Holy fucking spider

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

i always thought TAS was the most backward, but WA and QLD have been outshining us by quite a bit in recent years.

quote:

PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there is fossil evidence to prove it. Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking Religious Instruction (RI) classes in Queensland despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools. Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell. Critics are calling for the RI program to be scrapped after claims emerged Christian lay people are feeding children misinformation. About 80 per cent of children at state primary schools attend one half-hour instruction a week, open to any interested lay person to conduct. Many of the instructors are from Pentecostal churches. Education Queensland is aware that Creationism is being taught by some religious instructors, but said parents could opt out. Australian Secular Lobby president Hugh Wilson said children were ostracised and discriminated against if they were pulled out of the class. In many cases, the RI lay people were not supervised by teachers. Kings Christian Church youth worker Dustin Bell said he taught "about creation" in Sunshine Coast schools. Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data. Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said teachers were sometimes compelled to supervise the instructors "because of all the fire and brimstone stuff". Mr Ryan said Education Queensland had deemed RI a must-have, though teachers would prefer to spend the time on curriculum. Buddhist Council of Queensland president Jim Ferguson said he was so disturbed that Creationism was being aired in state school classrooms that he would bring it up at the next meeting of the Religious Education Advisory Committee, part of Education Queensland. He said RI was supposed to be a forum for multi-faith discussion. Education Queensland assistant director-general Patrea Walton said Creationism was part of some faiths, and therefore was part of some teaching. New research shows three in 10 Australians believe dinosaurs and man did exist at the same time. The survey, by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, shows a "worrying" lack of basic scientific principles. "The results underscore the need for students to be exposed to science and mathematics through a well resourced education system, rather than learning about science through Jurassic Park," FASTS president Dr Cathy Foley said. PhD researcher Cathy Byrne found in a NSW-based survey that scripture teachers tended to discourage questioning, emphasised submission to authority and excluded different beliefs. She said 70 per cent of scripture teachers thought children should be taught the Bible as historical fact. A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA. "The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said. "My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'? "But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then." After the parent complained, the girl spent the rest of the year's classes in the library.

http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...r-1225899497234

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i always thought TAS was the most backward, but WA and QLD have been outshining us by quite a bit in recent years. http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...r-1225899497234

Holy fuck

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

I went to a church school and not even we got fed crap like that

___________________
**Man I'm Pretty**

it's like they've twinned WA & QLD with Alabama and Kansas.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i always thought TAS was the most backward, but WA and QLD have been outshining us by quite a bit in recent years.

I dunno, its no surprise really because Qld is where they send all the bogans and old people, WA is where all the people hunted by the law for all manner of unholy crimes end up.

There is no one in SA (except mass murderers), nobody gets out of TAS alive and we've all conveniently forgotten about the NT

Which just sort of leaves Vic and NSW for habitable land.

Sad really

I don't get it. I thought RI is a class that teaches students about what other people believe - not necessarily teaching it as a fact.

At the risk of getting flamed, I don't think the context of the article is entirely right.

___________________
-~-

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i always thought TAS was the most backward, but WA and QLD have been outshining us by quite a bit in recent years. http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...r-1225899497234

Haha, wow

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Holy fuck

+1

so could be good about the national curriculum...?? Get rid of that retardation peraps..

___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-

I just voted.

We have a truly rubbish selection this year.

House of Reps is ok, you can work out which parties you prefer over others no probs, but the Senate having a single choice, and them all being shithouse.........

___________________
**Man I'm Pretty**

quote:

Is This Child Pornography? Posted Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:00 AM | By William Saletan I'm now going to depict an adult and a minor having sex. The adult is represented by the character on the left. The minor is represented by the character on the right. Here is my depiction: &i Have I just committed a crime punishable by 10 years in jail? Under a ruling issued last week in Australia, it's quite possible that I have. The ruling, issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, affirms that a cartoon can be prosecuted as child pornography. Here's the background of the case: [T]he plaintiff was convicted ... of possessing child pornography contrary to s 91H(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Act) and using his computer to access child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Code). The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series "The Simpsons". Sexual acts are depicted as being performed, in particular, by the "children" of the family. The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl. The Australian laws in question define child pornography as depictions of a "person" or depictions of "a representation of a person." A related memorandum says such definitions "are intended to cover all visual images, both still and motion, including representations of children, such as cartoons or animation." But even without the memorandum, the court says child pornography laws are in part "calculated to deter production of other material—including cartoons—that ... can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children." Accordingly, "The depictions and representations of persons to which the definition refers include a drawing (or, for that matter, a model or sculpture) and, hence a cartoon, of a fictional character." Does it matter that we're talking about the silly-looking Simpsons? No, says the court: "Even a substantial departure from realism will not necessarily mean that the depiction is not that of a person in this sense." The court upholds the initial ruling that the characters "were indeed depictions of persons" under the law. The convictions stand. You have got to be kidding me. Look: If you molest my kid, I'll see that you burn in hell. If you take a picture of my kid and Photoshop it so it looks like a sex act with you, I'll use any law I can find to put you away. If you make a sicko cartoon and digitally alter it so it looks like my kid, I'll throw the book at you. But if what you've made doesn't look like anyone's kid—if it's just a revolting mockery of the Simpsons—I'm supposed to convict you of child pornography? Really? What's happening to child pornography is what's happening on the Internet and in software generally: Technology is blurring boundaries between action and thought, public and private, real and fake. On this point, the Australian court quotes the Supreme Court of Canada: "With the quality of contemporary technology, it can be very difficult to distinguish a 'real' person from a computer creation or composite." This gray area unnerves us, so we prosecute it. Two years ago, then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., was forced out of Congress for soliciting teenage boys online, though there's no evidence he ever touched a minor. This year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on sexual images of children even if they're computer-generated or nonexistent. Apparently, more people are now arrested for using the Internet to solicit cops posing as kids than for using it to initiate relationships with real kids. I understand why we do this: We're afraid that if we don't prosecute cyber-perverts, they'll move on to the real thing. But the danger runs both ways. How far will we extend felony prosecution into the realm of the private, the fake, and the abstract? If the Simpsons count as child pornography, what's next? Actually, the Australian court has answered that question. Under the relevant child pornography laws, says the court, "a stick figure ... might well depict a representation of a person. No bright line of inclusion or exclusion can be sensibly described." Well, then, come and get me. If there's no boundary between real and fake, between people and "depictions of representations," then prosecute me for my stick figures. Or admit it's ridiculous—and an insult to the real thing.

SOURCE

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG