Whoa, whoa, whoa. You claimed that teaching children scientific lessons about human development is "political" soley because the majority of Californians would think so (according to you) -- a patently ridiculous assertion. If the state teaches children to support abortion restrictions, that would be political. If the state teaches children biology, that is not political. Is that clear enough, Dr. Frank, or do I have to draw you a picture?
I won't. I will be agreeing with them that it is indoctrination. (Perhaps justifiable indoctrination - that is a different argument - but indoctrination nonetheless.)
Again, biology is not indoctrination. Are you even serious? And it doesn't surprise me that you would agree with them, you've certainly bought their spinbook on California politics.
Apparently I do. When did I say I "dislike" a policy of teaching schoolkids about life? All I said was that I didn't think it would be a winning election strategy.
And when did I say that I "dislike Simon?" I only recall questioning his position on abortion. Are we nitpicking words now, Dr. Frank? No, of course not, that would be petty.
Dislike him all you want. I'm voting for him and hope he wins.
Do what you want, sir, it won't break my heart. It's pretty clear that you'd vote for him regardless of what his position on abortion was. Clearly, you have other issues that are more important to you. Had you admitted this to begin with, we could have ended this debate a lot sooner.
Right. A majority of Californians would see the move as political. They would alter their votes and have discussions accordingly. Thus making it "political".
If the state teaches children to support abortion restrictions, that would be political. If the state teaches children biology, that is not political.
The state already teaches children "biology". What makes you think it doesn't? If that's all you're advocating here then the point is moot and you're right, it's "not political". But that's not all you're advocating, and you know it. You're advocating something which (you admit) would be controversial, cause discussions, (you hope) change minds, etc. In short, "political".
Again, biology is not indoctrination. Are you even serious?
Again, you're not merely advocating "biology", because that would be idiotic for a candidate to say "I think schools should teach biology!". Schools already teach "biology", like I said. You're advocating (I think) that students be taught that life begins at conception. This would be, de facto, indoctrination (into the viewpoint that life begins at conception). Perhaps this viewpoint is correct. But it is indoctrination. What's the problem? Why not just admit it? There's nothing wrong with indoctrination, per se. (For example, I also want children "indoctrinated" into the idea that stealing is wrong, etc.)
And when did I say that I "dislike Simon?" I only recall questioning his position on abortion.
Ok, my mistake. So you don't believe Simon is pro-life (what else could "questioning his position on abortion" mean). Is that your point? If so, I disagree with you, but we could leave it at that.