I got in a 2 hour long debate with my conservative math teacher today...

We got into health care, war, torture, gay marriage...the whole enchilada.


Basically he said that gay marriage should not be legal because he believes that homosexuality is "deviant" behavior. I argued that it deviates from what society considers "normal" but that "deviant" behavior does not necessarily mean bad behavior. He said that homosexuality is a behavioral act and that behavior can be changed. He also argued that AIDS has spread faster in the homosexual community than any other community. I said that if that was true it was because homosexuals are disenfranchised from society and disenfranchised groups turn towards deviant acts. The same could be seen in minority communities that migrated to the US in he last two centuries. They were rejected by unhappy Americans and they turned to crime. If we were to accept homosexuality, than things like sexual promiscuity would decrease considerably in the homosexual communities. He also argued that the main point of marriage is to "procreate" to continue the future population of the United States.

I argued that gay couples could raise adopted children. He said that he didn't want them raising kids in an environment that promoted homosexuality because he somehow thinks that gay marriage is going to increase the number of homosexuals in the US in the long run. He could be right. It would most likely decrease the amount of closeted gays, but after a while the growth in homosexuality would plateau because sexual orientation is not really a choice and it isn't necessarily socialized to any great extent.

And this was all from a non-christian perspective mind you.


He argued that torture IS justifiable in the ticking time bomb scenario. Even though I argued that torture is not only unreliable, but has been illegal for many many years. We have denounced it in the past and yet he still thinks its okay because we "probably" tortured people during WWII and it helped us win the war...


I argued that the US should not participate in "total war" (ie targeting civilian infrastructure to demoralize the population). He argued that wars should be won at all costs for the most part. I was against the bombing of Japan, white phosphorous being used by the US and Israel and he supported it. I just don't understand how you can justify intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of people, or even just thousands or hundreds of people so that you might get the population to give up hope. It just seems barbaric.

On edit: He's also an isolationist and does not believe that the US should be helping other countries; either in aid or military presence. He thinks that if a country needs to be "fixed" it should be done with internal revolution. I argued that some countries in Africa can not face revolution because the rebel groups are just as bad as the government. The people have no method of revolt. He argued that the US cannot help every single country and therefore should help no country. I argued that the UN should be given more power and built up to be what it should have always been. He had nothing to say.


Health care was another thing all together. And I'm really kind of in the dark when it comes to the technicalities of single payer vs. our health care system. Basically he said that there was no incentive to work hard in a single payer system. He also didn't know how the government would be able to set wages outside of a capitalist system. I did not have a very strong argument for single payer because I simply do not know the statistics. He pointed out that cancer death rates in the US are lower than in the UK, France or Canada. I know that that is true. But I'm not sure if that gives any strength to his argument against single payer.


Oh yeah, he also said that the Muslim community is wrong for not denouncing Islamic Extremists. I argued that many do but that a good amount of the worlds muslim population lives in Islamic states that already support terrorism. He basically thinks that Islam is bad all around. I agreed that I think that all religions are bad for society, but that Islam is no worse than any other religion.

Also on edit: He's a genius when it comes to history and he often uses that as his ammunition.


Input?

Right-wingers are known as much for their meanness and vindictiveness as their warped political views.

It might give you some arguments on health care.

Torture doesn't work. People will admit to anything in order to get them to stop. Information gained that way is, at best, suspect, and, at worst, completely useless. Even the ticking bomb scenario makes no sense given that the person could lie and continue to lie until the bomb went off. It would be a perfect delaying tactic and would screw up the whole thing.

He doesn't understand how people could be doctors because they want to help people. He thinks it's all about the money. I just had no clue how to convince him otherwise.

And that some people have a lower threshold of "give me more stuff" than he apparently does? Why own fifteen cars if you only need one or two? Why own five houses when you can only live in one (and maybe vacation in the other...I guess)? A person can only eat one meal at a time, only sit on one toilet at a time, and can only drive one car at a time. I honestly don't get these people who think that the more stuff you have when you die, the better your overall "score."

So can anyone else. People just need to find their inner humanity. He just doesn't understand that. He just thinks that if I were put in the same situation as a fortune 500 CEO, that I would also take the money. I simply refuse to accept that.

It makes me sad to hear him be such a pessimist.

By and large, they think our system WORKS and despite problems, it's the best system going.

If Canada EVER wanted to implement anything resembling the American system, DOCTORS and NURSES would be on the front lines protesting.

And I'd be standing right behind them.

He argued that that proves that our system is better. It seems like he made a good point, but I somehow feel like there's something missing.

Infant mortality is a better statistic to look at.

It's also, according to my boss, not counted as a team member safety incident. (He's got a weird sense of humor).

I would like to know what our mortality rate is without murders. I'd also like to know our morbidity rate relative to other countries but I can't find it.

;) It's not like they're really capable of grasping inconsistencies. :evilgrin:

Lifespan:
Canada Men/Women
76/83

US Men/Women
73/79

http://www.efmoody.com/longterm/lifespan.html (1996)

Infant mortality:
Canada
5.04

US
6.26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)

That's what I said.

:hi:

The Amish.

They live in their own little world most of the time and don't give much care what others do in theirs.

Said math teacher has the same avenue available to them. Live around others of a like mind, what you do is your business and what others do is theirs.

We can pass a ton of laws on x/y/z and they generally don't care, they still live their lives their way and choose to associate with others who do the same.

Freedom does not mean you have to do something, it means you and others have the choice to.

And if you are against freedom, then you are not truly a conservative math teacher. Because what conservatives say all the time is that they are for freedom.

So let people have it, and from there make your own choices on what to do with it.

as pure unadulterated truth. Unless he broadens his horizons he will remain stuck in ignorance and bigotry.

Even though deep down I know he's dead wrong. How do I convince someone who's so confident?

and when I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed opinion, I say so. When I can articulate what I believe to be the problem and the solution, it doesn't matter whether I convince them or not. Plant the seed. At least there is a counter view that enters their psyche. I have a hard time talking to, rather than talking at. I tend to take flaws in their argument, and beat them over the head with it. It's not easy, especially when you're getting hammered with illogical talking points that are repeated by rote. It's like a giant stream of bilge, running rampant. It's hard to take one little errant fact, out of the regurgitation.

Some people you just can't change. Not with logic not with passions, not with truth, not with anything. You probably could go before a judge and prove him wrong in court and he'd still think he's right.

wingnut.
As for torture helping win WWII I would have to give a huge eyeroll. Our countries massive production power, coupled with Russia's massive human costs, add technological inovations that help us kill people more efficiently and destroy their infrastructure won WWII.

which killed many thousands of civilians helped us win the war. And it seems as though he's right.

But I don't know how that makes the bombings morally justified... It just made them affective. He argues that if they are affective they ARE morally justified.

The war was lost by Germany long before Dresden. As a mathematician he should be able to reconcile this. If you can't build and maintain a war machine you will eventually lose. Every major war has been won by this simple concept.

starting a two-front war. Oh, wait.

debating with someone whose opinion isn't likely to change any time soon, if ever.

I used to do that myself.

Not anymore.

All anyone has to say to me is that marriage is mainly for procreation and I'm out of there. That means my present marriage (husband vasectomized some years before, me near menopause) was worthless from the beginning in the eyes of these morons.

Fuck 'em. They don't deserve my time or attention.

It's not about giving a shit about them. It's about hoping that by helping the ignorant asses, you help everyone else around them. I refuse to give up on those people.

Which is rarely helpful.

And I don't know a whole lot about the real inner workings of single payer. I know how it functions, but I don't know how it compares to the US system.

Plus he knows infinitely more about World History than I do being that he has a masters in history.

iow, you are asking how to change his mind, cause he's obviously so wrong, but never consider that you might be wrong, too.

iow, you are guilty of the same thing he is.

he is thinking "the facts are on my side but armyowalgreens just doesn't understand why he's wrong"

you are thinking the exact same thing about him.

personally, i may disagree with somebody, but i'm not going to go into a discussion (note: discussion not argument) with the sole intent of changing their mind.

i'm going to go in at least considering that *i* might be wrong.

or else, what's the point? you are both talking past each other.

people DO change their minds given evidence. i have, on numerous topics.

i used to be against abortion rights. i entered discussions with pro-choice advocates and my beliefs CHANGED.

everybody's scared that their cloud of comforting conviction (to borrow from russell) might disappear, and they will realize they were wrong.

but if you don't keep your mind open to that possibility, then your mind is closed, and what's the point?

Too bad that nobody aknowledge it. That is why I like visiting mixed boards. I actually love hearing the other side of the arguement. There is a lot to learn and consider from the opossition. Health care, economic policy, defense, gun rights, all have strong arguements from both sides that should not be discounted.

He's an intelligent guy. But I take what he says with a grain of salt since he automatically writes me off as a liberal loon.

Like I said, he makes good points on things, I just don't know if he's right or wrong since I have no statistics or evidence.

He actually did convince me on some good points about the Vietnam war.

i didn't want to sound so harsh. i was just saying it's pretty ironic because he's probably posting a mirror image of your post on some conservative board :)

there's an old saying, everybody has the right to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

facts is facts.

unless you are a postmodernist ... god forbid :)

i am certainly glad i talked to people who gave me (a pro-lifer) the time of day and convinced me that pro-choice was a superior policy.

Just goes to show that education doesn't necessarily mean actually learning anything.

As I said, torture is a questionable practice, not only morally, but also in terms of effectiveness. Given that torture induced women to admit to screwing a goat-headed figment of the Church's imagination before they were executed, I dare say that anyone can be induced to say anything while being tortured. Therefore, it's hard to argue that anything substantial can be gained from it. One can never trust any of it without some sort of confirmation, which renders any time limitation (the ticking bomb) worthless.

Frankly, I'm glad I'm not one of those fuckers, because I (being the creative gamer/author type I am) came to the conclusion that torture is pointless. It's sadistic and unnecessary because all one would really have to do is addict the person to something like heroin then wait for the withdrawals to kick in. For that next shot, they'd tell you anything you wanted to know. (I know, I know. I'm not that evil. But they are).

I can find enough debates here to keep that side of me satisfied (esp. given that I'm a left-libertarian Democrat). Repugs are impossible to talk to. Well, most of them. There's a kid at work who's a proud Republican and I genuinely like him. He's a good kid. Just misguided. We don't talk about politics all that much, but it's good he can see a proud liberal who's a hard worker and a "decent" human being on a regular basis to refute all the trash talk from the punditry.

Tell him they have more diagnosed cancers than us. We have thousands that are ticking time bombs and don't even know it. On torture tell him about the women and children who were abused to get answers. So hard to see someone so smart, yet so dumb.

My teacher said that it takes an average of 8 weeks for an MRI in Canada. I don't know that that is true. I can't seem to find a whole lot of comparative statistics on this.

for an MRI at the hospital (wasting two to three hours of my time when I could be doing something else) or actually have one scheduled and know exactly when I'll be given the test. I'm not sure which is worse. We may be a little too attached to the quick-fix instant gratification thing here for our own good.

That's given that he's even correct. I'll send out a question on one of my groups with people all over the world and see what I get back.

It's a way to guarantee timely access for everyone.

Whoever has the most money should get the procedure first. He loves capitalism.

What if it were HIM who had to wait for an insane amount of time because HE didn't have the funds. Would he care? What if it were his child? I worked with a woman whose little boy caught some stomach bug that ulcerated his intestines and, at last report, owed better than a hundred thousand dollars in medical bill. She wasn't turned away, luckily, but her insurance was woefully inadequate for the requirements of saving his life. Did she deserve to have her finances decimated because she wasn't rich? In someplace like Canada, he would've been treated in much the same way and she wouldn't have been financially ruined.

I can't make this shit up. He thinks that poor people are poor for a reason. And people who have crappy health insurance or no health insurance at all are in that circumstance because they didn't try hard enough.

She was a factory worker and one of the nicest people I've ever known. How can ANYONE be "fiscally responsible" enough to manage a 100,000 medical bill?

And how does he manage to reconcile his beliefs that a lot of people are rich not because of anything THEY did, but because of some ancestor who happened to fall on the right side of a situation? Not everyone has the right circumstances to be rich...no, not even in America.

I just cannot get it into his brain that America may be better than many countries, but that doesn't mean it isn't broken in a lot of ways.

Norway, for example, has a GROWING economy right now. A more averaged standard of living (oh, my, what do people do when they can't own five houses, sixteen cars, and three yachts?), universal health care, no need for military intervention anywhere in the world, and a top-notch education system including subsidized college and trade schools for all citizens.

I truly think it's the averaged incomes that get to these people the most, as if they're EVER going to be in that sort of tax bracket themselves. Why average working people give a rat's ass what happens to the rich I don't know.

And second of all, the spread of AIDS in the gay community is not due to disenfranchised groups "turning towards deviant acts."

I mean I've never been presented with that argument before, so I have no clue why the rate is higher. I've never even thought about researching that.

Deviancy alone does not denote good or bad intent or results. It's simply a move away from what is considered "normal".

As of right now, homosexuality is still not widely accepted and would still be considered "deviant" behavior relative to the general population. That doesn't mean its bad though. Over time, as homosexuality is accepted, it will no longer be "deviant".

Which is why I argued that simply because he thinks that homosexuality is "deviant" that does not mean that homosexuality is bad or immoral. His argument seemed crude at best.

that if he doesn't stop referring to my 60-something-year-old moms as "promiscuous" and "deviant," he's going to get a throat-punch from their proud daughter. Same goes for you.

It's how I feel when people here use the term "woo" or "woo-woo" to refer to my wife and people like her. Even at my age, being generally patient and tolerant, I might well lay someone out for saying that to my face.

But given that AIDs DID spread because of gay male promiscuity before anyone knew what it was, there might be a valid point there. BUT, I think it's as much an accident as anything, since it could have spread as easily through the straight population IF women were as effective at passing it as men happen to be. There's a reason it's virtually unknown in the lesbian community.

not homosexuals. In Canada at least the whole population has access to health care. Treatment usually is prioritized by urgency (seriousness of the medical condition). Hell, we've had at least two cases here where the hospital kicked out the patient from the emergency room because they had no insurance. One man died on the hospital lawn.

If he knows history, then he must know torture works to obtain FALSE confessions. I'm sure since he's such a brilliant guy, he's heard of the inquisition. Or does he think that all of those people were really flying on their brooms and having sex with the devil?

And, I bet he'd change his mind about acting so callously about war if he actually participated in one or had his family annihilated because of one. I see your professor as a sociopath. And, maybe he could actually take a look at our country (supposedly being one of the Industrialized countries) where we are in infant and mother mortality, freedom of the press, education and disparity of income compared to other industrialized countries. Hell, I'm sure we're competing just fine with some of the so-called third world countries. But hey, we're number one selling military hardware--hoo, hoo we're number one!!!

But he's not talking about Africa.

He specifically mentioned "bath houses" in San Fran?

Sure... but that was primarily accidental. It could as easily have spread through the heterosexual population given a different vector.

I was growing weary of all politicians and drifting away from all mainstream parties, but I was still conservative in my political outlook.

I was a young faculty member standing in a crowd watching an undergrad in a cowboy hat ranting on and on about why Reagan was a genius and why his policies were so wonderful. One of my students wandered up and stood next to me, and we watched together for about 15 minutes. I was basically ambivalent about the cowboy's rant, but I certainly didn't disagree with any of it. My student and I walked away and back toward our building. He eventually turned to me and said, "I cannot believe how incredibly uninformed conservatives are." I was taken back by this, and asked him to clarify. He went on to counter every point the cowboy made as being based on emotion and pure ignorance. I was not happy about this claim (it struck close to home because I didn't read any news magazines), so I started reading -- a lot! -- to try to prove this student wrong. In less than two years, I was registered as a Democrat and have never looked back.

The math teacher in the OP is running on the same fumes that I was when I was young. He may never change. He's not really a bad person, he's simply poorly informed on most subjects and makes his decisions based on emotion.

Another thing: the fact that your math teacher is a vocal conservative would be viewed as impossible by the knuckledraggers. They are convinced that there are no outspoken conversatives in any school anywhere because they would be immediately fired. In my area of study, just about everyone I know is a Republican, and half of my kids' teachers were Republicans. (One of my sons took a big F on a report for "Is Our Children Learning" because the book was too biased -- not the report, the book!). The daughter's journalism teacher had an anti-abortion calendar with a different picture of an aborted fetus for each month. :wtf:

mental disorder? Yeek.

Many parents and administrators had tried to get his sorry, ignorant butt launched from the school system, but he always wriggled of the hook.

who beats off to pics of dead babies. I wonder what it would take to get him to hit me. :evilgrin: Or TRY to hit me, anyway.

We chose to let it go because the daughter was dealing with it. I was very much like you, though, and I wanted to go nose to nose with this jerk.

I probably wouldn't have done anything unless he'd become a problem. I so rarely use my power to insult for evil purposes, but folks like that really, really get my goat.

I always hated when people hijacked classes to wage their own ideological wars.

well when he becomes king he can decide what to do about teh gay.. until then, no one gives a shit what he believes..

the more i read, the less i think there was ANY interaction with another person...this conversation would not have progressed as represented with the poster having so little knowledge to participate...

i'm not calling bullshit...but, i will think of another word sooner or later...

It never ceases to amaze me that someone shows up in a thread to try and "expose" the OP as a fraud.

I'll admit it, I'm limited when it comes to in depth knowledge on these topics. But the events described did in fact take place. I summarized a two hour debate in to a few paragraphs. Some of the fluid nature of the argument is lost when I cut it down. I left out a lot of the semantics that caused us to move from one topic to another.

Know who is most likely to produce offspring who are gay?

Heterosexuals.

He sounds like a Randhole to me

Does he consider himself to be a GOPer, a "libertarian" or "independent"? How does he feel about working for a school and not in the greater free market?

As a math teacher, does he understand statistics? As a history buff, does he know what totalitarianism is?

I presume he knows America is a Democratic-Republic, does he make a distinction between socialism and fascism?

He can have any opinion he wishes, I just find it strange that someone who considers himself to be so "informed" can repeat the most ignorant positions with little more than talking points to back them up.