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

On a variety of things here:

-Muslims tend to be more conservative.  I do want to point out that it's not hypocritical to support someone's freedom of religion (even for a religion that tends to have issues supporting woman's rights) while still supporting woman's rights.  I'm fine with people believing pretty much any religion as long as they don't harm the person or rights of other individuals.  I'll certainly support someone's freedom of religion, but their freedoms to follow a religion stop with them. I don't believe their beliefs should get to affect non-followers or even other followers.  

-There's this strange belief that teaching kids about LGBT, will be confusing for them.  On the contrary, children don't have the expectations of opposite sex relationships that adults have developed.  So learning that some people like people of the same sex, isn't something that's confusing for kids.  It's confusing for some adults because it goes against things they've learned.   You see the same kinds of trends with racism.  Adults can be "innately" bothered by people of a different color, when their kids don't even understand why it matters.  Because for the kids it doesn't matter.  It doesn't go against anything they've learned in their short time of growing up.  Whereas adults can have years or even decades of learning those racist biases.  This is why it's so important to have kids grow up with diversity.  They can see a same-sex couple and not even give it a second thought.  They can grow up without the racist biases of their parents.  

-There's also a particular bias against LGBT that doesn't always get pointed out.   But LGBT couples get held to a higher standard.  If a movie has a straight couple having sex, no one even talks about it.  A movie with a straight couple having that first kiss is lauded.  Whereas the exact same kiss with an LGBT couple gets burned.  Some people give a straight sex scene a pass, and yet they flip out with the latter kissing.  We're not in a position to talk about equality when we get bothered by seeing people treated equally by media.  



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

It isn't really a slide slope.

Kids are curious and they will keep asking, and if you just stop answering or shut the conversation they'll get information otherwise, that is the point the guy made and it is totally right. The fact that you wouldn't answer or that the parents didn't ask don't mean the kids weren't curious or that they didn't learn in a different way.

On the government. Good that it isn't so bad over there, but anywhere in the world more power to the government is less to the people.

It is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
If someone claims one thing... And then suddenly the argument expands and runs away from that claim... It's a slippery slope argument... Which is exactly what is occurring.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I am claiming that you can keep the response simple and tactful... And the slippery slope is where it will spiral out of control due to a childs curiosity, you cannot get a better example of a slippery slope argument than that.

Whether the kids are curious or not is ultimately irrelevant though, Kids will be curious about sexual intercourse regardless if the people are Homosexual or not... But suddenly because we are talking about LGBTQI people it's somehow significantly worse? I don't get it, double standards.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DonFerrari said:
RolStoppable said:

What is the relevance of this argument? The point of contention was that the educational programs of the government (i.e. public schools) are much more competent than what the average parents can provide. Which is true, so the big question is why you take issue with that.

The relevance is on the parents having nothing to say because government knows better.

In Europe governments are elected by the people, so the government has accountability towards the people. If any government tried anything stupid in the educational system, a lot of people would be up in arms and the power of the governing political parties would be threatened, because they can expect to lose a large amount of votes and therefore their power, if they don't apply consideration to the situation.

One reason why you are so against this idea might be that you live in Brazil where the system doesn't work as well as in Europe. Another reason could be - based on what other people have pointed out about you in different threads - that you have a racist mindset, so schools teaching tolerance is something that conflicts with your view of the world.



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

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

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

You don't have to apologize for you didn't burst anything.

I have two kids, my wife is a pre-K teacher and we both have Early Childhood Education degrees. Where do you think children learn their prejudices from?  Hate against gay people is not an innate emotion for a 5 year old.

1). That may be why child have preferences even before age of being influenced to have any prejudice right?

2). Or the fact that prejudice is innate to human beings, not something that is teached.

3). Hate against gay people certainly isn't innate, but learning about gay and that is different and mocking other child with it is very innate children behavior.

1). I'm sorry.  I'm trying to follow your question but I can't.  Did you miss a word?  Or can you re-word it?  I don't want to make a reply that might be about something you weren't saying and then we're both confused.

2). Uh, no.  Prejudice is taught.  Again, My wife teaches Pre-K and we both have degrees in it.  We see it every single day. Look up any research article. study or white paper by child psychologists on learned prejudice. Very little regarding social constructs is innate and none of it is factored by confusion or fear.

3). Mocking isn't generally innate.  Mocking of the social rejected is learned.  Kids will mock others not simply because they are different but because their difference is projected by others as a negative. 

If 5 years are shown that people of different cultures, races, sexes, classes, religions, orientations, etc....are accepted....they will accept them.  It is when those they model behavior and worldview after do not accept them that they develop prejudices.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

It isn't really a slide slope.

Kids are curious and they will keep asking, and if you just stop answering or shut the conversation they'll get information otherwise, that is the point the guy made and it is totally right. The fact that you wouldn't answer or that the parents didn't ask don't mean the kids weren't curious or that they didn't learn in a different way.

On the government. Good that it isn't so bad over there, but anywhere in the world more power to the government is less to the people.

It is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
If someone claims one thing... And then suddenly the argument expands and runs away from that claim... It's a slippery slope argument... Which is exactly what is occurring.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I am claiming that you can keep the response simple and tactful... And the slippery slope is where it will spiral out of control due to a childs curiosity, you cannot get a better example of a slippery slope argument than that.

Whether the kids are curious or not is ultimately irrelevant though, Kids will be curious about sexual intercourse regardless if the people are Homosexual or not... But suddenly because we are talking about LGBTQI people it's somehow significantly worse? I don't get it, double standards.

I disagree on it being a slippery slope, but there isn't a point in us discussing it =]

No it isn't significantly worse. I would the point is that when you prompt situations to kids they will be curious about it, so you don't need to be pointing things that aren't necessary for them to discover before they are curious by themselves.

RolStoppable said:
DonFerrari said:

The relevance is on the parents having nothing to say because government knows better.

In Europe governments are elected by the people, so the government has accountability towards the people. If any government tried anything stupid in the educational system, a lot of people would be up in arms and the power of the governing political parties would be threatened, because they can expect to lose a large amount of votes and therefore their power, if they don't apply consideration to the situation.

One reason why you are so against this idea might be that you live in Brazil where the system doesn't work as well as in Europe. Another reason could be - based on what other people have pointed out about you in different threads - that you have a racist mindset, so schools teaching tolerance is something that conflicts with your view of the world.

In Brazil and most of western world government is also elected, doesn't mean they won't make bad laws, steal money and a lot of other bad stuff. Not sure why you are pointing that. A political power may lose power, but how many laws in your country have been passed to diminish the government power versus expanding it.

Yes, sure. I'm racist because I don't agree with you. That may have been inherited from 3/4 of black african slaves ancestry that I have.

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

1). That may be why child have preferences even before age of being influenced to have any prejudice right?

2). Or the fact that prejudice is innate to human beings, not something that is teached.

3). Hate against gay people certainly isn't innate, but learning about gay and that is different and mocking other child with it is very innate children behavior.

1). I'm sorry.  I'm trying to follow your question but I can't.  Did you miss a word?  Or can you re-word it?  I don't want to make a reply that might be about something you weren't saying and then we're both confused.

2). Uh, no.  Prejudice is taught.  Again, My wife teaches Pre-K and we both have degrees in it.  We see it every single day. Look up any research article. study or white paper by child psychologists on learned prejudice. Very little regarding social constructs is innate and none of it is factored by confusion or fear.

3). Mocking isn't generally innate.  Mocking of the social rejected is learned.  Kids will mock others not simply because they are different but because their difference is projected by others as a negative. 

If 5 years are shown that people of different cultures, races, sexes, classes, religions, orientations, etc....are accepted....they will accept them.  It is when those they model behavior and worldview after do not accept them that they develop prejudices.

1) Childs have preferences and prejudices even before being influenced on those.

2) My niece since about 2 years old liked me more than my brother and reasoned that it was due to the skin being the same tone as her.

3) Childs mock one another all the time, even among friends and from very early age.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/



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

Around the Network

I sort of find it odd that people on the left bash all Christians non stop and many famous comedians and talk show hosts made a living on that.

However they would not touch this with a ten-foot pole as any critique of Islam = you are racist.



LadyJasmine said:
I sort of find it odd that people on the left bash all Christians non stop and many famous comedians and talk show hosts made a living on that.

However they would not touch this with a ten-foot pole as any critique of Islam = you are racist.

Not all "leftists" are anti-Christian.  A lot of leftists are Christian.  

You can find plenty of examples of (atheist) leftists bashing Muslims for being religious.  I tend to see most people on the left defending Muslim's right to freedom of religion.  I don't tend to see examples where leftists defend Muslims in everything they do like you are claiming.


You can take a look at how Era is treating this:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uk-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parents-protest.103459/

There are plenty of posts telling the parents to "fuck off", plenty of people blaming them on being religious, etc.



Pemalite said:
Machiavellian said:

Well lets put it this way, from my experience just telling a child someone loves each other isn't the end of the discussion as you stated.  That is only the beginning and from there you have to define exactly what love is.  Is it love between 2 friends, a family member like sister and brother or the love between a mom and dad.  You made the statement that all you need to say they love each other and that's it, the child is satisfied with the answer and never want the details or the context.

You are an Adult... Make it the end of a discussion. Children don't get to control or dictate terms to you.

You are delving into slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy, you need to recognize that and recognize that your line of thinking is highly erroneous due to that very fact.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

The fact of the matter is... Whenever someone has used me as an example of teaching their children about Homosexuality, they left it as "They love each other". - The kids were satisfied with that answer.

I am telling you that you cannot make it the end of the discussion.  Have you listened to a word that I stated.  As the parent if you are not teaching your child someone else will.  If you are not filling in the gap in their knowledge someone else will.  If you are not treating your child with respect to their curiosity and question someone else will.  Just because YOU decide to end the conversation does not mean to the child its ended.  They will seek understanding whether you provide it or not.  The only thing I hear from you is that you tell the kids about homosexuality and that's the end but in reality its the end for you not the parent or the child.  Its only the beginning as any simplistic answer will only satisfy the now not the future.

Machiavellian said:

Not sure what you mean.  I am stating you cannot leave out context or just leave gaps in the subject hoping the the child will not come back for more answers or for that matter not come back at all but get their info from somewhere else.  There is no slippery slope in my argument because I am stating that once you open up a topic you have to be prepared to talk about everything, not just the parts you feel you can handle.  Its great that you are a person some parents can come to to open up the subject but are you the person they come back to to fill in the gaps.  Do you believe that just saying we love each other the child will not seek context to what that means.  At the end of the day, most parents do not have you for context in these talks but instead rely on their own experience and what they either know or think they know or how they feel about the subject.  Its a subject that will constantly come back as the child gets more info on the topic.

If you think that talking about two adults showing love and affection to children is suddenly going to turn into a discussion about how individuals fuck each other.. Then you are probably going about it the wrong way, kids don't need to know details like how I went and had sex with 7 different guys at a gay sauna with my partner last weekend... But telling them I love my partner as I hug him after dealing with casualties at a car accident is all that is needed.

It is literally no different talking to a child about how their mum and dad loves each other, there is no further discussion that delves into questionable aspects like you so eloquently describe, it just doesn't happen... It's baseless fear mongering.

If the parents don't have appropriate experience, information or context like you say... Then that just places a larger emphasis on the need of teaching kids about LGBTQI issues in the curriculum does it not? You said it yourself that parents are failing in this area.

This is where I believe you have no experience in this subject.  Yes, telling a child that 2 adults love each other like mom and dad can lead to a discussion about sex.  Since I have had this conversation I know exactly what I am talking about.  Do you believe that children do not get information about sex before their teen years.  I know as a child I knew about sex at 6 years old but did not understand fully.  In today's world there are girls in middle school doing knob jobs on their little boys. Hell, there was an HBO special about the whole thing. I remember hunching a young girl at 7 years old thinking I was having sex.  I am telling you that as a parent, you deal with this stuff all the time or you don't and the child will get their info somewhere else and do experiments with their friends.  This still comes back to what I am saying that this book doesn't do enough and it doesn't fill in the gap thus it's a half measure at a young age.   This doesn't help at all but instead give a chance to have bias introduced before the child reach an age of understanding.

Machiavellian said:

Raising their children in what way because as a parent, you deal with a thousand things you need to do to raise your child.  What exactly does that mean.  What this does is at this early age is force a conversation on the topic earlier then I believe the LGBT community would want.  Instead of teaching a child early about different relationships it brings up the conversation so bias can be introduced at an early age and enforced before the child has a chance to develop their own opinions.  

The majority of parents would never even have such conversations with their kids and for most they would see nothing wrong or different if they see Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom because there is no bias within a child so young.  What this does is now the child will look for context to what is taught in school and they will ask their parents to fill the gap.  If you are ok that the happy path will not always be the result then so be it but I do not believe this closes the gap.  I believe this opens the door for bias and indoctrination during the very early development stage of a child and will not accomplish the learning you wish for but instead give parents who do not look favorable towards the LGBT community to instill their bias to the child.

 

LGBT people are here to stay, they are in the community. Kids are going to see two men holding hands, showing affection and ask questions... Telling a child that it's because those two people love each other isn't the end of the world.

Kids understand the concept of love, apparently than allot of Adults... It's not some dirty, unthinkable topic that should be avoided, LGBT people are part of the real world, they have always existed, will always exist and it's time that some people embraced that very fact and got over it.

As for indoctrination... I think you should be a little more concerned about religion on that front than education on LGBT issues/culture. I mean.. Shit.

The thing is for the world to accept the LGBT community as a whole, you cannot force anything but instead people need to move on from their prejudice.

At BOLD:  This is exactly what you want.  You want them to see it naturally as if this is no different than walking down the street.  What you do not want is it taught as something different or unique where it then can be portrayed as outside the norm.

Actually, I would say that kids do not understand the concept of love instead they understand the feeling of love.  Love to a child is about how they feel not exactly what true love is and love in itself is very complex emotionally.  

I can tell you when I was growing up, I did not get exposed to any homosexual group until my teens but I know for a fact if I was exposed to content like that book while I was 5 years old and went to my mom or dad for context it would not be good.  Their bias on that issue is very set and even today, they are not very open minded on the subject.

Basically what I am saying is that there is a 2 edged sword to this type of material at this young age and there isn't always going to be the happy path where there is understanding and acceptance.  



DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

It is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
If someone claims one thing... And then suddenly the argument expands and runs away from that claim... It's a slippery slope argument... Which is exactly what is occurring.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I am claiming that you can keep the response simple and tactful... And the slippery slope is where it will spiral out of control due to a childs curiosity, you cannot get a better example of a slippery slope argument than that.

Whether the kids are curious or not is ultimately irrelevant though, Kids will be curious about sexual intercourse regardless if the people are Homosexual or not... But suddenly because we are talking about LGBTQI people it's somehow significantly worse? I don't get it, double standards.

I disagree on it being a slippery slope, but there isn't a point in us discussing it =]

No it isn't significantly worse. I would the point is that when you prompt situations to kids they will be curious about it, so you don't need to be pointing things that aren't necessary for them to discover before they are curious by themselves.

RolStoppable said:

In Europe governments are elected by the people, so the government has accountability towards the people. If any government tried anything stupid in the educational system, a lot of people would be up in arms and the power of the governing political parties would be threatened, because they can expect to lose a large amount of votes and therefore their power, if they don't apply consideration to the situation.

One reason why you are so against this idea might be that you live in Brazil where the system doesn't work as well as in Europe. Another reason could be - based on what other people have pointed out about you in different threads - that you have a racist mindset, so schools teaching tolerance is something that conflicts with your view of the world.

In Brazil and most of western world government is also elected, doesn't mean they won't make bad laws, steal money and a lot of other bad stuff. Not sure why you are pointing that. A political power may lose power, but how many laws in your country have been passed to diminish the government power versus expanding it.

Yes, sure. I'm racist because I don't agree with you. That may have been inherited from 3/4 of black african slaves ancestry that I have.

SpokenTruth said:

1). I'm sorry.  I'm trying to follow your question but I can't.  Did you miss a word?  Or can you re-word it?  I don't want to make a reply that might be about something you weren't saying and then we're both confused.

2). Uh, no.  Prejudice is taught.  Again, My wife teaches Pre-K and we both have degrees in it.  We see it every single day. Look up any research article. study or white paper by child psychologists on learned prejudice. Very little regarding social constructs is innate and none of it is factored by confusion or fear.

3). Mocking isn't generally innate.  Mocking of the social rejected is learned.  Kids will mock others not simply because they are different but because their difference is projected by others as a negative. 

If 5 years are shown that people of different cultures, races, sexes, classes, religions, orientations, etc....are accepted....they will accept them.  It is when those they model behavior and worldview after do not accept them that they develop prejudices.

1) Childs have preferences and prejudices even before being influenced on those.

2) My niece since about 2 years old liked me more than my brother and reasoned that it was due to the skin being the same tone as her.

3) Childs mock one another all the time, even among friends and from very early age.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/

1). Not to the degree of fear and confusion. Which is the whole premise here. Go back and read my Point 2 above.

2). Sure, but is your niece fearful and confused regarding your brother?  Again, go back and read my Point 2 above.

3). Babies preferring pretty faces has to do with our psychological inclination towards facial symmetry. Further, that's not mocking the non-pretty faces.  It's more of an indifference. Again, Point 2 above.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

I disagree on it being a slippery slope, but there isn't a point in us discussing it =]

No it isn't significantly worse. I would the point is that when you prompt situations to kids they will be curious about it, so you don't need to be pointing things that aren't necessary for them to discover before they are curious by themselves.

In Brazil and most of western world government is also elected, doesn't mean they won't make bad laws, steal money and a lot of other bad stuff. Not sure why you are pointing that. A political power may lose power, but how many laws in your country have been passed to diminish the government power versus expanding it.

Yes, sure. I'm racist because I don't agree with you. That may have been inherited from 3/4 of black african slaves ancestry that I have.

1) Childs have preferences and prejudices even before being influenced on those.

2) My niece since about 2 years old liked me more than my brother and reasoned that it was due to the skin being the same tone as her.

3) Childs mock one another all the time, even among friends and from very early age.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/

1). Not to the degree of fear and confusion. Which is the whole premise here. Go back and read my Point 2 above.

2). Sure, but is your niece fearful and confused regarding your brother?  Again, go back and read my Point 2 above.

3). Babies preferring pretty faces has to do with our psychological inclination towards facial symmetry. Further, that's not mocking the non-pretty faces.  It's more of an indifference. Again, Point 2 above.

1) Sure it is not to a degree of fear, but thanks for acknowledging that prejudice is already part of them. Prejudice isn't fear and confusion.

2) No, but still she already had preferences to which was closer to how she was before adult influencing her.

3) Prejudice have to do with our instinct of survival and is ingrained in human being. Mocking is also part of human being and it can come from anything that a child see that is different tham him or herself.



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