HOLS obsession with racism?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
deleted user  24 May 19 9.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2019 8.05pm) I'm not sure that in any other context you'd be wanting to cater in this way specifically to a local Muslim community, and I think it may be a mistake to do so just because you agree on one particular issue. Where does the opt out end? There is more value I feel in people in closed religious communities being introduced to realities of society and the country they just so happen to live in, than there is to shut it out. As for bisexuality, It doesn't seem realistic to me that as a result of being introduced to the existence of gay couples in school at some point, that that Dave is going to end up marrying Andy rather than Sandy. I don't think people are going to be swayed from their nature to any significant point by acknowledging that other types of people exist. To my mind the end result of kids, Muslim or otherwise, learning about this stuff at some stage is that, as straight adults for the most part, they won't particularly have a problem with the gay people or families they encounter in life. I'd suggest that's not a bad thing. The end result if they are in fact gay, is that they will feel that they were considered a meaningful part of society and not something that's outrageous or that people were waving placords or pulling their kids out of school over a benign aspect of their being. It's clear what your views are and what you would be happy to hear and not hear within a school environment, so I wouldn't say you don't want teaching about specific groups. You just want to censor out realities you don't like. Quote I believe that all children have an intrinsic right to a mother and a father and that this is the ideal. While this isn't always possible in life for multiple reasons this doesn't mean I agree that children should be lied to so that we paint nicer pictures about the reality of life.
Well again, if kids grow up to be straight, they will have a male-female family unit with their partner anyway, so what's the benefit of looking down on or treating gay people and their relationships of families differently? Maybe we should look down on foster families too, and adopted kids and their families. Anyone different. Or maybe we can just understand that people are dealt different hands in life and do the best to work with from there.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays Online 24 May 19 9.48pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dollardays
Well again, if kids grow up to be straight, they will have a male-female family unit with their partner anyway, so what's the benefit of looking down on or treating gay people and their relationships differently? I respect your opinion but perhaps we are talking past each other. You kind of ignore my referencing the whole bisexuality point....and more heterosexual competition for females when women have always operated on the Pareto principle as it is. Also only you are referring to this as 'looking down', that's how you want to characterise my position perhaps but it isn't how I see it. You want to highlight possible benefits you think might be possible for one minority. Whereas I'm taking what I think is a holistic viewpoint. I'm highlighting why I hold the views on homosexuality that I do. It's not bad or un-natural it's just a sexuality that leads to less births. It isn't a simple matter of there are a 'set' number of homosexuals and that's it. A society that has no bias towards heterosexuality will eventually have less heterosexual relationships due to the reality of higher female bisexuality. So I feel there is a scientific argument that is lost in all the 'feels'. Originally posted by dollardays
Despite it being an attitude you hold, it appears to have caused harm rather than good. Maybe we should look down on foster families too, and adopted kids and their families. Anyone different. Or maybe we can just understand that people are dealt different hands in life and do the best to work with from there. Sure again, I agree with elements of this. Still we differ on emphasis, you appear to believe that truths about the less easy facts of life mean that we are 'looking down on people'. Again, I don't believe in that characterisation. Life is nuanced and complicated and equality is a human concept that the current law presents as some factual part of nature. I just say it's better to talk in general principles in how you treat people rather than focusing on specific groups. Essentially I made the argument that I did for many years that identity politics should be kept out. You make the opposite argument for the identity group you're focused upon. I know in reality that this can was opened a while ago as your side won and mine has lost due to social liberalism via generational change. So my response in that case is 'identity politics for all' not just selected parties.....and I will highlight the value of the traditional family unit to my children as having a societal breeding point and that their sexual choices ultimately do have an importance.....because if one or both of them are bisexual or gay....I still regard that there is value in the continuance of their genetic line and that every child has an intrinsic right to both a father and mother. However, I will also teach that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in nature just as being left handed is and that an individual makes as big a deal about it as they choose to.....and that shame is a ridiculous emotion. No child of mine will regard themselves as less than......independent of what sexually interests them. They will understand that they are, as we all are, products of our genes and the variations within.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| dannyboy1978 25 May 19 9.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Deserves every thing coming to him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 25 May 19 9.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyboy1978
Deserves every thing coming to him. Everything in proportion of course.....a guy who turned up the event deliberately (lied about it as he was there for hours) a guy who previously had tried to get to Robinson pushing aside women (on video and ignored).....assaults Robinson with the milkshake (lies about it saying it slipped)..All on video but ignored in favour of lying to fit a narrative....Held up and celebrated by various and many figures.....the editor of the Daily Mirror being one that particularly annoyed me. People have a right to oppose and criticise Robinson....but the truth should matter. What this event shows...as with the violent Muslim gang protest a few days later....is that the truth doesn't matter. It's just another chip chipped away. I think a long memory is better at the moment.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 25 May 19 9.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Everything in proportion of course. However, I think a long memory is better at the moment. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2019 9.28am) Mr Mahmud said he was on his way home from a work-related meeting on Thursday when he was approached by Robinson, who is campaigning as an independent MEP for northwest England. He said that he felt intimidated and threatened by Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and did not want to speak to him. “People know me as a talkative kind of guy and I get on with everyone. I think I just felt a little annoyed that he kept talking to me,” Mr Mahmud said. ”I didn’t mean to do anything, to be honest, it was just an instant reaction to the way he was talking to me.” What a liar. Mahmud and The Independent journalist.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 25 May 19 9.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If children are taught that the choice between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are equal in family realities...not only is that statistically a crowbar in some aspects but those children who may be bisexual may later on chose homosexual relationships instead. Hence, in time, if this approach was successful you'd increase the number of homosexual relationships. As females are proven to have far higher levels of bisexuality than males. So if this was successful over time you'd lower the birth rate....and I might add, further annoy a lot of heterosexual males. Personally I don't think any of this is a sensible path....Also I'm not so sure all of those parents of bisexuals would be chuffed at the outcome of genetic deadends.....Especially when the state suggested it was an 'equal choice'. I agree that we should teach....not starting from age five.....that all individuals should accept their natures and that no one should persecute others based on them. I'm with people like Milo and Stakey on these issues. It's not true that all homosexuals agree with what's happened and I'm with them. I'm certainly with the protection of homosexuals, however I don't support this pathway on child indoctrination. I believe that all children have an intrinsic right to a mother and a father and that this is the ideal. While this isn't always possible in life for multiple reasons this doesn't mean I agree that children should be lied to so that we paint nicer pictures about the reality of life. I'm aware that this sets me against the current political mindset which is desperate to think and believe that there is equality in all things. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2019 8.07pm) As always you make a good case, and in lots of your points in this thread I agree with you. I’m thinking this education shouldn’t go the whole way. But how far should it go? I don’t know. The problem with children at all ages and the acceptance of gay people (or children who they think are gay and most probably are, but not all) is that the general messages of accept all and treat others how you’d like to be treated go in one ear and out of the other once the end of form time or year group weekly morning assembly goes. As soon as effeminate Edward walks into the corridor with the other beta males or unpopular and unattractive girls who’ve befriended him he’s going to get the same treatment as yesterday. Unfortunately at that age the confident boys at teenage level would get the message more if the effeminate boy was friends with all the popular good looking girls, although probably unlikely as most at that age are image conscious to extreme levels. At junior school or even 6 or 7 the effeminate boy will be noticed and treated differently regardless of a general message to treat others fairly.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 25 May 19 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
As always you make a good case, and in lots of your points in this thread I agree with you. I’m thinking this education shouldn’t go the whole way. But how far should it go? I don’t know. The problem with children at all ages and the acceptance of gay people (or children who they think are gay and most probably are, but not all) is that the general messages of accept all and treat others how you’d like to be treated go in one ear and out of the other once the end of form time or year group weekly morning assembly goes. As soon as effeminate Edward walks into the corridor with the other beta males or unpopular and unattractive girls who’ve befriended him he’s going to get the same treatment as yesterday. Unfortunately at that age the confident boys at teenage level would get the message more if the effeminate boy was friends with all the popular good looking girls, although probably unlikely as most at that age are image conscious to extreme levels. At junior school or even 6 or 7 the effeminate boy will be noticed and treated differently regardless of a general message to treat others fairly.
The problem with the 'bullying boy' situation is a constant one because we are dealing here with natural behaviour directed poorly. Most boys have varying degrees of natural aggression with the pressure of social status within their peer groups. Essentially they are going to react to other boys who behave....in their minds....more like girls with rejection and aggression. My answer to that is the same answer that has always worked. Good masculine role models who they can identify with.......it's the very thing that our society has been attacking for decades now. When you look at the type of male who typically enters primary school teaching today.......not enough of them are what I'd call good examples of masculinity. Some of them probably even find the word offensive. You typically have better examples at secondary schools but it's still female dominated (62 percent). and while bullying will always be a problem essentially good role modelling that driven young males can identify with is and has always been the key....So the numbers of male schools teachers who young lads want to identify with needs to be higher. Role modelling is why boys with responsible fathers, have less issues with their boys. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2019 10.50am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| deleted user 25 May 19 11.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays A society that has no bias towards heterosexuality will eventually have less heterosexual relationships due to the reality of higher female bisexuality.
Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2019 10.06pm) Society will of course always have an inbuilt bias towards heterosexuality because there won't ever be a time where the vast majority of relationships aren't heterosexual. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be vastly more portrayals of straight couples than gay, because that's just reality. Appreciating and valuing different types of people doesn't change that fact though. Censoring people out of the picture doesn't benefit anyone but does damage some. Originally posted by Stirlingsays my response in that case is 'identity politics for all' not just selected parties.....and I will highlight the value of the traditional family unit to my children as having a societal breeding point and that their sexual choices ultimately do have an importance.....because if one or both of them are bisexual or gay....I still regard that there is value in the continuance of their genetic line and that every child has an intrinsic right to both
a father and mother. Again though, who's suggesting that most people ending up in a male-female couple raising kids is an idea that shouldn't be front and centre? Not me. Acknowledging the existence of non straight individuals or couples doesn't detract from that one bit. It's just the reality for some. It certainly isn't the 'us vs them' that you appear to unnecessarily view it as here, as gay people are part of families, not separate from them. You can't magic your kids into being anything other than what they will be. Whether you get grand kids or not is clearly profoundly unlikely to be impacted by them realising that gay people and couples exist. Adding that your kids will be A-OK if they're gay means very little being that it's simply a self declared glowing interpretation of how your outlook 'should be processed' rather of what it actually means to others. You're hardly going to acknowledge that it could and may have already been damaging to your family are you? Taking your kids out of school and away from their friends and social circle over a simple lesson covering same sex couples would clearly mess with their heads if they ended up being gay. There's no way of getting around that. It would be a self indulgent decision, both damaging and disproportionate. As would your 'lifestyle I don't like' type comments. Both sentiments, by the way, are also clearly grossly disrespectful and damaging to gay members of your family. So much for family values. Edited by dollardays (25 May 2019 11.31pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| deleted user 25 May 19 11.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
The problem with children at all ages and the acceptance of gay people (or children who they think are gay and most probably are, but not all) is that the general messages of accept all and treat others how you’d like to be treated go in one ear and out of the other once the end of form time or year group weekly morning assembly goes. As soon as effeminate Edward walks into the corridor with the other beta males or unpopular and unattractive girls who’ve befriended him he’s going to get the same treatment as yesterday. Unfortunately at that age the confident boys at teenage level would get the message more if the effeminate boy was friends with all the popular good looking girls, although probably unlikely as most at that age are image conscious to extreme levels. You're right. It's all well and good saying that if these issues are touched on in school 'my kids are being homeschooled', but the reality is that bullying over effeminacy and the idea that being gay is something to be targeted is partially fuelled by these very attitudes, so it is a subject that needs addressing in schools in some capacity at some point. 20 years ago, under section 28 it was made tremendously difficult under UK law for teachers to even infer that there's nothing wrong with a students sexuality if they were bullied over it. There was huge scope and confusion cast over anything deemed as the 'promotion' of homosexuality. Countless invaluable gay support groups in schools closed as result. It was a policy that no doubt directly resulted in suicides within a group that is already at high suicide risk. It is of course also a policy that those most vocal about schools current approach to these issues would have had zero problem with. Edited by dollardays (26 May 2019 12.08am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 25 May 19 11.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There’s also the issue of the poor s0ds who are raised in same sex households and face the bullying behaviour at school. I really do feel for them in any way they suffer.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| deleted user 26 May 19 12.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
There’s also the issue of the poor s0ds who are raised in same sex households and face the bullying behaviour at school. I really do feel for them in any way they suffer. Yeah, kids can be cruel, and meaningful aspects of that are extensions of the culture and their own family dynamic. Children of mixed race couples used to have a horrible time back in the day too. Nobody cares about that now though because being mixed race isn't something that anyone with any sense forms a judgement on. So these corrosive views don't trickle down to kids. Children will always look to pick on difference though especially those they view they can attack without consequence. Being gay is less of an issue with younger generations now than it used to be, in many areas at least and so I think there is plenty of room for optimism there. Likely not these Birmingham schools though, no. I remember how special needs kids were treated at school in my youth, and that's kind of sad looking back now at how separated they were and how different we were almost prompted to view them as being. There will always be targets across the board and it's our job to ensure that we don't play a role in raising kids that target others.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 May 19 12.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Too many chav or irresponsible parents though and I don’t see the rise in that part of the population decreasing, but growing.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.