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

RolStoppable said:
DrDoomz said:

I do not know how you got #Islamophobia from "if the shoe is on the other foot (and there is a chance of that happening), you won't like it" but if a strawman is something you feel helps you sleep at night then feel free.

I've been wondering for a while what your real motivation in this discussion is, why you are so against tolerance being taught at schools. The statement I highlighted was one driven by irrational fear because it's not likely at all for that to happen. None of the European countries will turn into islamic states, however, exactly that is a surprisingly popular thought among local people of the political right.

What those people apparently don't get is that ultra-conservative muslims don't migrate to Europe with some kind of masterplan to replace the current majority of a non-islamic population eventually. Ultra-conservative muslims are pretty scared themselves, because moving to Europe and the ensuing exposure to the local culture seriously threatens their way of life. For example, female members of their family are prone to de-emphasize islam because they like it that men and women are seen as equal. Even in the event that people from muslim origin will eventually constitute the majority in Europe, by that time the majority of them won't be particularly religious anymore, so the biggest difference between them and the current majority will most likely be skin color.

So your proposal to give in to the muslims that this topic is about as preparation for "our" kids to not face potential islamic oppression in the future is a proposal that is grounded in irrational fear.

You are reading too much between the lines. My motivation is what I have been arguing all along. You take it face value and try not to cherrypick sentences out of my replies so that you can strawman in an attempt to poison the well.

For the record:

1) I am NOT against LGBT tolerance being taught in schools. I have mentioned this multiple times and if you read any of replies completely you would know this. And I thought this was already perfectly clear seeing as I've repeated this more than once. What I am against is making it mandatory and for parent/students to not be given the right to opt out.

2) What I mentioned was a hypothetical (but possible) scenario. The core of the statement was simply: would you like it  IF (<-- see? hypothetical) things were on the other foot? You would know this if you read my replies instead of trying to cherrypick and snipe at them. At no point did I imply that ultraconservative Muslims had a master plan to replace the current majority. It is, however, possible that the protesting parents (who I believe are not ultranconservative) may very well become a solid demographic given immigration and birth rates and (again) IF (<--- hypothetical) they were to impose THEIR values, some ppl wouldn't like it. The point of the statement is a call to self-reflection on whether or not one believes that one's current voting majority gives one the right to impose/force one's societal values at the expense of a minority's culture (regardless of how right it is to us) and how one would feel if the reverse was true. There, I have made my motivation as clear via as many redundant explanations as possible. I hope that clears things up and I accept your apology.

This is not about "preparation" or "giving in" this is about fair and equal treatment and the rights of a parent on raising their kids, the importance of separating thoughts from actions when we decide to condemn and the right of said parent to have their voice be heard. I am NOT implying any kind "Islamic oppression" now or in the future.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 09 June 2019

Around the Network
DrDoomz said:

You are reading too much between the lines. My motivation is what I have been arguing all along. You take it face value and try not to cherrypick sentences out of my replies so that you can strawman in an attempt to poison the well.

For the record:

1) I am NOT against LGBT tolerance being taught in schools. I have mentioned this multiple times and if you read any of replies completely you would know this. And I thought this was already perfectly clear seeing as I've repeated this more than once. What I am against is making it mandatory and for parent/students to not be given the right to opt out.

2) What I mentioned was a hypothetical (but possible) scenario. The core of the statement was simply: would you like it  IF (<-- see? hypothetical) things were on the other foot? You would know this if you read my replies instead of trying to cherrypick and snipe at them. At no point did I imply that ultraconservative Muslims had a master plan to replace the current majority. It is, however, possible that the protesting parents (who I believe are not ultranconservative) may very well become a solid demographic given immigration and birth rates and (again) IF (<--- hypothetical) they were to impose THEIR values, some ppl wouldn't like it. The point of the statement is a call to self-reflection on whether or not one believes that one's current voting majority gives one the right to impose/force one's societal values at the expense of a minority's culture (regardless of how right it is to us) and how one would feel if the reverse was true. There, I have made my motivation as clear via as many redundant explanations as possible. I hope that clears things up and I accept your apology.

This is not about "preparation" or "giving in" this is about fair and equal treatment and the rights of a parent on raising their kids, the importance of separating thoughts from actions when we decide to condemn and the right of said parent to have their voice be heard.

None of what you wrote is new to me. Your example of self-reflection doesn't work because it ignores the very important variable that the parents in question here want something that is objectively bad (refusal that their kids get taught tolerance). If you intend to turn the tables, you must include this same variable because it's crucial. You'd have to ask people in this thread how they would feel if they got prevented from doing something objectively bad, but the obvious problem that arises here is that the people you are asking don't intend to do something objectively bad to their kids, so you cannot create the same situation in a satisfactory manner.

Just like freedom of speech, the rights of parents on raising their kids must have limits too. For example, there are parents out there who are against vaccination for crazy reasons; the actions of those parents (refusal to get their kids vaccinated) are objectively detrimental to society because they open the door for thought to be gone illnesses and diseases to appear again. Fair and equal treatment means that nutjobs of all kinds will have to act according to the benefit of society whether they like it or not. Don't forget that we aren't discussing vague hypotheticals, but a concrete case where parents are protesting against teaching their kids tolerance.



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

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

RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

Naziphobe isn't a word. Now put those goalposts back where you found them.

Indeed, naziphobe isn't a word. That's because criticism of things that are objectively bad don't fall under the umbrella of phobias. That's why it's nonsensical of you to call it islamophobia when people condemn the muslims that this topic is about.

Islamophobia isn't a fear like you said. Period. It's hate and prejudice against Islamic people or any political beliefs related to them (this include sociopolitical beliefs like those surrounding gay rights). And the criticism can be construed as coming from a political opposition, since gay rights is definitely a socially political position in the modern world. Condemning Muslims for their stance on this can be construed as Islamophobic since their position comes from Islam itself.

Last edited by Azuren - on 10 June 2019

Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

RolStoppable said:
DrDoomz said:

You are reading too much between the lines. My motivation is what I have been arguing all along. You take it face value and try not to cherrypick sentences out of my replies so that you can strawman in an attempt to poison the well.

For the record:

1) I am NOT against LGBT tolerance being taught in schools. I have mentioned this multiple times and if you read any of replies completely you would know this. And I thought this was already perfectly clear seeing as I've repeated this more than once. What I am against is making it mandatory and for parent/students to not be given the right to opt out.

2) What I mentioned was a hypothetical (but possible) scenario. The core of the statement was simply: would you like it  IF (<-- see? hypothetical) things were on the other foot? You would know this if you read my replies instead of trying to cherrypick and snipe at them. At no point did I imply that ultraconservative Muslims had a master plan to replace the current majority. It is, however, possible that the protesting parents (who I believe are not ultranconservative) may very well become a solid demographic given immigration and birth rates and (again) IF (<--- hypothetical) they were to impose THEIR values, some ppl wouldn't like it. The point of the statement is a call to self-reflection on whether or not one believes that one's current voting majority gives one the right to impose/force one's societal values at the expense of a minority's culture (regardless of how right it is to us) and how one would feel if the reverse was true. There, I have made my motivation as clear via as many redundant explanations as possible. I hope that clears things up and I accept your apology.

This is not about "preparation" or "giving in" this is about fair and equal treatment and the rights of a parent on raising their kids, the importance of separating thoughts from actions when we decide to condemn and the right of said parent to have their voice be heard.

None of what you wrote is new to me. Your example of self-reflection doesn't work because it ignores the very important variable that the parents in question here want something that is objectively bad (refusal that their kids get taught tolerance). If you intend to turn the tables, you must include this same variable because it's crucial. You'd have to ask people in this thread how they would feel if they got prevented from doing something objectively bad, but the obvious problem that arises here is that the people you are asking don't intend to do something objectively bad to their kids, so you cannot create the same situation in a satisfactory manner.

Just like freedom of speech, the rights of parents on raising their kids must have limits too. For example, there are parents out there who are against vaccination for crazy reasons; the actions of those parents (refusal to get their kids vaccinated) are objectively detrimental to society because they open the door for thought to be gone illnesses and diseases to appear again. Fair and equal treatment means that nutjobs of all kinds will have to act according to the benefit of society whether they like it or not. Don't forget that we aren't discussing vague hypotheticals, but a concrete case where parents are protesting against teaching their kids tolerance.

What is seen by society as "objectively" benign now can be seen as "objectively" bad tomorrow. "Objectively bad" is more subjective than you think. IF (hypothetical) the current majority feels that the lack of religion in schools is the cause of the moral decay in society and starts imposing that religion be taught in school, I'm sure many would protest such actions. Or if the lack of love for one's nation is suddenly seen as the cause of seditious disruptions (via anarchism) or just plain lack of discipline and laziness within society and schools decide to make the national anthem, ROTC and military service mandatory (this is already done in many countries) before one can graduate, wouldn't some people want to protest that? At the end of the day, there are plenty of "objectively good" things that I won't agree with. I reserve the right to protest against those. And these parents are doing just that (I condemn those that use acts/threats of violence however). They have every right to. And them using their right to protest to be heard is not a bad thing.

I am a strong advocate of: one's rights end when another one's begins. MY rights of a parents end when your rights as a person gets trampled on. Opting out of vaccines can be directly linked to measles outbreaks that can kill many other children. I have no right to impose my beliefs at the risk of the lives/health of children (others and my own). Opting out of lessons does not have a direct causal link to direct harm inflicted on others. Islamophobia/homophobia/X-phobia is a thought crime, but for as long as they do not act on it at the cost of another's rights, it is benign.

All this talk of proposals and preparedness did give me an idea: Parents who opt out of LGBT sensitivity lessons should be made to choose between that or anti-bullying, anti-prejudice lessons (that makes no mention of sexual orientation/gender). That would address the objectively direct harm-causing actions while not trampling on their culture and giving them a choice.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 09 June 2019

DrDoomz said:
MrWayne said:

1) I worded this badly. We already established in this thread that the protest is not illegal and nobody wants it to be illegalised so the question about their thought seemed a little bit redundant/point less to me.

2) Now that's a much more interesting discussion I think. I'm against having a opt out choice. Why? Because it would be against to reason those books exist in the first place. The children whose perants don't tell them about other cultures and LGBT people or tell them bad things(sinner, molesters, etc.) are the target audience for this change in the school books.

3) But that's how school is since the beginning, it is impossible to make school unpolitical, it will always reflect the current political consensus. In a democracy you can decide what politics influence the school system.

4) You, these protesting muslims and everyone else can raise their kids as they want, at home but not at school, That's the way it is in pretty much every  western country.

1) People condemn them for their thoughts (Islamaphobia is a thought). I feel that this is not how society should work.

2) The overall intention behind the books may be good but as the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". This is about government telling parents how to raise their kids and forcing them to assimilate. No one should be ok with this. Are you seriously ok with giving up all your rights as a parent just so you can push one good act thru? As a father, I am not. There are way too many things government may do that I can disagree with for me to do this.

3) No, schools reflect the political consensus of the teachers/educators, not society. And the current political climate can change within a few years so while you seem to be ok with everything now, consider what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and the protesting parents became the majority (or at least a strong enough minority to impact elections) and start pushing their political agendas in schools (considering birth and immigration rates, might not be all that far fetched). Not so attractive now is it? That is why politics should always be out of schools IMO.

4) I disagree. Plenty of schools allow their students to opt out. As far as I can see, I can see both parents AND students protesting to opt out of this class, the only ones insisting are the educators...

1) Sorry, can you elaborate a little bit further? I don't understand what you said there.

2) No I'm not ok with giving up all rights parents have because I'm arguing for the status quo. You're the one who is advocating for parents rights they don't have currently and frankly should not have.
Parents can teach their kids what ever the hell they want but society decides what should be teached in school. Parents can participate in this process the same way everyone else does, through elections and protest(as in this case) but they don't deserve an extra saying because in the end everyone has to live together with their children, not only the parents.

3) Who do you think decides what's in the curriculum, who decides what teachers learn in university, who hires teachers and decides which teacher get a promotion? A lot comes back to politicians and those are elected by the people. And yes if in 10 years the majority is unhappy with the education system, it will get changed. The current education system came to be in exactly the same way. This is also one off the many resons why we have to prevent extream parties from ever taking power. Btw how will you even enforce a education system a majority of people disagrees with? That's only possible in a dictatorship.

4) Well I'm not from UK but back when I was in school, it was only possible to opt out of religion class and if you did that you had to go to ethics class.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Machiavellian said:

Why would you want a child to see your relationship as different, unique or outside of the norm then any other relationship.  What purpose would that have if you are looking for parity.  If you want to be treated as equals or the same then your relationship is nothing special or different its another relationship.

I'm not. Hence why LGBTQI issues should be included in the curriculum with regular education.

This is the point of contention.  It has never been part of the education process to teach kids 5 years of age about gender.  Not when I was growing up and definitely not during any of my children upbringing during this time in their life.  It is being introduced because of LGBT and thus it is making it a case to be talked about and giving special privilege to that group.  The thing is it's not really being taught, it brings the subject up for the parents to fill in the gap and that is exactly what will happen.  Just remember, a lot of parents do not have you to fill in the gap but instead will fill it in with their own bias.  It gives the chance for indoctrination at a early age and reinforced from there. 

It's only my opinion but I just do not believe this accomplish what you want but can be the direct opposite.  The LGBT community has advance without something like this and I believe so because children get to grow up and become adults without being indoctrinated by their parents on this subject.  There are probably a billion religions groups who would definitely fill in the gap at that age with their bias when it probably would not be discussed at anytime during the child upbringing.  Its a 2 edged sword 

Machiavellian said:

Well we will disagree with that.  True love is understanding that it's not all about your emotions and at a child young age everything is about their emotions.  If love was binary then I would agree with what you say but love and explaining the different types between 2 different people isn't some simplistic message.

Children are more intelligent than you give them credit for, they have an amazing range of emotions and imagination that often Adults seem to miss.

I believe it's you who is not giving children credit for being intelligent.  It's you who is simplifying the message because you do not want to get into the weeds thus not showing respect for their intelligence or their ability to absorb information. I believe you need to rethink your part in this conversation because there is nothing I stated that says I do not respect a child ability to learn, it's the absolute opposite.  That is why I would not shorten what I tell them because I believe they are too young to understand.  From my experience children hold on to what they parents tell them for years and when new understanding happens they apply what was said to that experience. My son has repeated things back to me years ago that I had forgotten I even said it.  This is my experience that comes with being a parent and how I know how powerful words are to a child.

Machiavellian said:

Not sure what you are sorry for.  I am perfectly happy with my upbringing and my parents but just like any person, you are your own person.

Homesexuality has been here since time started, not sure if you have to tell me that it's here to stay.  I will say that no child needs to be taught about LGBT culture unless they want to learn about it.  It's not something that needs to be forced then any other culture and its definitely no different or special then any other culture.  I will definitely say I have a different stance but that's because I do not see the LGBT community any different than any other community.

If my children want to learn about LGBT community and culture more power to then but it will be their decision not someone else making it for them. 

I am sorry that your perspective is generally wrong.

Every child should be taught about LGBT culture, it's got strong historical, social, political underpinnings in all modern western societies, it's a part of society.. And children should be taught about all major aspects of society. - Unless you are suggesting that children should be excluded from some aspects in order not to offend a few demographics who hate the LGBT community?

Ahhh, now I understand.  Because my perspective is different from yours it must be wrong.  I guess we need not continue this conversation since you already made up your mind. To be honest I was never trying to change it but neither did I make a judgement that your perspective was wrong, just different.  If you want to go that route then that's fine but its very clear we grew up very different and have very different experiences.

There are a hundred cultures that have strong historical, social and political underpinnings we do not teach to 5 year olds or anywhere for that matter.  It means a lot to you that it be taught but that's because you are part of that group.  I am sure there are a number of groups that feel the same way but they get no special treatment nor should they and neither does the LGBT community.  It doesn't have to be forced just like any other subject and should be something any child can choose because they want to know.  

My stance is pretty much that this should be something taught either middle or high school and could easily be part of an elective.  I personally would not care if it's taught part of social studies if there are some pretty historic significant that impacts history in general.  What I do believe is that at age 5 with just that book, it leaves a lot of questions and just because you believe the answers will be given within your head isn't reality as the answers will be all over the place and there is a huge community where the answers will be very negative and enforced through the child development.



MrWayne said:
DrDoomz said:

1) People condemn them for their thoughts (Islamaphobia is a thought). I feel that this is not how society should work.

2) The overall intention behind the books may be good but as the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". This is about government telling parents how to raise their kids and forcing them to assimilate. No one should be ok with this. Are you seriously ok with giving up all your rights as a parent just so you can push one good act thru? As a father, I am not. There are way too many things government may do that I can disagree with for me to do this.

3) No, schools reflect the political consensus of the teachers/educators, not society. And the current political climate can change within a few years so while you seem to be ok with everything now, consider what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and the protesting parents became the majority (or at least a strong enough minority to impact elections) and start pushing their political agendas in schools (considering birth and immigration rates, might not be all that far fetched). Not so attractive now is it? That is why politics should always be out of schools IMO.

4) I disagree. Plenty of schools allow their students to opt out. As far as I can see, I can see both parents AND students protesting to opt out of this class, the only ones insisting are the educators...

1) Sorry, can you elaborate a little bit further? I don't understand what you said there.

2) No I'm not ok with giving up all rights parents have because I'm arguing for the status quo. You're the one who is advocating for parents rights they don't have currently and frankly should not have.
Parents can teach their kids what ever the hell they want but society decides what should be teached in school. Parents can participate in this process the same way everyone else does, through elections and protest(as in this case) but they don't deserve an extra saying because in the end everyone has to live together with their children, not only the parents.

3) Who do you think decides what's in the curriculum, who decides what teachers learn in university, who hires teachers and decides which teacher get a promotion? A lot comes back to politicians and those are elected by the people. And yes if in 10 years the majority is unhappy with the education system, it will get changed. The current education system came to be in exactly the same way. This is also one off the many resons why we have to prevent extream parties from ever taking power. Btw how will you even enforce a education system a majority of people disagrees with? That's only possible in a dictatorship.

4) Well I'm not from UK but back when I was in school, it was only possible to opt out of religion class and if you did that you had to go to ethics class.

1) I was clarifying why my question was relevant to the discussion. Although, I see the confusion. I meant homophobia not Islamophobia. I've got discussions with more than 1 person so I got the words mixed up. :p Sorry bout that.

2) Who said they deserved an extra say? I've already stated many times in various replies to many ppl that my position has always been that the parents are well within their rights to protest and attempt to open a dialogue with the educators. Nothing more. Essentially, they deserve to be heard. Not have an extra say. The discussion kinda went on a tangent because people condemned them simply because of their motivation and I was simply reiterating that we need to understand where they are coming from and that I would exercise my own rights the same way if there was something being forced onto my kids that I disagreed with.

3) You do not honestly believe that staffing in schools are accurately reflective of the consensus within society? Educators and school admin decide the curriculum and profs teach educators in uni. I feel that the direction of your logic is pretty strange. Schools are institutions and while politicians (school superintendent I would think, correct me if I am wrong) have influence they do not do the actual staffing/curriculum decisions/teaching/etc. Bottom line, the ones who make up the school determine the political leanings of the school.

You cannot really tell what is extreme and what is not these days. There was a time when Socialism in the US was highly hated and seen as extreme/fringe but nowadays the Socialism movement gets a lot of traction.

4) I proposed an alternative to LGBT classes in case parents/students choose to opt out. It should be similar to ethics/anti-bullying/inclusiveness/anti-discrimination w/c is taught in a general sense and not specifically LGBT related.



Wedge said:

Zero evidence? are you sure? did you put some effort in learning about Islam or, as I stated before, are content with your current situation because you're happy with it?

Positive there is zero evidence.
But go ahead, try and prove me wrong... After thousands of years, if you can present the necessary empirical evidence you will likely win a Nobel prize. - I'm not joking either.

Wedge said:

You missed my point again concerning empathy, and you think I'm the one missing your point, what ever the feeling is, it is relative. "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself", and if I don't abide by this rule? nothing obligates me.

No. I haven't missed your point, I discarded it in it's entirety.

Religion isn't required to have morals, couldn't be any simpler than that.
There are half a billion Atheists in the world, if not more. - Unless you are asserting that they are all immoral?

And we have already established that the Bible, Quran and Torah are full of immoral acts anyway.

Wedge said:

Can't you see that I put the word prophet between quotes? I know what atheism is, probably more than you, you ignore simple atheistic facts such as morals relativism.

No. That is simply your belief, not the real world, nor mine.

Wedge said:

You fell into double standard fallacy buddy, you kept saying that I have no evidence to backup my claims, and yet you just throw statements randomly without providing evidence. And where did I put words into your mouth?

You want evidences, here you go: check the 3rd question in this page, read "Exploring dimensions of human sexuality" and "My genes made me do it"

False. I am not obligated to provide evidence as I am not asserting that a deity of some description exists.

As for where you are putting words in my mouth... And I quote: "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."

In short, you don't know me, so stop pretending you do.

In regards to that Link, it really doesn't go in-depth into anything or has any verifiable citations.

These also seem to contradict that link:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/genetics-dna-homosexuality-gay-orientation-attractiveness-straight
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.long
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/863841tx




Wedge said:

I already told you that the evil acts of a certain group that claims to follow an ideology is not an argument against the ideology itself, why do you insist on ignoring this? The fact that you see the all religions as the same is another proof of your superficiality.

Ambiguous? this?: Big bang [Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe? ; Expansion  [Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding. ; Big crunch [Quran 21.104] On the day when We will fold the heaven, like the folder compacts the books, and as We originated the first creation We shall return it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will deliver.   If this is ambiguous then you probably want God to use scientific term even if they didn't exist 1400 years ago, add to that that the Quran is not science book, so it doesn't have to go through details.

I don't see all religions as being the same. But I hold them all to the same standard.

Yes the Quran is ambiguous. - Keep in mind that the original texts of the Quran was not written in English, many Arabic phrases have multiple meanings which can be reinterpreted to fit any narrative that forwards their position or argument... We need to frame the text in a context that is befitting of someone who lived 6,000 years ago and the knowledge they possessed.

Not only that but the Quran is derived from the same historical context that the Bibles Old Testament was built from... Which in turn predates the Quran by several centuries... Which was also derived from the Hebrew Bible and thus was also translated and reinterpreted many times, thus meanings changed to "fit in" with the scientific principles over the course of a few thousand years.

Wedge said:

Evolution is a fact because you've been told so, and tbh it's a very fancy theory, but have you ever searched about the counter-arguments? or do you only believe in it because it is the only explanation available for the origin of creatures, let's not open this topic too because we're already discussing enough stuff.

Yes Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory.
In case you aren't aware a scientific theory is a collection of facts with working models to explain a position.

Evolution falls into that category, at this point the evidence for Evolution is simply indisputable, if you disagree with Evolution then you are a science denier, simple as that... The same scientific principles that gives the explanation of Evolution is what got us to the moon, gives us modern medicines that cures disease and pretty much gave us all the modern comforts we enjoy today.

Wedge said:

Sorry but I think you showed that -with all due respect- you're a dogmatic and superficial atheist, and you make a lot of bold statements. by the way you only respond to a small part of my arguments.

Not all your arguments are worth my time responding to. Nor am I obligated to either.

Facts are... Everyone is born Atheist, it is the default position... It's only later that they are indoctrinated into various religions/cults/organizations/groups.

DrDoomz said:

Being "morally right" does not make your rights superior to others.

I do actually agree.
But you still need to call it out.

DrDoomz said:

The harassment, bullying and missed opportunities, etc. are the actions. In which case there is a clear act and a clear right being trampled on. In which case there is something we can target and condemn/punish said actors.

They have every right to a happy life, but I feel one should not have the right to force others to behave according to what makes one happy.

There is a clear delineation between "Your evil actions hurt and oppress me" and "I will oppress and hurt you because you have evil thoughts". 

Well. It could also be argued that those who have been repressed, mistreated, bashed, murdered, discriminated against are owed something by society in the short term with true societal equality coming later.
If it's something like educating the next generation on LGBT issues, then that is a small price to pay... That isn't forcing ones beliefs down someones throats, it's ensuring that past transgressions don't occur in the future.

I do have a Pro-LGBT bias on this topic though for obvious reasons though.



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

Pemalite said:
DrDoomz said:

Being "morally right" does not make your rights superior to others.

1) I do actually agree.
But you still need to call it out.

DrDoomz said:

The harassment, bullying and missed opportunities, etc. are the actions. In which case there is a clear act and a clear right being trampled on. In which case there is something we can target and condemn/punish said actors.

They have every right to a happy life, but I feel one should not have the right to force others to behave according to what makes one happy.

There is a clear delineation between "Your evil actions hurt and oppress me" and "I will oppress and hurt you because you have evil thoughts". 

2) Well. It could also be argued that those who have been repressed, mistreated, bashed, murdered, discriminated against are owed something by society in the short term with true societal equality coming later.
If it's something like educating the next generation on LGBT issues, then that is a small price to pay... That isn't forcing ones beliefs down someones throats, it's ensuring that past transgressions don't occur in the future.

I do have a Pro-LGBT bias on this topic though for obvious reasons though.

1) I don't mind the calling out, tbh. I am just trying to empathize on where they are coming from, and I get it. I do feel that the lesson is pretty benign and I see nothing wrong with it. However, parents have a right to express their concerns towards schools and I feel they also have a right to opt out of certain lessons when it clashes with their values (even if we disagree with their values) for as long as they do it within the law.

It is actually the mandatory forced can't opt out nature of situation that got me replying. The idea scares the crap out of me because there are many things that society might want to impose that I disagree with. If they do, I feel that many will condemn me for simply not agreeing. But at the end of the day, I will not feel bad for exercising my rights because I am free to have an opinion for as long as it does not directly hurt others. Ppl are telling me that society always knows better and parents should just shut up and accept it. Personally, I find that idea ludicrous.

2) My race has been oppressed, repressed, bashed, murdered and discriminated historically and I've experienced prejudice in the western nations as well (I'll not go into my race tho as I do not feel that my race defines me. I am me, that is all). It is annoying but I feel I am owed nothing. I guess there is a difference of opinion here.  I feel the world and society owes us nothing because the world isn't inherently fair. We are only owed what we worked for and earned (and even then society and the world can just as easily stiff us). We make do with what we get and we would only find happiness if we can find contentment in that. But I digress...

We all have our biases. So I get where you are coming from. No judgement here! :p Mine is actually an overprotectiveness of my daughter and future kids (as my wife and me are trying for more) and my rights on how to raise them.



DrDoomz said:
MrWayne said:

1) Sorry, can you elaborate a little bit further? I don't understand what you said there.

2) No I'm not ok with giving up all rights parents have because I'm arguing for the status quo. You're the one who is advocating for parents rights they don't have currently and frankly should not have.
Parents can teach their kids what ever the hell they want but society decides what should be teached in school. Parents can participate in this process the same way everyone else does, through elections and protest(as in this case) but they don't deserve an extra saying because in the end everyone has to live together with their children, not only the parents.

3) Who do you think decides what's in the curriculum, who decides what teachers learn in university, who hires teachers and decides which teacher get a promotion? A lot comes back to politicians and those are elected by the people. And yes if in 10 years the majority is unhappy with the education system, it will get changed. The current education system came to be in exactly the same way. This is also one off the many resons why we have to prevent extream parties from ever taking power. Btw how will you even enforce a education system a majority of people disagrees with? That's only possible in a dictatorship.

4) Well I'm not from UK but back when I was in school, it was only possible to opt out of religion class and if you did that you had to go to ethics class.

1) I was clarifying why my question was relevant to the discussion. Although, I see the confusion. I meant homophobia not Islamophobia. I've got discussions with more than 1 person so I got the words mixed up. :p Sorry bout that.

2) Who said they deserved an extra say? I've already stated many times in various replies to many ppl that my position has always been that the parents are well within their rights to protest and attempt to open a dialogue with the educators. Nothing more. Essentially, they deserve to be heard. Not have an extra say. The discussion kinda went on a tangent because people condemned them simply because of their motivation and I was simply reiterating that we need to understand where they are coming from and that I would exercise my own rights the same way if there was something being forced onto my kids that I disagreed with.

3) You do not honestly believe that staffing in schools are accurately reflective of the consensus within society? Educators and school admin decide the curriculum and profs teach educators in uni. I feel that the direction of your logic is pretty strange. Schools are institutions and while politicians (school superintendent I would think, correct me if I am wrong) have influence they do not do the actual staffing/curriculum decisions/teaching/etc. Bottom line, the ones who make up the school determine the political leanings of the school.

You cannot really tell what is extreme and what is not these days. There was a time when Socialism in the US was highly hated and seen as extreme/fringe but nowadays the Socialism movement gets a lot of traction.

4) I proposed an alternative to LGBT classes in case parents/students choose to opt out. It should be similar to ethics/anti-bullying/inclusiveness/anti-discrimination w/c is taught in a general sense and not specifically LGBT related.

1) Ah ok, then I don't have more to say about this point.

2) So we agree on almost everything. I also think that parents deserve to be heard but so do other members of society. In the end officials have to weigh which position has more weight to it and here it is absolutely important not only who is the partie(parents) but more so what concrete positions the partie has(don't want their children to be told about LGBT people)

3) the local mayor obviously doesn't hire the local teachers, there are many layers of administration between the class teacher and the elected politician. Don't underestimate to power of the politicians though, we don't see it very often because politicians aren't too eager to constantly change the education system (price, etc.) but the topic of this thread is proof how much influence politicians have on education, the school didn't just randomly decided to make their school books more inclusive, this is all based on the Equality Act.

4) This is probably what they did before they changed the school books, it probably wasn't too successful.