That I thought you may all find interesting.
First, before I discuss what’s wrong with this paper, I keep saying the standard of journalism we see around is despicable. What would it take this journalist to provide a link to the report he mentions?
The idea the report and the journalist are peddling is that there are things that cause homosexuality. One of these is social grouping. You can’t make this up. He writes
The report by a special investigation team on last year’s school unrest and which was presented to Education Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i recently, also identified social grouping as source of the practice.
I can only take this mean to mean children in primary school should not be in any form of grouping. Social groups are for adults only and only if you are heterosexual. If you are gay/ lesbian, forget it.
Were you ever absent minded? Secretive? Does your child lack concentration in class? Be very wary they could be, lesbian. Yes. The journalist reports
It says students who are lesbians are absent minded, lack concentration in class and are very secretive.
Does that scare you enough? Have you thought of withdrawing your child from primary school yet? This should scare you. Does your girl child buy bananas? Do you see her liking bananas? Be wary, those are lesbian tendencies. I am not making this up.
Other characteristic include girls buying bananas and test tubes for ‘use’ in their dormitories, hostility towards the opposite sex, affection to same gender and possessive friendship. Girls write love notes to fellow girls, girls behaving like men, funny hairstyles and dress code, indecent behaviours such as touching other girls’ privates, pairing and always found together, sharing beds and holding hands.
And do you have a boy who has condoms? He is gay. Is he friendly? He is gay. Shy? Very gay.
If I scared you, don’t worry, the school boards have a solution to all these. What did they do? Well…
The report notes that students who engage in lesbianism and homosexually are either suspended, transferred to other schools, referred to boards of managements for disciplinary action or they are guided and counselled.
This, my dear friends is shoddy journalism. It should not appear on a paper with nationwide circulation. Since this is a digital copy, the editor ought to ask that relevant links be provided for those who are interested in a follow up. What do they teach in journalism schools these days?
Over at Nate’s, there is discussion going on regarding questions UncleE thinks are problematic to an atheistic worldview.
First, I have been reliably informed by my friends atheism has no content other than a lack of belief in deities, whatever these are. This is to say, you should give a reason for any position you take. Being an atheist cannot be one of them.
With that introduction, the question posed by UncleE, can be dismissed as not being problematic to atheism.
I will indulge UncleE though. His question
Do we have free will? If so, how? If not how can any choice be based on evidence rather than brain processes?
First, I will mention what Bob said the other day. We cannot have absolutist answers on questions that are not amenable to proof one way or another. I am a freewill skeptic and will remain so till I am convinced otherwise.
I think the question is a false dilemma. Isn’t evaluation of reasonableness a brain process? And how are we to tell that a thing is not a brain process?
This question is not a problem for atheism. To the best of my knowledge, Marvin is an atheist and a compatibilist same as Dennett.
I am hoping UncleE will ask better questions in future.
If they are unacquainted with what has passed in the world before we came into it ourselves? For, asks Cicero, what is the age of a single mortal, unless it is connected by the aid of history, with the times of our ancestors?
My good friend argues in this post that the notion that we have freewill makes us unjust and that in order to build just societies, we need to see the world as deterministic.
What are your thoughts for or against the above thesis