Aside from using your powers of nevuah to foresee that San Francisco County’s “recommended” list will certainly be “forced down the throats” in NY, could you tell us a bit more about your powers of mind reading that enebled you to be so certain that this outcome is what Cymbrowitz “wants”?

Was that your power of mind reading at work there?
Or did Cymbrowitz ever go on record to say that this was his goal?

Just asking.
Given that you’re so big on morality, I’m sure you wouldn’t just make stuff up.

Thanks.

You had earlier said that this would “forced down the throat.”

The proof?

Because in another school system, something was RECOMMENDED.

I see.

I know, I know.
One minute it’s “recommended,” next minute it’s “forced down the throat.”

Wow.
Scary world out there.
(Except for naive, stupid people like myself who are so stupid and naive that they don’t know how to read a legal document.)

For the purposes of this section, “tolerance,” “respect for others” and “dignity” shall include awareness and sensitivity to discrimination or harassment and civility in the relations of people of different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions, religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, genders, and sexes.

what you said is basically what the law originally said before they amended it with the new language in the “dignity for all students act” legally they would require you to at least mention the enumerated categories. Unfortunately that is the best reading of the law I repeat in California these words

“Professional education staff who are sensitive to the needs of pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”

led to this
http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/final_antibullying_lit_list.pdf

look at the law and read both paragraphs the first one was the old law and the second is the amended law the statement I put earlier is the added point if you can’t figure out what is problematic with that statement then their is no point in even bothering to explain it to you.
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$EDN801-A$$@TXEDN0801-A+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW

Since I’m sure you have never actually read a legal document before these conversations why don’t you in the future first know the facts then argue them.

“Do not bully children who are different, no matter what it is that makes them different. No exceptions whatsoever.”

Nothing in the bill requires that teachers say anything more than: “Do not bully children who are different, no matter what it is that makes them different. No exceptions whatsoever.”

fact 1. A law was passed that doesn’t exclude private schools that requires teaching about sexual orientations in schools giving power to decide the curriculum to the regents.

fact 2. Laws that on face value aren’t as bad as the one that passed have been you used for to bring Toavah marriage in to the classrooms.

fact 3. There already was an a attempt to bring Toavah marriage in to the classrooms in NYC.

fact 4. even with the best interpretation of this bill by the regents it would require to teach about sexual orientations in kindergarten.

and since you think I’m being delusional

I ask you which of these laws would you prefer if you had to pick one

law 1. Professional education staff who are sensitive to the needs of pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”

or law 2. For the purposes of this section, “tolerance,” “respect for others” and “dignity” shall include awareness and sensitivity to discrimination or harassment and civility in the relations of people of different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions, religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, genders, and sexes.

because law 1 led to toavah marriage in the class rooms

just so you know by calling him a fool (which I’m not sure if should have said (my reasons are because this is public sight in regard to readership but I wouldn’t be embarrassing him publicly because I no one knows who he is) even if it’s true) I was daning him lichav zichus because he is either a fool (by God lo alayinu or by choice) or a chote es harabim.

It seems that Schlomo 2 has exposed your misleading tirades. Personally attacking someone does not defend your statements. Once confronted you reach for double speak. Before you were confronted, you claimed this material WILL be taught in our yeshivas. Now that your position has been questioned, you revert to it MAY be taught. Please make up your mind. Until such time that you do, limit your speech which may be a harm to our community.
To think that a Torah Jew needs to mislead in order to get votes for their platform or candidate is shameful. The community benefits when we are united in our service to Hashem and the proper behavior to our fellow man. Calling Schlomo 2 a fool is unwarranted and you must ask him for forgiveness.

I guess that’s what happens when someone calls your bluff and tries to get you to substantiate your claims.

I’m done responding.