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

fatslob-:O said:
Hahaha ...

I guess the "diversity loving" liberals and the "intolerance hating" liberals are going are going to have to decide what values truly are or aren't 'liberal' ...

Mixing freedom of speech and incompatible values between different minorities will only create tensions. Taking away freedom of speech will mean that differing minorities of incompatible social values will not be able to express 'intolerance' so I guess they don't appreciate "having diversity" after all ...

Decisions, decisions, decisions ... (gotta love these contradictions)

I'd hardly call it a contradiction.  They don't go against each other in all circumstances, and even in the circumstances where it appears to contradict, people tend to have preferences so that one overrides the other.  

I've literally never seen a liberal have trouble between the two. 

Plenty of liberals will point out that freedom of speech has limitations.  

DrDoomz said:
the-pi-guy said:

No.  That doesn't make any sense.  

You can't legislate thoughts and feelings.  

I asked about should not could. Not the capability of it being done but if such a thing was possible, would you want it to be?

Aboslutely not.  

There's a huge difference between having policies that promote an outcome and policies that legally enforce an outcome.  



Around the Network
Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

That's good to hear.

My question had a lot to do with the reason behind the condemnation these parents seem to be suffering. 

A lot of people are condemning them behind their motivations/thoughts but not really their actions. Their actions might have homophobic roots but homophobia is something people are allowed to have unless they act on it and hurt/oppress others. Protesting over something you care about, however, is well within their rights (again, I condemn those who use threats/acts of violence).

To contrast, what they are fighting against is government being able to actively instill values they do not agree with onto their children and the loss of choice against such government acts. The ONLY time IMO that government is allowed to overrule the parents is when there is direct harm/risk on the kids themselves and others.

When compared to each other I find the latter far more distasteful than the former. Far far FAR more. Everyone should be scared about it regardless of where your politics lie.

It doesn't matter if we disagree with their values, they have the right to have it.

What value was trying to be instilled tat they disagree with? Because I think that teaching your children to be homophobic little shits is actually a direct harm to them when they have to live in a society that contains gay people. Just like teaching your child to be a racist little shit would be directly harmful to them when they have to live in a society where getting along with other races is a necessity. 

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative? Why is choice so important when it comes to killing unborn kids but suddenly so unimportant when it comes to actually doing your best to raise these kids according to your values (<--not directed at you)?



DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

What value was trying to be instilled tat they disagree with? Because I think that teaching your children to be homophobic little shits is actually a direct harm to them when they have to live in a society that contains gay people. Just like teaching your child to be a racist little shit would be directly harmful to them when they have to live in a society where getting along with other races is a necessity. 

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative?

Well then we have a disagreement in terms. I think that teaching your children values that make it harder for them to live in society as it is is harmful to not just them but the society in which they live. Both of these are concerns the government and society at large can and should have. 

So again I'm curious, what exactly was the school teaching that the parents took issue with and why? 



...

Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative?

Well then we have a disagreement in terms. I think that teaching your children values that make it harder for them to live in society as it is is harmful to not just them but the society in which they live. Both of these are concerns the government and society at large can and should have. 

So again I'm curious, what exactly was the school teaching that the parents took issue with and why? 

Your logic is very slippery-slope-fallacy-ish and very subjective as well as highly overdramaticizing what the parents are trying to do here. Society doesn't get to decide how a person thinks. And they can only control what one does for as long as it is directly harmful to others.

At no point did they ask the school to teach homophobic-shittiness to the kids.

Well, whether or not we agree on the content of the lessons (personally, I disagree with the parents and find the lesson to be harmless. But that is not the point), the parents themselves don't want it taught to their kids, they should be allowed to opt out.



Pemalite said:
Wedge said:
Atheists defending morals (humanity, rights, freedom, justice, etc...) is one of the most absurd things ever, are you guys aware of the consequence of your beliefs? do you know what is it like to be a real atheist?

Consequences of our beliefs? No religion has yet been able to substantiate their religious assertions with empirical evidence, they have been given thousands of years to do so...
But there is evidence of things like the Big Bang, Evolution, Homosexuals and so on. - They have been substantiated.

Wedge said:
From an atheistic view, we are just a bunch of atoms without purpose and meaning (nihilism), good and evil are illusions, and the belief that a certain act is good or evil is an arbitrary conclusion, "It's pretty hard to defend absolute morals on grounds other than religious ones", Richard Dawkins says.

Absolutely false. Good and Evil does exist, but they can differ from ones own perspective.

Morals are a human construct... Morals are built from things like empathy and pain. - In short, we share empathy with someone who is in pain... And would not like to experience a similar pain or inflict that pain upon others.

And we can always talk about the Terrorists who leverage religion for their heinous crimes and the amount of Christian leaders who have been unjust towards children... Where the hell are their morals?
In short... Religion is not required to have morals, I save peoples lives daily, I am a hard-line atheist, unless you are suggesting I don't have morals?

Wedge said:
An atheist who's honest with himself wouldn't care about others lives, as long as he's not concerned. he won't let "moral values" prevent him from pursuing pleasure in his finite life (hedonism), why would he not kill if it won't have negative consequences on him (aka punishment, which wouldn't exist in a purely atheistic world, only the law of nature do).

Pleasure doesn't override morals.
And an Atheist would and can care about himself and others, again... Empathy.

Wedge said:

You can blame your consciousness for that, or keep lying to yourself. As for the homosexuality topic, I recommend reading "My genes made me do it!".

Homosexuality has already been scientifically established that there is a biological, environmental and social aspect to it.

In saying that... Homosexuality most certainly does come into conflict with the main 3 middle eastern religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism... But again, after thousands of years, millions of followers... None of those religions have been able to establish their various assertions with empirical evidence... And thus Homosexuality should take priority in matters.

You totally missed the point.

You said it yourself, "good and evil does exist, but they can differ from ones own perspective.", so what if I see good in killing? why does that bother you if you're not the one being killed? it's my own perspective of good, you might say humanity and compassion and whatnot, I say that they're relative too, why would you want to impose your standards on me?

Most of the "prophets" of atheism like Richard Dawkins, Lauren Krauss, Carl Sagan and Sam Harris, all see that morals and ethics are relative, so defending them rationally, without falling into logical fallacies and rhetoric is a waste of time, you just have to read. also, being a human construct doesn't mean it's the right thing, relativity of morals destroys the concept of right and wrong.

You save peoples lives, and? what do you gain from that? only feeling good about yourself because you believe in the illusion (from an atheistic view) called absolute morals, and either if you save lives or kill people your destiny is the same: void, sooner or later. there's no point in risking your own and only life to save others lives, this is absurd.

The arguments against religion that you presented are overused by superficial atheists, besides relying on the absoluteness of morals (which can only be true when there's a superior authority that defines what's right and what's wrong and rewards the right doers and punished the wrong doers), there's more to say: the genetic argument was debunked long ago, you just have to search, homosexuality is nothing but a normal consequence of the sexualisation and pussification of the western society (no offense), including teaching children that those kind of sex topics are banal.

As for the terrorism argument: are the evil acts of a certain group that claims to follow an ideology an argument against the ideology itself? obviously no, read about Islamic rules of war and true jihads, you'll find that killing women, children, old people, priests, craftsmen, captives, unarmed people etc... is prohibited, only adult armed men who are engaged in the conflict can be fought. of course you don't know that because your source of info is working on tarnishing the image of Islam, what did you expect from them? and still this is just a tiny portion of the truth.

You're dealing with Islam here, not Christianity, the big bang theory is clearly stated in the Quran, as for evolution, there are muslims who believe in it, those who believe in guided evolution and those who reject it, if you want me to open that topic too I'll gladly do.

I had doubt about my religion for a long time, if I didn't properly learn about atheism I wouldn't have given Islam a second chance. I invite you to read more about atheism, and Islam from muslim sources, rather than being content with what you've been told and persuaded with by media and school.



Around the Network
DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

Well then we have a disagreement in terms. I think that teaching your children values that make it harder for them to live in society as it is is harmful to not just them but the society in which they live. Both of these are concerns the government and society at large can and should have. 

So again I'm curious, what exactly was the school teaching that the parents took issue with and why? 

Your logic is very slippery-slope-fallacy-ish and very subjective as well as highly overdramaticizing what the parents are trying to do here. Society doesn't get to decide how a person thinks. And they can only control what one does for as long as it is directly harmful to others.

At no point did they ask the school to teach homophobic-shittiness to the kids.

Well, whether or not we agree on the content of the lessons (personally, I disagree with the parents and find the lesson to be harmless. But that is not the point), the parents themselves don't want it taught to their kids, they should be allowed to opt out.

My logic is that if you have an issue with your kid learning gay people exist, then you are homophobic and society would be better off if there were less people that think like you. What is the goal of public school in your mind? Because my understanding is not that you are meant to learn the basic skills necessary for life (though I would argue being able to exist in the same space as gay people is a necessary skill) but to bring up good citizens of a society. This is why we teach children morals like don't hit others, don't bully, be accepting of others. Allowing children to opt out of these moral lessons of acceptance is not a route I want to go down because I don't want parents to be able to opt their kids out of lessons of racial acceptance because their parents are racist or acceptance of other religions because they differ to the religion of the parents. 

No they aren't asking the school to teach homophobic-shittiness, they just don't want the homophobic-shittiness taught at home to be undermined. 

I disagree that parents should be able to opt their kids out of lessons that teach them to be more accepting of others. That is harmful to society and to those children personally. Just like you shouldn't be able to opt your kids out of biology because you don't believe in evolution, history because you are a holocaust denier, or medical studies because you think prayer is the only allowed way to heal. 



...

DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

What value was trying to be instilled tat they disagree with? Because I think that teaching your children to be homophobic little shits is actually a direct harm to them when they have to live in a society that contains gay people. Just like teaching your child to be a racist little shit would be directly harmful to them when they have to live in a society where getting along with other races is a necessity. 

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative? Why is choice so important when it comes to killing unborn kids but suddenly so unimportant when it comes to actually doing your best to raise these kids according to your values (<--not directed at you)?

Ofcourse the kids do not do anything wrong,but teaching kids to be homophobic is an action and not a "thoughtcrime".



Hiku said:
Snoopy said:

Apparently, you didn't read my post carefully. I said liberals praise Islam while hating Christianity for its values. Even though Islam beliefs is much stricter. Here is Bill Maher calling liberals out on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWtcy5GFZI

I did read your post carefully. I phrased it that way to give you an opportunity to give a relevant answer.
Someone can praise Islam for something other than their views on LGBT, and not be a hypocrite for criticizing someone elses views on LGBT.

In the video you linked at 3:38, the guy says "certain liberals."
And because I read your post carefully, I see that you did not use the term 'certain'. You just said liberals.

I should not have to tell you that The Young Turks do not represent all liberals. And Bill Maher has his own show, so he can say whatever he wants there.

This forum however is not your personal outlet to attack everyone of an opposing view for something someone may or may not have said somewhere, with generalized statements like that when the thread called for no such thing.
If you want to call out someone for being a hypocrite for something they said, that's fine as long as you can back it up. But you didn't even say "The Young Turks are such hypocrites."

We are cracking down on these type of generalized attacks on groups with opposing views, because they are a major source of contention in this forum section. Especially when they're disingenuous. And especially when you've done it before: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8213329

Consider this a notice that we don't want to see that from you ever again.

Still liberals nonetheless and a huge chunk of them that hold this belief. But hey, lets cherry pick the few liberals that don't call out Islam.



Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

Your logic is very slippery-slope-fallacy-ish and very subjective as well as highly overdramaticizing what the parents are trying to do here. Society doesn't get to decide how a person thinks. And they can only control what one does for as long as it is directly harmful to others.

At no point did they ask the school to teach homophobic-shittiness to the kids.

Well, whether or not we agree on the content of the lessons (personally, I disagree with the parents and find the lesson to be harmless. But that is not the point), the parents themselves don't want it taught to their kids, they should be allowed to opt out.

My logic is that if you have an issue with your kid learning gay people exist, then you are homophobic and society would be better off if there were less people that think like you. What is the goal of public school in your mind? Because my understanding is not that you are meant to learn the basic skills necessary for life (though I would argue being able to exist in the same space as gay people is a necessary skill) but to bring up good citizens of a society. This is why we teach children morals like don't hit others, don't bully, be accepting of others. Allowing children to opt out of these moral lessons of acceptance is not a route I want to go down because I don't want parents to be able to opt their kids out of lessons of racial acceptance because their parents are racist or acceptance of other religions because they differ to the religion of the parents. 

No they aren't asking the school to teach homophobic-shittiness, they just don't want the homophobic-shittiness taught at home to be undermined. 

I disagree that parents should be able to opt their kids out of lessons that teach them to be more accepting of others. That is harmful to society and to those children personally. Just like you shouldn't be able to opt your kids out of biology because you don't believe in evolution, history because you are a holocaust denier, or medical studies because you think prayer is the only allowed way to heal. 

So purge the ppl who don't believe as we do? I disagree. The goal of public school is to educate. Some of those lessons may even cover values. But parents are allowed to not agree with values taught at school (as values can be subjective) and are free to express this disagreement via protest. If there is enough of a protest, schools are then given a choice to engage in dialogue and offer compromises to alleviate this conflict. The beauty of this process is that it may even teach the more ignorant parents the correct facts behind the lesson and they may even get on board (who knows?). But the fact that the parents used a legal and commendable method to express their disagreement is something that we should not condemn, regardless of their politics.

Well, then maybe you should ask that teaching homophobic-shittiness at home be outlawed if you have issues with that. But opting out of an LGBT lesson is NOT directly teaching kids to be shitty homophobes. And saying that opting out of LGBT classes to 5 year old directly turns the kids into homophobic shits is a bit of a non-sequitur. 

So choice only applies for as long as the choice is something that we agree with? Not really how I feel. Personally, I feel parents should be given the right to home school their kids if they want (especially when education is starting to become politicized these days). Until the kids are old enough to make their own decisions, that is. Also, not learning about biology, history or medicine does not make you an evolution/holocaust/medicine denier. That's a bit of a stretch there. You understand that "accepting of others" also means accepting their culture? Islam is a huge part of their culture. And it has strong roots w/c is not accepting of LGBT acts. Why insist on them accepting something they don't want to? The evil is when they act on it, but their thoughts are not yours to control.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 09 June 2019

Immersiveunreality said:
DrDoomz said:

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative? Why is choice so important when it comes to killing unborn kids but suddenly so unimportant when it comes to actually doing your best to raise these kids according to your values (<--not directed at you)?

Ofcourse the kids do not do anything wrong,but teaching kids to be homophobic is an action and not a "thoughtcrime".

I asked ppl if they feel that homophobia (the thought) should be illegal. I thought the answer was: no?

Homophobia itself is a thought crime. Is bestowing values with homophobic tendencies to kids illegal? Should it be (outside of a call to action to harm others of course)?