By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Muslim parents in UK protest school children's storybook featuring same gender parents

Machiavellian said:
Hiku said:

I'm not sure how I feel about them being able to opt out. Going back to what I said about not entertaining every idea that may be unreasonable, that is why we wouldn't generally allow children to opt out of say chemistry class, even if a considerable portion of the parents were against it due to their personal beliefs.
But I do think they should sit down and discuss it.

With this statement are you not just saying that as long as you feel its ok, then others should not have the option to opt out.  If the subject change and to something you do not agree with would you be just as accepting not having the option to opt out. I believe the bigger point is that schools should be more proactive in letting parents know what is being taught to their children so discourse can happen before this escalate to this point.  If the parents do not attend the PTA meetings or what not to learn of these new things then its on them but for the parents that attend these meetings and others, having new material like this brought up early and giving a chance to discuss the pros and cons shows respect for the parents and the community not just lording this down and expecting everyone to accept it without question.

No, I was referring to what society predominantly wants, whether that is decided to be left to the ministry of education, or the decisions of individual school boards, etc.
There were things in school I did not agree with, but I did not imagine they would change unless the majority agreed with me.

The U.K. is a society of tolerance towards other people's religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
The caveat however is that they cannot be tolerant with other people's intolerance towards people's religion, ethnicity, sexuality.

And in this case, if the parents motivation for wanting to exclude their children from that class is deemed to be motivated by intolerance, then they may find that request unreasonable.

I do agree that they should always try their best to communicate these things to parents beforehand however. And even now they should sit down and discuss things.


Last edited by Hiku - on 03 June 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:
DrDoomz said:

1) Irrelevant meaning that it is not what I am discussing. I agree about the subject existing, but also agree that parents should be allowed to voice their concerns as long as they do it peacefully and are willing to have a conversation about it to correct misunderstandings. You mentioned that the subject is mostly benign and I agree. But the content being reasonable and benign is irrelevant here as not everyone in the world share the same opinion about anything (what is reasonable to you and me may not be reasonable to other people). But I feel we already agree on the general concept, just not the details on it.

2) Only if the tolerant is known to be violent. The thing is, you do not convince the intolerant to be tolerant by fighting them, you do it by slowly teaching them (them, not their kids). And reasonable compromises can be reached when dialogue is allowed. Wouldn't simply allowing them to opt out be very reasonable. After all, I don't think they are demanding that the school teach anti-LGBT subjects and the school can simply reject calls to have the subject removed entirely. But  I don't see the hard in simply allowing their kids to opt out when they have zero choices in where to send their kids to school.

3) Well then, that should be enough, shouldn't it? And if bullying can't be prevented thru the methods being taught by the school, then I feel that LGBT tolerance might be even less effective.

Again, you might feel that what is being taught is mostly benign. But not everyone agrees with you.

4) There is an element of subjectivity when we think about reasonable-unreasonable here. I do not see this as unreasonable, for example. There is a difference between a science that teaches them a skill they would likely need in the future to get a career versus a subject that has ideological baggage attached to it. Like I said, if the school starts pushing fossil fuel into its subjects I feel like I should have the right to opt out.

1.) Well you are also discussion the notion of parents being allowed to have their children opt out of that class, and in that case the subject and its content can be relevant, and I'll explain why further below.

2.) Did you mean to say intolerant in the first sentence there? That quote is a statement made in reference to Nazi Germany.
But the principle behind it can be applied to aspects of society, laws and regulations.

One of the reasons I'm unsure about opting out, rather than just being against it, is that I do think opting out may very well not be harmful.

4.) Yeah, the analogy I gave with chemistry isn't really apples to apples. It was more the fact that even though the majority of graduates will probably never use those lessons in their life, as a society we still decided that they need to learn these things, because there's a chance they may chose a field related to it. But I think there are more effective ways to go about that, but I digress.

Since you touched on the subjectivity of what is reasonable and what isn't, I'll explain my general point, and thoughts about this.

The U.K. is a society of tolerance.
Tolerant of other people's religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

But the caveat there is that you cannot be tolerant of other people's intolerance. Towards your religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
So anyone who goes to school there, or the workplace, etc, has to accept that. Now they can still teach their children whatever they want at home. But if they want to be part of society, there are certain things they just have to accept because society as a whole predominantly wants it that way.

However, this is just one school, so I am not convinced their decision accurately represents the society, which is why I'm unsure about this.

But as for why the school may view it as unreasonable for parents to have their children opt out, if their motivation for having their children exempt from that class is for the purpose of intolerance, then I can see why they would see that as unreasonable.

1) Ok.

2) Yes, I meant intolerant. And yes, I am aware of the quote. What I was saying is that it doesn't apply here as it had a lot to do with those that are intolerant, in power (<-- very important) and capable and willing to commit violence. If these parents have shown anything, is that they are willing to simply protest and engage in dialogue (again, excluding those that threatened violence). They are the opposite of the "intolerants" that your statement is talking about IMO.

4) I feel that people are allowed their ignorance for as long as they do not use this ignorance to harm others or if it doesn't directly put others at risk. Forcing "tolerance" onto others for the sake of a tolerant society accomplishes quite the opposite (a society that forces its beliefs onto its minorities without first considering how they feel is a form of oppression I feel). When you feel the things you care about are being attacked, you tend to over-react and become overly protective and inflexible about defending them. And there are very few things a parent would protect more than their kids and their beliefs. And they're being told to conform or else (education is mandatory and they have no choices in schooling). What do you think a person driven into a corner would do when the things they value the most are being threatened? Forced tolerance education is a bad idea until it is sold to the parents first and foremost. Til then, it is a powderkeg and anyone with any level of responsibility should approach this very delicately.



If society had left the decision for progress or no progress to religious people, we wouldn't be where we are today.

On a sidenote, I checked if Austria still has mandatory religious classes. It does and was expanded to not only include Catholic and Evangelic classes, but also Islam. It's such a terrible country... thanks to the conservatives who can't let their religion go, we have to deal with even more religions.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Machiavellian said:
SecondWar said:

You are correct I in assuming that I don't have children. My best reference point is my own childhood. But when your children were very young and asking you about your relationship with your partner, did you fill them in on all the details of the sexual part of your relationship? I'd be incredibly surprised if you did. First I knew about it was the birds and the bees conversation, when I was 10.

My point being you can still talk to children about relationships without involving sex. And as you say, leave the sexual stuff until they are older.

When my 21 year old son was young about the age of 5 years of old we needed to have this conversation because of 2 boys who were more than a little friendly with him during child care.  We had to talk about why they liked him the way they did and how that differ from the relationship his mom and I share.  Yes we did have to get into the weeds because as I have experienced, when you leave a conversation on these topic with gaps, someone else will fill that gap in for your child.

While you can have a conversation without bringing up sex, you would be only doing half the story to be filled in by someone else or another child. For some here they believe just because the kid stop asking you question their curiosity just left but instead they decided you could not answer their question and wen elsewhere.

If you only give a child half the story, then you leave a gap in their knowledge you did not fill and thus someone else will.  More than likely someone will give them misinformation.  Most of the time it will be another child who barely knows what they are talking about.  You would be very surprised at how much information a child soaks up at age 5 and how much misinformation they pick up from other children.  Just riding my child to school during those days was an event listening to them talk about different subjects.  Even now, my 10 and 12 year old talk about stuff they are totally clueless about and you wonder where they get this stuff from.

As for my 10 and 12 year old, I did hold off on such talks until both were around 9 years old but that's because after speaking with them on a number of occasions, I found that others were filling in gaps on the subject and most of it was garbage.  I still feel at age 15 was when my older child really had an understanding of what we talked about because then he actually have more first hand experience.

Ok, a few observations I can make there. You are saying children shouldn't be taught about and sexual relationships until the age of 15, but you yourself had that conversation with your son when he was only 5 because of current life events that made it necessary at that age.

You also mention that your younger children are getting garbage information on the topic from other sources but are also younger than your recommended age for said discussion. Your child then started to understand things more at 15 because of first hand experience. 

So you seem to be saying kids should try to figure things out for themselves first, then get told the right stuff some years later. That sounds like a receipe for disaster, and also not at all the way prevent some children from getting isolated and bullied due to not conforming to the norm - the very point of the lessons in the aforementioned schools.



DrDoomz said:
Hiku said:

1.) Well you are also discussion the notion of parents being allowed to have their children opt out of that class, and in that case the subject and its content can be relevant, and I'll explain why further below.

2.) Did you mean to say intolerant in the first sentence there? That quote is a statement made in reference to Nazi Germany.
But the principle behind it can be applied to aspects of society, laws and regulations.

One of the reasons I'm unsure about opting out, rather than just being against it, is that I do think opting out may very well not be harmful.

4.) Yeah, the analogy I gave with chemistry isn't really apples to apples. It was more the fact that even though the majority of graduates will probably never use those lessons in their life, as a society we still decided that they need to learn these things, because there's a chance they may chose a field related to it. But I think there are more effective ways to go about that, but I digress.

Since you touched on the subjectivity of what is reasonable and what isn't, I'll explain my general point, and thoughts about this.

The U.K. is a society of tolerance.
Tolerant of other people's religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

But the caveat there is that you cannot be tolerant of other people's intolerance. Towards your religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
So anyone who goes to school there, or the workplace, etc, has to accept that. Now they can still teach their children whatever they want at home. But if they want to be part of society, there are certain things they just have to accept because society as a whole predominantly wants it that way.

However, this is just one school, so I am not convinced their decision accurately represents the society, which is why I'm unsure about this.

But as for why the school may view it as unreasonable for parents to have their children opt out, if their motivation for having their children exempt from that class is for the purpose of intolerance, then I can see why they would see that as unreasonable.

1) Ok.

2) Yes, I meant intolerant. And yes, I am aware of the quote. What I was saying is that it doesn't apply here as it had a lot to do with those that are intolerant, in power (<-- very important) and capable and willing to commit violence. If these parents have shown anything, is that they are willing to simply protest and engage in dialogue (again, excluding those that threatened violence). They are the opposite of the "intolerants" that your statement is talking about IMO.

4) I feel that people are allowed their ignorance for as long as they do not use this ignorance to harm others or if it doesn't directly put others at risk. Forcing "tolerance" onto others for the sake of a tolerant society accomplishes quite the opposite (a society that forces its beliefs onto its minorities without first considering how they feel is a form of oppression I feel). When you feel the things you care about are being attacked, you tend to over-react and become overly protective and inflexible about defending them. And there are very few things a parent would protect more than their kids and their beliefs. And they're being told to conform or else (education is mandatory and they have no choices in schooling). What do you think a person driven into a corner would do when the things they value the most are being threatened? Forced tolerance education is a bad idea until it is sold to the parents first and foremost. Til then, it is a powderkeg and anyone with any level of responsibility should approach this very delicately.

2.) Well, while this wasn't really what I was getting at, I do believe there is a strong correlation between fear, hate and violence. And unfortunately violence, or threats of violence against LGBT is not at all uncommon. In fact, in some of the countries that the protesters may originate from, being gay is punishable by death.

The 'exterminated' was certainly hyperbolic. What I meant was that if as a society you are toothless in taking acts against intolerance, then they may very well get to a point where they are unable to get back to a point where they could do something about it. Because the intolerant being in charge do not tolerate any views other than their own, it can make for the re-inclusion of those with tolerant views to be a difficult task.

4.) I do think the school is considering how intolerance of other races, genders, etc can (not too uncommonly) lead to harming others. Even hearing that someone thinks you are bad for liking someone of the same gender can have very serious consequences.
As for how this should have been communicated to the parents first, I do agree, if only because this isn't standard practice across all schools, and there may be misinformation going around, and for the parents to better understand why the school decided to do this, by for example talking about the serious harm intolerance towards children's race/gender/religion etc, can afflict.

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 June 2019

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Yes, a mandatory education violates your rights. As does anything the government mandates you do, but that's a different discussion for a different day. It's a parent's right to address these topics in a way, and when, they choose to.  The way it is being done is not in a natural way. It is obvious indoctrination from the PC crowd.

The next logical step is taking kids away from parents who don't see the same way or don't like how the schools are teaching kids this early. Kind of like what happened just a few years ago when foster kids were taken away from parents just because they were UKIP members.

Teaching tolerance and how the real world is like is indoctrination now?

I think back to my own childhood and remember that religion was a mandatory subject in school through the first eight years; two hours per week when the total hours per week were about 30. Plus the mandatory visit of the church by the whole school once per month that didn't substitute an hour of religious class, but whatever else was in that time slot; and I am sure religious class was deliberately never in that time slot for anyone.

So if I now weigh what's closer to indoctrination - is it what is being done to those kids in the UK or what I went through - those kids in the UK are so much better off. Plus they actually experience the opposite; they get freed from the indoctrination that they would face at home.

Both are indoctrination. Just because you agree with one form and not the other doesn't change that fact.



DrDoomz said:
DonFerrari said:

Except some of these programs are made to teach the child what the program think is right, the child to teach that to the parent and if the parent is in disagreement to report back to school.

Is that true? Never heard of anything like this. Sounds like SS level stuff if that is the case.

Yep, heard some cases in Europe, would take some time to track the news.

Immersiveunreality said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, my child school presents the semester material they are going to cover before hand, and them presents the results of the activities (he is 4y old). I hope this keep being the standard until he grads, and that we can choose school that have a curriculum we see as important.

I have no issue acknowledging same sex family exists, but I do prefer my child learns math, economy, programming than gender policies.

I remember my school teaching about it 27 years ago and it left me clueless about what sex was,the one teaching it was kinda religious i think and she spoke about the subject in a really cryptic way.

Anyway, i learned about sex from the Pamela anderson and Tommy lee stolen movie that a friend showed to me.(yeah a terrible way to learn about it)

Well I didn't learn in the school. But since like 6 year my father gave me Playboys. But that is his choice, state shouldn't be saying what he can or not do.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

thismeintiel said:

Both are indoctrination. Just because you agree with one form and not the other doesn't change that fact.

That sounds like you can't explain why it is indoctrination.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

DrDoomz said:
MrWayne said:

Of Course there is more nuances to it than Muslim vs LGBTQ, many muslims do not protest and many of those who protest are probably ill informed on what is actually educated in these schools, I saw a couple reports about this and many protesters thought that they children learn things about sex which is factually not true.

This school program was made to encourage tolerance and the protesters are the ones who are intolerant, they don't want that their children learn about other worldviews. If we're tolerant towards the intolerant we will lose all tolerance at some point.

And many are not ill informed and know exactly what they are protesting about. Generalizations get us nowhere. Whether they are ill informed or not is beside the point. The fact that they are protesting what they do not agree with is a good thing. It opens up channels of communication where they can air their grievances with the people in charge (at the end of the video, it is mentioned that they have begun a dialogue with the school admin). Thus those who are ill informed can get informed and can then decide if they can stand with what the school is doing or not and ask for compromises from the school to make whatever is happening more acceptable to them. It is good because instead of staying at home and impotently raging at the system, they are trying to do something about it (if they are wrong, then the school can enlighten them during said dialogue) that does not involve violence or destruction of property (though, unfortunately, there has been threats of violence/harassment but that is to be expected with something as controversial as this).

In the end, this was a good thing (unless it escalates). I do not get why you are so against it. If you want to change ppl's minds, a dialogue is needed. And the thing about the law is that it is dependent on the will of the people and who they vote for into office. If enough ppl disagree with what the school and what the law is requiring them to do then it is a good thing that these things get to be voiced. If they are indeed the silent intolerant minority then at least they were heard and they simply practiced their rights to have their voices heard.

I do not see the negative here.

I think we both talk past each other. I don't question their right to protest and I don't think that I implied this in any of my previous posts.

I disagree with the content of their protest and I would see it negatively if the program in these schools stop because of the protests.



Hiku said:
DrDoomz said:

1) Ok.

2) Yes, I meant intolerant. And yes, I am aware of the quote. What I was saying is that it doesn't apply here as it had a lot to do with those that are intolerant, in power (<-- very important) and capable and willing to commit violence. If these parents have shown anything, is that they are willing to simply protest and engage in dialogue (again, excluding those that threatened violence). They are the opposite of the "intolerants" that your statement is talking about IMO.

4) I feel that people are allowed their ignorance for as long as they do not use this ignorance to harm others or if it doesn't directly put others at risk. Forcing "tolerance" onto others for the sake of a tolerant society accomplishes quite the opposite (a society that forces its beliefs onto its minorities without first considering how they feel is a form of oppression I feel). When you feel the things you care about are being attacked, you tend to over-react and become overly protective and inflexible about defending them. And there are very few things a parent would protect more than their kids and their beliefs. And they're being told to conform or else (education is mandatory and they have no choices in schooling). What do you think a person driven into a corner would do when the things they value the most are being threatened? Forced tolerance education is a bad idea until it is sold to the parents first and foremost. Til then, it is a powderkeg and anyone with any level of responsibility should approach this very delicately.

2.) Well, while this wasn't really what I was getting at, I do believe there is a strong correlation between fear, hate and violence. And unfortunately violence, or threats of violence against LGBT is not at all uncommon. In fact, in some of the countries that the protesters may originate from, being gay is punishable by death.

The 'exterminated' was certainly hyperbolic. What I meant was that if as a society you are toothless in taking acts against intolerance, then they may very well get to a point where they are unable to get back to a point where they could do something about it. Because the intolerant being in charge do not tolerate any views other than their own, it can make for the re-inclusion of those with tolerant views to be a difficult task.

4.) I do think the school is considering how intolerance of other races, genders, etc can (not too uncommonly) lead to harming others. Even hearing that someone thinks you are bad for liking someone of the same gender can have very serious consequences.
As for how this should have been communicated to the parents first, I do agree, if only because this isn't standard practice across all schools, and there may be misinformation going around, and for the parents to better understand why the school decided to do this, by for example talking about the serious harm intolerance towards children's race/gender/religion etc, can afflict.

2) But that isn't what is happening here, tho. This isn't about some ppl wanting nazi-type hate and genocide to happen. It's some minority (and often oppressed hated themselves) parents wanting to have a say on what to teach their kids and doing it in a peaceful and legal way that opens up dialogue and compromise on both sides. There is no down side to this. The other way is to simply tell them to bend over, shut up and take it up the bum because the majority wants their version of tolerance forced down their throats without them ever even having a choice to say no. It's funny that you say that the intolerant being in charge do not tolerate any views other than their own. What do you think is happening when one hopes for minorities to not have a say on what their kids should be learning and won't even give them a choice or a voice in the matter? (not saying that's you, but I feel a government that forces mandatory behavioral conditioning on kids against the wishes of the parents to be the case)

4) At least we can agree on the parents needing to be informed first. Now it's just a matter of agreeing on giving them a voice and a choice, regardless of how we may disagree with it... :p