Has new information caused you to revise your opinion about something?

I used to think the policy preventing men who have had sex with other men within the past year from donating blood was bigoted and wrong, but I do not think so anymore. The change in my opinion is based on what I’ve learned about the statistics surrounding HIV positivity in gay men versus the general population and the rate at which false negatives occur in blood tests. As someone who has had a lot of blood transfusions I’m glad that we take some extra measures to ensure the blood is safe, now that I understand the situation.

I’ve accepted the fact that I have to vote for Hillary Clinton.

@Love_my_doggie Don’t think of it as a vote for Hillary but as a vote for the Supreme Court Justice. It helps the medicine go down.

All the time

There have been a few things, it not a few more, in which I had a change of position on, but I won’t mention them less someone else hijack the thread.

Well, @Hypocrisy_Central, this thread has been quiescent for 3 days now. Go ahead and mention. I’m interested.

Of course, that’s what being conscious is all about. When new information enters the system it is evaluated and taken to heart if need be.
I have revised my opinion on many things from social norms to personal relationships as new information and, most importantly, new experiences manifest.

Well said, @Coloma. Only a foolish person would never revise their opinions, ever.

I’ve revised mine a lot, in so many areas, as the years have gone by.

Constantly. I overhaul small things regularly and occasionally my core beliefs are forced to shift, as well. If the evidence presented is contrary to what I currently hold to be true, what choice do I have? I don’t understand people who don’t grasp that.

Multiple GA’s @ANef_is_Enuf.

Yes.

I’ve changed my opinion on so many things large and small.

Just to name a few things, homeschooling, medical care, relationships, religion, too many things to list.

Yes my opinions and worldviews have changed several times through my life based on new information.

@JLeslie how have your beliefs about homeschooling changed? Just curious. It seems like it can either be a great thing or a terrible thing depending on the parents.

@trolltoll Until my mid 20’s I felt homeschooling was a bad idea. I associated it with the religious fanatics, believed it isolated children, and deprived children of advanced studies in some cases. One day, my sister told me she wished she had had the option of being homeschooled, because she was so incredibly miserable in school. Chosen last when the kids chose teams for sports was one thing she named. I don’t remember the others. In that moment I began to change my mind. Although, one thing I should point out was the public school system gave her free help with her speech impediment, which was completely cured while in elementary school.

I also should point out I still think large public schools offer an incredible array of electives, after school possibilities, some have vocational training and we shouldn’t forget AP classes. This is all an incredible opportunity for most children. But, some children do better in private school, and some do better homeschooled. I think it depends on the child, and it can change over their schooling years. I know a girl who was homeschooled through tenth grade, and then the family moved and the new location had a performing arts magnet school so she went to that high school, because she was a ballerina. I have friend whose youngest sister was homeschooled only grades 8–10, and then went back to public school.

I still don’t like when it’s the religious right “over” sheltering their child. When the child will be basically undereducated. I am not saying the religious always have this situation when homeschooling. I’m only saying when it’s the case I don’t like it.

I still have mixed feelings about homeschooling @JLeslie. I trust people like @Seek to home-school their kids, but in general, I have yet to meet someone, in person, who home-schools their kids that I would let teach my kids.

I used to have a Christian friend who decided to home-school, for religious reasons. It seemed her version was to put workbooks in front of them and leave it at that. We were pretty close, and she never spoke of field trips or anything other than those workbooks.
It lasted 2 years before it interfered with her daily stuff and she put them back in public schools…and they each had to repeat the previous year.

When I was teaching in the adult high school diploma program, we had two students who wanted to enroll, but their parents couldn’t come up with their records, and had not filed them with the school district…which, I don’t know if they’re supposed to or not. I would think they would.
They had to start their adult education from the 7th grade on. We gave them the option of testing out in whatever subject, and a they smacked through a couple of requirements, like that, but for the most part they had to start all over. Years of work ahead of them (depending on how fast they worked.)

@Dutchess_III Now, many years later from whence I first changed my mind about homeschooling, I have friends and acquaintances who home school their kids. Here’s a run down:

A friend, who is an accountant, and her husband an engineer and professor, homeschooled their three kids. The oldest mainstreamed to public school for middle and high. The other two have stayed at home and are must be both at high school level I think? Maybe the youngest not quite. I don’t remember their ages.

One summer we had a couple of teen ballerinas stay with us, and one was homeschooled through 10th grade. She did just fine in high school (11 and 12 grade) and college. Her parents had college degrees, and has worked corporate for years, until they bought their own business.

Another friend, I mentioned her above, she was one of five kids, and only the youngest was homeschooled in middle school, because she was getting into trouble.

Another friend, who has a college degree, homeschooled her kid through third grade.

I only mention the college degree, because it demonstrates that the parents value formal education and can handle most subject matter, especially elementary age, so they are able to help their children with the work. I’m not implying people without a college degree can’t also have those skills. My mom has a college degree, but couldn’t help me with math past 5th grade.

I agree with all of that. I’m much more comfortable with homeschooling since the 90’s. Not so much in the 80’s.

@Dutchess_III I can understand that. Also, I think the laws vary quite a bit from state to state regarding homeschooling.

My girlfriend was pressuring me into homeschooling. I was in the middle of achieving my education degree at the time. I mumbled something like, “I don’t think I’d be qualified, really.” Also, I was a single mother and I was getting my degree so I could support my kids by getting PAID to teach 8–5, five days a week. That doesn’t really leave room for homeschooling, does it.

She sometimes had no clue. One time she was bugging me to get a membership at a gym. It was, I think, $30 a month. I said, “I don’t have the money to do that.”
She said, “Oh, they just take it right out of your checking account. You don’t have to sit down and write a check to them every month, or something.” Say…huh??

She was able to be a stay at home mom. Still is, as far as I know.

That’s the thing. Homeschooling is for those who have the time and money for it. The exception is if a high school kid can truly do it on their own. They can be home alone while the parents are out working.

I would have done terribly being homeschooled. I wasn’t self motivated, and I am mostly an auditory and visual learner. I need the lecture. The only major plus would have been later hours. I missed a ton of school in my teen years, because it started so early in the morning. Especially, 10th grade. Waking up was a torture.

Did you know that to teach whatever subject in high school, you have to have at least a Masters in that field?
That right there disqualifies me from teaching HS subjects. Elementary school is fine, if you have the time, the money, and the discipline. Middle school is a bit iffy. High school, no way. No more than I’d feel qualified to teach any random college class.

My senior year, my 1st hour teacher used to call me to get my happy butt up in time to be in her class. She was the best teacher ever.

Oh, the other thing about home schooling…I think the relationship between the child-student, and the parent-teacher, is too close to be able to have an effective, objective learning experience.

^^Depends on the state.

If you’re referring to HS teachers needing a masters in their field, in Kansas they do. But I don’t know about other states. I’m surprised Kansas doesn’t allow people who only went as far as the 6th grade to teach in public schools. Kansas is all kinds of messed up.

Yes, I’m talking about high school teachers needing a master’s. It varies by state.

In New York state, they need a Master’s but not in the subject. They need a Master’s in Teaching. They can get hired with just a Bachelor’s but then must get the Master’s within 5 years. There is so much competition that it’s not likely they’ll get hired with just the Bachelors, unless they want to apply at parochial schools (and then they’ll make way less and have to do more extracurriculars). Starting salary around here is about 25k at parochial schools, and about double that or more at public school. In my area, about 75k at public schools, in NYC about 50 or 60k at public school.

@jca I Think FL, TN, and NC are like that. You can have a BA, but then you need to complete the supposed requirements within a certain amount of years. That to me means it isn’t required to have a master’s. Sure, if you want a 30 year career in teaching you need one, but you don’t need it to get the job. If it’s so important why do they allow 3–5 years of hundreds of children get educated by a teacher who hasn’t yet completed their master’s degree? That group of kids aren’t as important as the kids who get that teacher in the latter 25 years of her/his career?

I think the level of education has more to do with where it puts you on the pay scale, rather than your ability to teach the students, really. I mean, you’re teaching them all the same things. I don’t think having a masters necessarily makes one a better teacher.
The schools seem to have a hard time deciding on some criteria to decide how qualified a person it. In Kansas they get paid based on 1) level of education and 2) years teaching. There doesn’t seem to be any room for rewards based on one’s competence.

@JLeslie: In order to stand in front of a public school classroom, you also need a Teaching Certificate in NYS. Like I said, around here you’re not getting hired without a Master’s because there’s just so much competition. Not sure if that’s the case upstate.

@jca Yeah, I think they relax the rules when they need teachers.

@Dutchess_III Well, @Hypocrisy_Central, this thread has been quiescent for 3 days now. Go ahead and mention. I’m interested.
Based off information, revelation, and facts gleaned I have had a reverse of opinion on:
• Religion vs relationship.
• Whaling.
• Wearing of bras.
• Climate change (for those who don’t like Global Warming)
• Science.
• Democracy
• Pedophilia
• Zoophilia
• Pitbull dogs
Some thoughts I amended.

How have your opinions changed on those things, @Hypocrisy_Central?

^ How have your opinions changed on those things, @Hypocrisy_Central?
How did I know you were going to ask that? ~~

Religion vs relationship.
Religion is about rules, the dos, and don’ts, you can have a religion around anything. To have a relationship, is to have fellowship with God, where He is an active part and component of one’s life not merely an idol or idea one worships but have no interaction with and never see his/hers/its power move.

Whaling
In essence it is no difference than the harvesting of cows and chickens, the euthanizing of dogs and cats, or the culling of deer or buffalo. How dear one sees the animal is a flaw, or distraction of the human condition to be emotional to things that logically need no one to be emotional about. Whaling to the Japanese (and anyone else who does it) is equal to raising s pig from birth for the sole reason of putting it on the dinner table, they just did not raise the whale but hunted it like a deer.

Wearing of bras.
I use to believe the myth that the twins would be around a woman’s naval if she did not wear a bra, and that every woman that was not near flat-chested had to wear one. I have very, very rarely seen a woman past 45 who did not have sag to her boobs much less those who always wore a bra so their whatever should never have had strain on them and thus be like new from lack of use, also I have seen plenty of younger women larger than a ‘B’ cup that did not need a bra. Add that to the science that is out there, myth busters say, women having to wear bras are a myth; if anything it is more about women being shamed into it by thinking they are titillating men by not doing so.

Climate change (for those who don’t like Global Warming)
Going back to the science, the Earth over eons of time have gone through cycles of cooler and warmer periods. Whatever man thinks he is doing, I have not seen any evidence in history where he has changed anything globally. Man is capable of polluting a portion of the world, even a great deal as in WWII, but the Earth was never permanently damage in that, so I cannot see a few extra aerosol cans doing the world in.

Science.
When I was more into religion than a relationship, I was somewhat threatened by science as trying to prove there was no God, but as I grew in the relationship He was able to show me how science explains how He did things, those He allowed man to discover, but also how as great as scientist believe science is or their interpretation of it, much of it is theory and speculation, meaning they can’t really prove it or reproduce it, not like electricity, or fire, etc. I am not opposing to science.

Democracy
I use to think democracy as the US implemented it was the best in the world. As media and the Web made it easier to get access to information, and from independent sources and foreign press that had no need to spin what they put out to make their party look good, I started to see many similarities in other nations and their systems, with all the greed and corruption that goes with it. The only redeeming aspect of democracy is capitalism, without it democracy would be a failure.

Pedophilia, Zoophilia
Buckle your seatbelts Buckaroos, here is where many get vexed. I use to think those who do those acts were worse humans than others. Even though they both basically come from selfish sexual fulfillment, as a sin they are no different than fornicating heteros, or gays, all are outside the construct of sexual relations as He intended it. One can try to justify one over the other greatly or by little applying emotionally backed logic, and in some cases actual physical logic, but it usually falls to what one chooses to believe and feel aside from any actual logic. If gal wants to sex up her Ridgeback or Great Dane, she is outside the intended sexual contact as if she did anything else with anyone else who was not male and she was not married to.

Pitbull dogs
A reversal of another myth where I thought the breed or dogs were just born mean, and no what anyone did, they would just be vicious. I have then known quite a few people who had Pitbulls, one who even ran a home for disable children, and the dog never got vicious or attacked any of the children even when they in their slight mental state (some of them) would tease and antagonize the dog. Other people I know, or knew of, had Pitbulls that were powder puffs, an alley cat would have ran them off, so I had to surmise it was the owner’s training and not the breed itself.

Why do you insist on using juvenile terms to describe female anatomy? The “twins?” Really? They are called “breasts.”

I can’t believe you lumped pedophilia, zoophilia under one heading, like they’re just whatevers. Like they’re two sides of a coin. Maybe having sex with an animal is “whatever,” but sexually attacking a child is monstrous and those people need to die.

And it’s men who are prone to sticking their dicks into random holes, like dogs and pigs. Not women.

You really have some sexual issues, HC.

^ Why do you insist on using juvenile terms to describe female anatomy?
So, those women I overhear talking (because they speak so loud) calling their vagina their V-jay jay, hooha, or straight out pussy, should be told by someone not to use juvenile terms? What other slang is juvenile?

I can’t believe you lumped pedophilia, zoophilia under one heading, like they’re just whatevers.
I knew you wouldn’t because you process it from and emotional standpoint that overrides the logic broken down to its core. Where I come from, and you are sure to use it as furthering your agenda against faith, but it is what it is, sex is only legal or moral with one man and one woman married, once you are out that door none of it is right, so in what way it is wrong, it is wrong, emotions, personal acceptance etc. notwithstanding.

And it’s men who are prone to sticking their dicks into random holes, like dogs and pigs. Not women.
There are men who do not care to stick their dick (oh, we can’t use juvenile slang for sex parts) penis in women but each other, the end result, their penis is not going where you call nature, and I call the Creator designed it to go, unless you want to refute biology.

You really have some sexual issues, HC.
I am not the one trying to somehow justify sexuality that is beyond one man and one woman married, if THAT is a sexual issue to anyone, then I guess that is my only sexual issue.

Lol, being okay with sex between consenting adults of the same sex or consenting unmarried adults is sooooooo fucking far from being okay with somebody raping a child. Absolutely nobody on the “other side” of this issue from you thinks that pedophilia is okay, HC.

^ [..being okay with sex between consenting adults of the same sex or consenting unmarried adults is sooooooo fucking far from being okay with somebody raping a child.
At one time I filtered it through an emotional lens as you, @Dutchess_III, and some others filtered it. Just the way you filter any sexual contact between who you believe is a child and an adult, you say rape, but your concept is not universal, all-inclusive for everyone, so it is a pointless standard to try and use. Beyond that, which is a different matter anyhow, look at it this way, if sex of a married man and woman is landing on the flight deck, unmarried sex between a man and a woman is five feet short of the flight deck, a married man or woman having sex with someone other than their spouse is five yard short of the flight deck, a person having sex with the same sex is missing the flight deck by fifteen yards, sex with a clear child, way below adolescence even is missing by fifty yards, and sex with Fido is missing by one hundred and fifty yards, none of it matter, if you miss the flight deck it doesn’t matter how much you miss it by; the jets is in the drink and you are fishing the pilot out of the surf.

Absolutely nobody on the “other side” of this issue from you thinks that pedophilia is okay, HC.
People filter and determine that from an emotional state, true basic logic notwithstanding. A person can have pedophilic leanings and never act on them, if I were to be emotional I would say they are wrong to have it even though they don’t act on it but OK with someone who wanted to be with the same sex and acts on it; I would be the top of hypocrisy. However, if a parson acts on their pedophilia in the end it is no different than fornication (be it in the same sex or with an opposite), having sex with a beast, or being disloyal to your marriage by being unfaithful to your spouse, because the standards I follow is sex is the covenant reserved for married couples of opposite sex. If I were to view otherwise, to try to give a pecking order to what is wrong from the start would make my judgment hypocritical from an emotional stance.

Dude, there are logical reasons why having sex with a child is different than sex between consenting adults. Are you serious? Sex is only okay when it’s consensual, and children are not capable of consenting to sex.

^ Dude, there are logical reasons why having sex with a child is different than sex between consenting adults.
I would ask what those logical reason were, but they would ultimately not be logical because they would ride on a foundation of emotion created by your personal proclivities.

Sex is only okay when it’s consensual, and children are not capable of consenting to sex.
Again, different filters, different logic:
• Unless you can find a way to marry a child, then sex with them is not correct but no more or less correct than any other sex outside of a man and woman married to each other, I can agree in that respect.
• Children are capable to decide many things they want to do, jump off a roof with an umbrella trying to utilize it as a parachute, playing with fire, or even having sex with each other or an adult, the ramifications of any might not be fully reasoned by the child, but the desire to do so is no different in some cases as them deciding they want a happy meal at McDonalds are not, them not being capable is the benchmark adults set.

That is logic people truly want to derail by emotions, legally consenting and personally consenting is not the same. II have a friend (not a close one) who was open about how his father molested him when he was about 6 years old. Around the age of 11 or 12 I guess he started to become less interesting to his father, but he craved his father’s attention even though his father was sexually utilizing him, so to get his father’s attention he would initiate sex acts on his dad, the logic to many is that a child never could or would unless drugged or some other thing. Could he legally do so, no? Could he actually do so, yeas, he did. He made the choice to the same way he made a choice to have a Big Mac over a double cheeseburger, the reason behind it notwithstanding.

Alright, you’re just digging your own grave with your responses so I’m not going to bother arguing.

Hey, guys, HC thinks children can consent to sex.

I can’t believe that HC feels the sex with children is OK as long as the aggressor has no emotional compunction about it. Never mind the tiny victims. They don’t really matter do they.

Speak of selective hearing; were you two apart of the Swift Boat campaign? I know as much as you want to tout logic, if you can’t truncate it into your own personal proclivities you don’t like it anymore. I have stated quite clearly the only form of sexual contact, or did you selectively choose not to hear that? I was pointing out to Ms @Mariah logic doesn’t conform to her personal pet peeves, that maybe she ought to think or rethink of how she interprets or uses words in their basic form and not how she wishes to use them

consent
noun
1. 1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
“no change may be made without the consent of all the partners”

Simple Definition of *CONSENT
• :to agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary

First, it was the willingly gave testimony of my friend without coercion, so why would he lie on something as serious as that? Second, this is what the dictionary say of the usage and meaning of the word. If this friend rations in his mind that to get his father’s attentions it required them doing something sexual and he implements or initiates it, how could he if he did not willingly attempt it? He had to agree that it would be done to initiate it, or you have some other theory how he could and not have been willing to do it? Maybe you think the father used Jedi mind tricks to get him to ask or initiate the sex? Does not one of the definitions say to agree to something being done? Maybe you need to get your knee-jerk emotions out of the way of the logic you are trying to command because the logic is leaving you with a horse that keeps bucking you off. If you want to talk law over logic, then we have a different approach.

But you can keep the lies coming….the shovel is not in my hands…..

You’re the one who said it’s a-OK to have sex with a child as long as you’re married to her, bro; your viewpoint is literally indefensible.

I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to you, but the legal age of consent is set because children’s brains are not developed sufficiently to be able to make sound decisions about sex. When an adult has sex with a minor who “consented,” it is statutory rape because minors cannot consent. It is considered coerced sex.

Your friend was obviously deeply traumatized by his earlier abuse.

Jesus fuck you’re a dangerous person

My take was that it’s OK to have sex with a child if you don’t see anything wrong with it. If your “morals” don’t get in the way.

@Mariah You’re the one who said it’s a-OK to have sex with a child as long as you’re married to her, bro; your viewpoint is literally indefensible.
I believe I said if one can find a way to marry child then it would fall under a married relationship, if it is sham wedding I am not the one to judge as I won’t be judging them in the end. However, that is a different issue than the one you brought up about my friend and his rationalizing on garnering his dad’s attention and affection. If we are going to talk issues of law, or issues of ideology let me know so I know how the logic will be applied.

I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to you, but the legal age of consent is set because children’s brains are not developed sufficiently to be able to make sound decisions about sex.
I am well aware of the legality side of it, and the reasoning why even if it can or cannot be totally quantified, but because people choose to believe as such, they filter it as universal and all-inclusive. I can get over myself and look at the preponderance of evidence and say something is inconclusive or maybe not as concrete as once thought, that is how I amended thinking on the items I listed, by breaking it down from a logical perspective and not letting my emotions blindly lead.

When an adult has sex with a minor who “consented,” it is statutory rape because minors cannot consent.
OK, we are back on the legal side of the fence, yes, I agree, legally that is what it is called because the powers that be, who are adults, deemed it so. That is a different issue of if it can or has actually been done.

It is considered coerced sex.
It is because the powers that be said so, one can ignore the fact that my friend initiated the acts out of a desperation for his father’s attention, he never said no one plied him to do it, used force, etc., I guess if you really wanted, you can attribute his father’s apathy or disinterest in him past a certain age as some sort of back alley coercion, but that opens up a slippery slope to all sorts of things.

Your friend was obviously deeply traumatized by his earlier abuse.
Yes, but that is still another issue. Thank the Lord he got sound and good people placed in his life before he took his own life, and praise the Lord He did not throw him out and rejected him or judged him off his past, and redeemed him, he is a walking testimony. His story is not that of everyone’s.

Jesus fuck you’re a dangerous person
Because I can accept that is done in the world as a byproduct of it? I did not create this stuff, but I can see it at its lowest level and not just the parts I am cool with. You seem to want to doctor it to what you are cool with and ignore the rest exist. Maybe you would have more peace if you rethink the direction of some of what you think and see it as it is and not run it through a filter of emotion first, gutting the logic you are trying to let lead.

@Dutchess_III My take was that it’s OK to have sex with a child if you don’t see anything wrong with it. If your “morals” don’t get in the way.
OK, so we are jumping back on the ideological side of the fence again. Are you to say those in the Middle East and parts of Asia where they have arranged marriage and some of the brides would be considered minors or children in the West immoral? If the government was onboard with it or turned a blind eye, would you call the whole nation immoral? What keeps them from using a set of rules etc. to claim something here in the US is immoral, who is right, and how did they get to be right and the other wrong. There is no standard anyone can use. A female can consent to sex at 16 in Australia, she comes over here and has sex on holiday in San Fran with someone over 18 and someone goes to jail. Did she get dumber in deciding her sexual choices and to do it or not because she crossed the Pacific? Are you going to say Australia is immoral because they allow females that are seen as minors in San Fran to have sex with people over 18 if they choose, because we don’t do that here, well, would you? Worldly “morals” are a hollow shell with no substance; it is as malleable as whoever has the might to enforce theirs. Maybe you need to reevaluate just how you view who a child is, because the world has at least a dozen different criteria.

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m pretty sure you’re going to hell.

What happened to your friend is called grooming, and it is a despicable behavior that evil adults do to “program” a child into being okay with – or even thinking they want – sex.

I am still in utter disbelief. Usually I can at least kind of see why you believe the awful things you believe, but this one really takes the cake and is impossible to sympathize with from any perspective whatsoever.

I’m done here.

@Dutchess_III I’m pretty sure you’re going to hell.
I am not worried…….

@Mariah What happened to your friend is called grooming, and it is a despicable behavior that evil adults do to “program” a child into being okay with or even thinking they want sex.
From what it sounded as, the father made no effort to get his son onboard with it, he just did it because that was the appetite he had.

Usually I can at least kind of see why you believe the awful things you believe,…]
Raping, killing, stealing, bullying, thieving, and the like is not what I believe in, but I know it exist as a byproduct of man doing what man does. I can have peace knowing it is the expected end of men being men. I have to live among it but I do not like it.

[…and is impossible to sympathize with from any perspective whatsoever.
I am not asking anyone to, however if we discuss anything if we are merely speaking law, even if the law is illogical, then fine. If we are speaking ideology then forget logic as it truly would not apply. I can’t speak with anyone who don’t or can’t hold their own line, if they want to waffle between legal, personal, ideological, there is no constant to do anything with.