That’s okay. I like your take on it.

Lemmy is made by actual communists, so let’s not pretend communism would somehow fix that.

Not gonna argue with that one. It sure is.

Yes please.

Why would you say something this stupid when you could have just said nothing at all?

“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.”

Okay, so now that you’re out of arguments, you’re trying to shame me for beating you in a debate that YOU decided to have. And you don’t even seem to realize that by doing so, you’re just providing more evidence that you have no principles whatsoever and it’s all about power for you.

A rational person would just admit when they’re beat instead of digging their own hole deeper. Your lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.

No, it was a perfect example, because it showed very clearly that you don’t really care about principles or values, and it’s all about political power and influence for you.

I did, thank you.

Hahaha, but I didn’t even start this trend, it was this post. I simply jumped on the bandwagon because it was right up my alley…

Okay, how about Jesus’s rendition of the commandments as found in Matthew 19:18 (which basically drops the first three, and replaces the last two with “love your neighbor”)?

Aside from the Mac 'n Peas, this is probably the most achievable creation I’ve posted so far. Also, I’d say the odds of it being satisfying are likely pretty high.

No, I admit that people have unfounded concerns about SEL

That’s not an admission, that’s an accusation.

It also isn’t relevant to the point.

It’s very relevant because your failure to demonstrate even ONE of the proposed learning goals of SEL while still defending its implementation in public schools is evidence that you care more about the left-wing politics that are embedded in it than the package they’re wrapped in.

And I can’t tell if you’re being snarky in that last comment, or if you’re saying that it’s clearly the GOP trying to push a religious agenda?

Of course they’re pushing a religious agenda. But at least they’re being honest about it. Meanwhile, you’ve already admitted that the Trojan horse theory is true and STILL act as if its somehow a great moral evil to condemn that.

Okay, you admit then that the criticism is factual and SEL is in fact a vehicle for pushing left-wing politics into the classroom?

In that case, can you blame right-wing politicians for wanting to do the same? Because that’s just the pot calling the kettle black. In other words, politics as usual.

I’m always a little suspicious when people who don’t even believe in Jesus try to tell me what he would have loved but let’s have a look at why those evil, evil Republicans might have been on the fence about it, shall we?

A number of conservative publications and groups, including National Review and The Federalist, have criticized social-emotional learning as a “Trojan horse” used to bring in ideas such as critical race theory, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other left-wing politics to the classroom.

Ah well, that sounds pretty typical, doesn’t it. And it’s funny because SEL lists self-awareness and responsible decisionmaking among its primary goals, but somehow, the people who are pushing for it can’t seem to

1. resist shoehorning their own ideology into it
2. resist blaming their critics for when they’re found out

Not the best advertisement for SEL’s effectiveness, don’t you think?

Oh in that case, why ever try to improve anything? History shows us some asshole is just gonna come along and mess it up anyways. Perhaps the founding fathers should have just paid their stupid tea tax and stayed subject to the British crown.

Yes, you correct. My mistake, sorry about that. I fixed it.

You are indeed correct. My mistake, sorry about that. I fixed it.

Yeah, that oughta teach me to provide better service. /s

LGBT rights are human rights.

No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:

Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Okay, how about a set of non-religious rules of ethics, or at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?

Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder/use violence, don’t make any unwanted sexual advances, those seem general enough that everyone should be able to agree, no?