack a joke like that after blowing the crap out of a country based on lies.

You had also been caught up in something else about Quebec and language laws for dogs. Since you are not from the area, you may have taken it at face value even though it was reported in a credible news site.

Another bit of unintentional satire was the pilots names for the Asiana crash in California. It was at least obvious to me that 'Ho Le Fuk' was not the pilots real name. But the station ran with it and without question.