>>56161
>People used to believe the earth was flat too
No, they didn't. That's a myth started by the Enlightenment to make themselves seem "smarter" than all previous generations. We've known since the the dawn of time that the Earth was a sphere thinks to simple observations like noticing how shadows work differently depending on wherever you are. In addition to that, people knew about continents like the Americas for several millennia:
https://archive.ph/ALkpl
The only reason why they didn't go there is because they had no reason to, outside of voyages for the purposes of searching for the divine (As was the case with Saint Brendan) or conquest (As was the case with the vikings).
>I think the truth is simply an estimation of what you think it correct at the time
That's what's referred to as "subjective truth".
>and if you're too stubborn to consider you might be wrong about what you think is the truth, you're no better than a religious nutjob
What makes something "true" is that it's a fact that cannot be argued as it's true regardless of whoever you are or how you reach the conclusion. The sun rising in the East and setting in the West is one such "objective truth", that is true regardless if you make that declaration based on just watching the ball of fire in the sky or using scientific instruments to calculate that the Earth is spinning on an axis in orbit around the sun. If I have one object, and then acquire another of the same object, then I have two objects
which is an objective truth.
>I think it's good for children to be taught to look at things from a different perspective instead of being forced to accept one thing as the truth, it promotes critical thinking.
No, it doesn't. "Critical" means two entirely different things. The first is the dictionary definition, which directs to the word "criticize", which is defined as:
<to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly ((C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved)
The
SECOND definition, and where things go horribly wrong, is the political definition of "critical", which is defined as:
https://archive.ph/Uo1aj
<An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that “objectivity” is desirable, or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed, we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. This term captures the understanding that all content and all means of knowledge are connected to social context.
<...
<In these ways educators who teach from a critical perspective guide their students in an examination of the relationship between their frames of reference and the knowledge they accept and reproduce.
In layman's terms, the political defintion of "critical" is teaching people to view the world and knowledge as being entirely a subjective affair, with systems of "knowledge" only existing through power dynamics.
To repeat what I said earlier, that what is "true" can be forced through the barrel of a gun.
>That said the way schools teach kids about this stuff nowadays goes way too far, it's practically grooming.
They're doing exactly the thing you want them to do. They're teaching the kids how to have a critical consciousness:
https://archive.ph/wtZqR
And they
CANNOT, nor
EVER, go "too far" with it because implying as such shows that you're in favor of the status quo and haven't awakened to the "power dynamics" of the world.
IOW, you're a "gay person" who doesn't want to be a "gay voice".
>Sounds like he wanted to replace one "tyranny of the majority" system with another that was more to his liking.
Rousseau, and many of the people following from him, want to live completely irresponsible lives, and have everyone else pick up the slack for him because of how "smart" they are.
>I just wanted to suck his dick, I still don't see how me touching it with my hand was okay but with my mouth crossed the line.
It made him uncomfortable somewhere, that's simply it and there's no reason to get angry over it.
>I like things casual, it makes me feel more at ease and less stressful on the job.
This is my personal opinion on the matter, just wanted to get that out of the way on this one because this is how I view it and don't consider it a part of the main discussion. It doesn't matter one bit how "comfortable" you are at a job. Your job doesn't exist to serve "you". Your job exists to serve the customer, and be a representative for the company you work for. And are you really serving the customer in the best way possible, and being he best representive for the company that you're working for, by dressing casually and talking with a foul mouth? Would you, as a customer, desire to receive service from you? Or would you, as your supervisor, consider youself worthy of a promotion?
>What is there to understand about sex?
It's an addictive act that changes your view of the world and other people. Even fapping is just enough to cause a substantial shift in attitude.
>The only real issue I see is STDs, but you never see that brought up as an argument.
I often due in my arguments. Celibacy is the only 100% sure-fire method to avoid catching any of the downsides related to sexual activity.
>It's always about consent, specifically age of consent, but it's not even the same age everywhere
Actually, it is. Outside of third-world countries, the generally accepted age for AOC is 14-16.
>can you explain why it's 18 in some places and 16 or even 14 in others?
One reason is that, like I said earlier, it's a method to coddly people later into life so that they never mentally "mature". Another reason I've often seen thrown around is that it's Feminists trying to control the sexual activity of men. A third reason I can think of is that the laws are from decades ago, that still officially "exist" on the books, but other rules (Either unspoken or official) supercede that law.
I've seen Japan brought up most often in regards to this, where AOC is "officially" 13, but newer regional laws have upped it to 16-18, with the only regions still having those original laws being a couple uninhabited islands. A fourth reason could be that different countries view sex differently and their laws reflect that.
There's multiple reasons behind it.
>These are actually physically dangerous (a lot of people die in traffic every day) or simply bad for your health.
So is getting addicted to sex.
>It's not uncommon for teenagers to have part-time jobs stacking shelves or delivering newspapers.
Yeah, when you turn 16. Until child labor laws came into place, kids as young as 8-10 used to have full-time jobs on top of school. And the implementation of those laws have caused nothing but problems.
>Okay so if we have to protect kids from themselves, let's ban...
Wrong answer
Where's the parents in all this? What happened to them being the ones who actually raised the kid? Determined what was and wasn't "safe", how they were introduced to certain things, etc.
>Don't you see how what you said before this only reinforces the problem?
No, I don't because we're arguing over different problems. I'm complaining the fact that the government is getting too involved in how people's kids are raised, and it's causing the problem that people are never able to actually develop and mentally mature. Meanwhile your argument thus far is that they're
already mature. That's two different standpoints.
>>56165
I find a hard time disagreeing with your po-...
>I used bing copilot to generate this reply[Expand Post]
Well, fuck you, too!
>There are entire boards that actually cover this argument
No, there isn't. Like I said earlier, everytime someone "attempts" to have a discussion on this topic, it's either censored or is dead from the start.
>>56180
>don't super straights and super gays have the same flag?
Yes, but you're still a fag by default for even "needing" a flag. Unless you're posting it to be ironic or to anger the trannies.