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

DrDoomz said:
MrWayne said:

2) It is interesting to me that you are portraying the relationship between parent and child as this unbelievably strong bond, almost as if parent and child are one and the same person(legally speaking), like when you say: "Again, they are not asking that their choices be imposed on others, they are asking that others' choices not be imposed on them." that's wrong, there are actually two outside forces projecting their views onto the child, one is the school and the other one are the parents.

2a) Wouldn't it be the best for the child to learn about both views so it can decide which view seems more plausible to them. By giving the parents the possibility to opt out of this program you basically denied the child access to knowledge. Also I wonder where you would draw the line? Should parents be able to opt out of all kinds of topics in school(opt out of biology class because the parents don't believe in evolution, opt out of history class because the parents are holocaust deniers, etc.)?

2b) About the oppression argument. By that logic many things would be oppression, like paying taxes. When I was in school I didn't want to go to the french class, was I oppressed? And if all these things are oppression maybe sometimes opression is justified?

3) Well you said that you don't want politics in education and I just pointed out that that is impossible, the parents protesting is already a political act. And yes the Educators made the lessons but they were told by politicians, through legislation, to include minorities such as LGBT people in them.

I don't like the term "Muslim-friendly" because it suggests that those protesters somehow represent all muslims in the UK which they don't. I think the school books are already incredible sensitive and not provocant at all. They simply tell the children that LGBT couple exist and that those couples love their children the same way as all other parents do, What is the manageable middle ground here?

2) Look at the video. You can see the kids taking part in the protests (even the video mentions that protests are coming from students and parents).

2a) Children at this age cannot decide for themselves, ultimately it is the parent (unless they are found to be provably grossly negligent/harmful to their kids in w/c case, the state will have to step in) who decides for their children. I kinda find this line of reasoning a bit ludicrous. You want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?

2b) Someone already gave the holocaust-denier vs history argument to me. I feel the statement is a bit of a false comparison. LGBT sensitivity lessons are not hard sciences and I don't think we even teach hard sciences to 4-5 year olds.

Homeschooling is already the ultimate "opt out" option parents can exercise. Is opting for homeschooling illegal? Should it be? If it IS legal and if you think it should be, the answer would be: there was never a line to begin with. If not, then do you think schools should be able to take kids away from parents if they opt out of the public schooling and prefer to home school?

Did French lessons deeply conflict with your heritage/culture? Maybe you should have protested then. :p

2c) I feel that taxes and following of laws are within the social contracts agreed upon by those who wish to be members of society in order to pay for the needs of the collective. I guess you can see that as a form of oppression but at least it is something you signed up for and know about by becoming a member of society and it is enforced via the law (prison). I'm not too sure that accepting the majority's view (no matter how well meaning) on how society should be and forcing it onto a minority even tho it deeply contrary to their values is also part of the social contract we all signed up for.  I doubt these parents knowingly and willingly signed up for said classes as evidenced by their protest.

3) Their protest is a reaction to a political act. Once politics was inserted the reaction cannot be helped but be political as well. The thing about meeting government requirements is that there is quite a bit of discretion on the persons(s) meeting it, for as long as said requirements are legally met within the word of the law (this is part of what I do for a living). What this means is that educators are actually allowed to customize said lessons as a compromise to parents for as long as said lessons still meet the conditions of said law. 

Yeah, in retrospect, I agree I worded that badly, but I was in a hurry and couldn't really come up with a better descriptor at the time. My point was that protests and dialogue could possibly allow them to meet in the middle and come up with a solution for both sides. My suggestion for the school is to meet with the parents and clearly explain to them what the law is and ask them how they parents feel they should move forward to meet the requirements of this law and move from there.

I am not the parent in question here, I wouldn't know what their preferences are so I can't really answer your question on what the middle ground is. Whether or not a middle ground is ultimately found, we cannot deny the fact that if the parents are allowed to at least participate in a dialogue, their concerns can at least be heard. I don't know if it will work, but the process in place at least allows for such to be possible.

2a) You're almost right. "It is the parent who decides for their children" within the frame in which the State allowes them to decide for their children. Parents can't decide if their child should go to school, Parents mostly can't decide what their child learns at school and in those few cases they can decide what their child learns at school, the State gave them the ability to do so.

I don't understand why you find my line of reasoning ludicrous because what you said in the next sentence "you want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?" is exactly the line of reasoning behind a mandatory education system.

2b) I think it is pretty well proven that LGBT people exist and that they love their children as much as anyone else so I don't think my comparison was false. Again where would you draw the line?

I think homeschooling should only be allowed in very extreme cases (the child is chronically ill and can't attend school, school is 50km away, etc.). I don't know how legislation is in the UK but here in Bavaria it is very difficult to homeschool your kid. And yes if parents refuse to bring their kids to school, the police will bring them to the school.

2c) Well I do think that education is up to a certain extent part of the social contract.

3) Politics was not inserted when they printed the new school books, politics was inserted when they invented the school system. Why do you think the old school books didn't include LGBT couples? It was a political decision to not include them.

Of course there are different ways to meet the requirements of the law but I doubt there is on without LGBT. I hope the can reach a solution in which still every student gets educated about LGBT.

Last edited by MrWayne - on 10 June 2019

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Wedge said:

It's not a problem, it's absurd when you defend morals (LGBT "rights" in this case) like if they were absolute, a rational atheist wouldn't care about other people's problems, his own life is short so he'll focus on getting the most of it, fulfilling his wants and needs, that's if he didn't realize that life is pointless anyway and there's no escape from oblivion so...

This is what the Quran says about the disbelievers who lived a moral life: "And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dispersed dust." you eat from the creation of God, you live in the creation of God, you entertain yourself with the creation of God etc... and in the end you don't acknowledge his existence and obey him (provided you received the undistorted and adequate message to do so), this is a major sin in Islam.

Being punished for being immoral doesn't imply being moral out of fear, because between morality and immorality there's neutrality, + doing good deeds isn't compulsory in Islam, except giving 2.5% of your wealth every year to the poor, widows, orphans...

You can say that about yourself but i am sure many think being rational makes us care about other people's problems in a constructive way,religion is also not needed to be good because we do not need to be forced into caring for others.

If you need to be forced to be good you just might be a wolf in sheepsclothing.

Free will is a blessing.

I'm only saying what Richard Dawkins, Lauren Krauss and the others say, I'm not atheist, what you or anyone think what is the rational way of life doesn't change the atheistic view on morals, there's no right and wrong in atheism, everyone is free to do whatever he likes, be good, be evil, whatever you choose, only the law of nature is absolute.

Where did I say that you need to be forced to do good, in Islam you're rewarded for doing good, not forced to do it.

There's no free will from an atheistic evolutionary view, every choice you make is a bunch of chemical reaction (determinism). however there have been recent studies involving quantum mechanics proving the opposite of that.



Wedge said:
Immersiveunreality said:

You can say that about yourself but i am sure many think being rational makes us care about other people's problems in a constructive way,religion is also not needed to be good because we do not need to be forced into caring for others.

If you need to be forced to be good you just might be a wolf in sheepsclothing.

Free will is a blessing.

I'm only saying what Richard Dawkins, Lauren Krauss and the others say, I'm not atheist, what you or anyone think what is the rational way of life doesn't change the atheistic view on morals, there's no right and wrong in atheism, everyone is free to do whatever he likes, be good, be evil, whatever you choose, only the law of nature is absolute.

Where did I say that you need to be forced to do good, in Islam you're rewarded for doing good, not forced to do it.

There's no free will from an atheistic evolutionary view, every choice you make is a bunch of chemical reaction (determinism). however there have been recent studies involving quantum mechanics proving the opposite of that.

Richard Dawkins and Lauren Krauss do not decide what morals are for all atheists if they ever said that ofcourse,if they said it they just spoke for themselves.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god,it is as simple as that and there is no need to attach all of that other nonsense to it.You describe atheism as a belief and you describe it as a group while every atheist is most likely personally different,they do not have laws on what to think and how to act.

It is as simple as not believing in a god and the rest are personal opinions.



Immersiveunreality said:
Wedge said:

I'm only saying what Richard Dawkins, Lauren Krauss and the others say, I'm not atheist, what you or anyone think what is the rational way of life doesn't change the atheistic view on morals, there's no right and wrong in atheism, everyone is free to do whatever he likes, be good, be evil, whatever you choose, only the law of nature is absolute.

Where did I say that you need to be forced to do good, in Islam you're rewarded for doing good, not forced to do it.

There's no free will from an atheistic evolutionary view, every choice you make is a bunch of chemical reaction (determinism). however there have been recent studies involving quantum mechanics proving the opposite of that.

Richard Dawkins and Lauren Krauss do not decide what morals are for all atheists if they ever said that ofcourse,if they said it they just spoke for themselves.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god,it is as simple as that and there is no need to attach all of that other nonsense to it.You describe atheism as a belief and you describe it as a group while every atheist is most likely personally different,they do not have laws on what to think and how to act.

It is as simple as not believing in a god and the rest are personal opinions.

You repeat the same thing because you keep missing the point, I'm not talking about your moral choices, I'm not saying that you must be immoral because you're atheist, be good or be evil, that doesn't change the fact that atheism nullifies absolute morals, every atheist is free to consider any act good or evil, and no one forces him to choose either paths, you said it, the rest is personal opinions, in the case of my beliefs, good and evil acts are defined by an all powerful and righteous authority. what's so unclear about that? If you fail to understand that then you ignore what atheism really means.

Did I say that atheists believe in God? you were talking about being forced to do good, I said there's no such thing in Islam.

Honestly I think I know more than you when it comes to atheism because you fail to understand simple notions such as moral relativism, and you think I'm speaking for all atheists, while I'm speaking of atheism itself, you just have to read.



Wedge said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Richard Dawkins and Lauren Krauss do not decide what morals are for all atheists if they ever said that ofcourse,if they said it they just spoke for themselves.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god,it is as simple as that and there is no need to attach all of that other nonsense to it.You describe atheism as a belief and you describe it as a group while every atheist is most likely personally different,they do not have laws on what to think and how to act.

It is as simple as not believing in a god and the rest are personal opinions.

You repeat the same thing because you keep missing the point, I'm not talking about your moral choices, I'm not saying that you must be immoral because you're atheist, be good or be evil, that doesn't change the fact that atheism nullifies absolute morals, every atheist is free to consider any act good or evil, and no one forces him to choose either paths, you said it, the rest is personal opinions, in the case of my beliefs, good and evil acts are defined by an all powerful and righteous authority. what's so unclear about that? If you fail to understand that then you ignore what atheism really means.

Did I say that atheists believe in God? you were talking about being forced to do good, I said there's no such thing in Islam.

Honestly I think I know more than you when it comes to atheism because you fail to understand simple notions such as moral relativism, and think I'm speaking for all atheists, while I'm speaking of atheism itself, you just have to read.

Funny.

You make it what you want it to be to have an argument and that's all there is to you for this matter,if you need to believe in this extended fabrication of yours instead of the definition itself then yes you most likely know more about your own fantasy but do not expect others to take in that false information as being factual.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Wedge said:

You repeat the same thing because you keep missing the point, I'm not talking about your moral choices, I'm not saying that you must be immoral because you're atheist, be good or be evil, that doesn't change the fact that atheism nullifies absolute morals, every atheist is free to consider any act good or evil, and no one forces him to choose either paths, you said it, the rest is personal opinions, in the case of my beliefs, good and evil acts are defined by an all powerful and righteous authority. what's so unclear about that? If you fail to understand that then you ignore what atheism really means.

Did I say that atheists believe in God? you were talking about being forced to do good, I said there's no such thing in Islam.

Honestly I think I know more than you when it comes to atheism because you fail to understand simple notions such as moral relativism, and think I'm speaking for all atheists, while I'm speaking of atheism itself, you just have to read.

Funny.

You make it what you want it to be to have an argument and that's all there is to you for this matter,if you need to believe in this extended fabrication of yours instead of the definition itself then yes you most likely know more about your own fantasy but do not expect others to take in that false information as being factual.

My own fantasy? lol, google moral relativism, or read the book of any atheist about atheism. this is simple logic, commonsense I should say, you're knowledge about atheism is superficial, or you don't want to accept the truth, but you can't change it because you don't like it, period.



MrWayne said:
DrDoomz said:

2) Look at the video. You can see the kids taking part in the protests (even the video mentions that protests are coming from students and parents).

2a) Children at this age cannot decide for themselves, ultimately it is the parent (unless they are found to be provably grossly negligent/harmful to their kids in w/c case, the state will have to step in) who decides for their children. I kinda find this line of reasoning a bit ludicrous. You want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?

2b) Someone already gave the holocaust-denier vs history argument to me. I feel the statement is a bit of a false comparison. LGBT sensitivity lessons are not hard sciences and I don't think we even teach hard sciences to 4-5 year olds.

Homeschooling is already the ultimate "opt out" option parents can exercise. Is opting for homeschooling illegal? Should it be? If it IS legal and if you think it should be, the answer would be: there was never a line to begin with. If not, then do you think schools should be able to take kids away from parents if they opt out of the public schooling and prefer to home school?

Did French lessons deeply conflict with your heritage/culture? Maybe you should have protested then. :p

2c) I feel that taxes and following of laws are within the social contracts agreed upon by those who wish to be members of society in order to pay for the needs of the collective. I guess you can see that as a form of oppression but at least it is something you signed up for and know about by becoming a member of society and it is enforced via the law (prison). I'm not too sure that accepting the majority's view (no matter how well meaning) on how society should be and forcing it onto a minority even tho it deeply contrary to their values is also part of the social contract we all signed up for.  I doubt these parents knowingly and willingly signed up for said classes as evidenced by their protest.

3) Their protest is a reaction to a political act. Once politics was inserted the reaction cannot be helped but be political as well. The thing about meeting government requirements is that there is quite a bit of discretion on the persons(s) meeting it, for as long as said requirements are legally met within the word of the law (this is part of what I do for a living). What this means is that educators are actually allowed to customize said lessons as a compromise to parents for as long as said lessons still meet the conditions of said law. 

Yeah, in retrospect, I agree I worded that badly, but I was in a hurry and couldn't really come up with a better descriptor at the time. My point was that protests and dialogue could possibly allow them to meet in the middle and come up with a solution for both sides. My suggestion for the school is to meet with the parents and clearly explain to them what the law is and ask them how they parents feel they should move forward to meet the requirements of this law and move from there.

I am not the parent in question here, I wouldn't know what their preferences are so I can't really answer your question on what the middle ground is. Whether or not a middle ground is ultimately found, we cannot deny the fact that if the parents are allowed to at least participate in a dialogue, their concerns can at least be heard. I don't know if it will work, but the process in place at least allows for such to be possible.

2a) You're almost right. "It is the parent who decides for their children" within the frame in which the State allowes them to decide for their children. Parents can't decide if their child should go to school, Parents mostly can't decide what their child learns at school and in those few cases they can decide what their child learns at school, the State gave them the ability to do so.

I don't understand why you find my line of reasoning ludicrous because what you said in the next sentence "you want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?" is exactly the line of reasoning behind a mandatory education system.

2b) I think it is pretty well proven that LGBT people exist and that they love their children as much as anyone else so I don't think my comparison was false. Again where would you draw the line?

I think homeschooling should only be allowed in very extreme cases (the child is chronically ill and can't attend school, school is 50km away, etc.). I don't know how legislation is in the UK but here in Bavaria it is very difficult to homeschool your kid. And yes if parents refuse to bring their kids to school, the police will bring them to the school.

2c) Well I do think that education is up to a certain extent part of the social contract.

3) Politics was not inserted when they printed the new school books, politics was inserted when they invented the school system. Why do you think the old school books didn't include LGBT couples? It was a political decision to not include them.

Of course there are different ways to meet the requirements of the law but I doubt there is on without LGBT. I hope the can reach a solution in which still every student gets educated about LGBT.

2a) And you are partly right. Home schooling is entirely legal in the UK: (http://www.lawandparents.co.uk/regulations-surrounding-the-home-schooling-of-your-child.html). There are provisions to it (especially if the kid is in the middle of the school year) but it is entirely legal. Parents can also somewhat decide what their kids can learn in school if enough of them applies pressure via protest (w/c is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Source: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest) to the school and the school compromises.

It's ludicrous because the crux of your argument was about choice yet you want it done by taking away choice, a contradiction fallacy.

2b) Values/Social education is not a hard science . I feel this is self explanatory so I'll assume that you're simply being facetious. 

If you ask me personally where I draw my line as in enforced education: I draw no line as drawing a subjective line would mean that others can impose their subjective line onto me. It is unfortunate and I feel it is detrimental to the child if a parent decides to misuse the freedom of discretion over their child's education but I want to preserve my right to have discretion/freedom. The same way that it is unfortunate that there are assholes misusing their freedom of speech to spout annoying stuff but I wouldn't want to limit their freedom because that would mean I would be limiting mine.

2c) I feel it is more of a social responsibility more than a contract and even then you discretion on how to apply it (home schooling).

3) You're digging awfully deep just so you can find politics somewhere within the school system when you know full well that I meant politics being directly included in curriculum....

Perhaps, at some point, there was a prejudiced political anti-LGBT movement in the UK that forcibly removed LGBT representation in the books via legislation that I am not aware of, I dunno, you may be right. But if that did happen, I would not have agreed with that either. In fact, I would be much more strongly against that.

With this, I agree with you. I hope the kids are educated on the existence LGBT community as well. No arguments here. Our opinions simply differ on the method, not goal.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 10 June 2019

DrDoomz said:
MrWayne said:

2a) You're almost right. "It is the parent who decides for their children" within the frame in which the State allowes them to decide for their children. Parents can't decide if their child should go to school, Parents mostly can't decide what their child learns at school and in those few cases they can decide what their child learns at school, the State gave them the ability to do so.

I don't understand why you find my line of reasoning ludicrous because what you said in the next sentence "you want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?" is exactly the line of reasoning behind a mandatory education system.

2b) I think it is pretty well proven that LGBT people exist and that they love their children as much as anyone else so I don't think my comparison was false. Again where would you draw the line?

I think homeschooling should only be allowed in very extreme cases (the child is chronically ill and can't attend school, school is 50km away, etc.). I don't know how legislation is in the UK but here in Bavaria it is very difficult to homeschool your kid. And yes if parents refuse to bring their kids to school, the police will bring them to the school.

2c) Well I do think that education is up to a certain extent part of the social contract.

3) Politics was not inserted when they printed the new school books, politics was inserted when they invented the school system. Why do you think the old school books didn't include LGBT couples? It was a political decision to not include them.

Of course there are different ways to meet the requirements of the law but I doubt there is on without LGBT. I hope the can reach a solution in which still every student gets educated about LGBT.

2a) And you are partly right. Home schooling is entirely legal in the UK: (http://www.lawandparents.co.uk/regulations-surrounding-the-home-schooling-of-your-child.html). There are provisions to it (especially if the kid is in the middle of the school year) but it is entirely legal. Parents can also somewhat decide what their kids can learn in school if enough of them applies pressure via protest (w/c is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Source: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest) to the school and the school compromises.

It's ludicrous because the crux of your argument was about choice yet you want it done by taking away choice, a contradiction fallacy.

2b) Values/Social education is not a hard science . I feel this is self explanatory so I'll assume that you're simply being facetious. 

If you ask me personally where I draw my line as in enforced education: I draw no line as drawing a subjective line would mean that others can impose their subjective line onto me. It is unfortunate and I feel it is detrimental to the child if a parent decides to misuse the freedom of discretion over their child's education but I want to preserve my right to have discretion/freedom. The same way that it is unfortunate that there are assholes misusing their freedom of speech to spout annoying stuff but I wouldn't want to limit their freedom because that would mean I would be limiting mine.

2c) I feel it is more of a social responsibility more than a contract and even then you discretion on how to apply it (home schooling).

3) You're digging awfully deep just so you can find politics somewhere within the school system when you know full well that I meant politics being directly included in curriculum....

Perhaps, at some point, there was a prejudiced political anti-LGBT movement in the UK that forcibly removed LGBT representation in the books via legislation that I am not aware of, I dunno, you may be right. But if that did happen, I would not have agreed with that either. In fact, I would be much more strongly against that.

With this, I agree with you. I hope the kids are educated on the existence LGBT community as well. No arguments here. Our opinions simply differ on the method, not goal.

2a) Interesting, I didn't know that, apparently homeschooling is handled very differently in the UK compared to Germany.

"It's ludicrous because the crux of your argument was about choice yet you want it done by taking away choice, a contradiction fallacy."

No it's not a contradiction fallacy, you're equating two different kind of choices who aren't equal. I "want to take away" the choice of the parents in order to give the children a choice later on. How can someone decide if he wants to follow the same values as his parents when he never learned about other values?

2 b) I was not facetious, history is also not a hard science.

You have a very principal standpoint on this issue. What can I say, I totally disagree with you, the bad things that come out of this freedom weigh heavier than the good ones from my perspective.

3) I know what you meant but I disagree. I don't think there is a place in society that is unpolitical and the school system is no exception. There are only places that are "politically normalised", we don't recognise that these places are still political until they denormalise.

A great example for this mechanism are games, nowadays many people complain about politics in their video games but games were always political we just didn't recognize it because the political topics were so normal/common for us.

You know why there was no LGBT representation in old school books. Not too long ago homosexuality was forbidden in the UK and pretty much everywhere around the world.

Last edited by MrWayne - on 10 June 2019

MrWayne said:
DrDoomz said:

2a) And you are partly right. Home schooling is entirely legal in the UK: (http://www.lawandparents.co.uk/regulations-surrounding-the-home-schooling-of-your-child.html). There are provisions to it (especially if the kid is in the middle of the school year) but it is entirely legal. Parents can also somewhat decide what their kids can learn in school if enough of them applies pressure via protest (w/c is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Source: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest) to the school and the school compromises.

It's ludicrous because the crux of your argument was about choice yet you want it done by taking away choice, a contradiction fallacy.

2b) Values/Social education is not a hard science . I feel this is self explanatory so I'll assume that you're simply being facetious. 

If you ask me personally where I draw my line as in enforced education: I draw no line as drawing a subjective line would mean that others can impose their subjective line onto me. It is unfortunate and I feel it is detrimental to the child if a parent decides to misuse the freedom of discretion over their child's education but I want to preserve my right to have discretion/freedom. The same way that it is unfortunate that there are assholes misusing their freedom of speech to spout annoying stuff but I wouldn't want to limit their freedom because that would mean I would be limiting mine.

2c) I feel it is more of a social responsibility more than a contract and even then you discretion on how to apply it (home schooling).

3) You're digging awfully deep just so you can find politics somewhere within the school system when you know full well that I meant politics being directly included in curriculum....

Perhaps, at some point, there was a prejudiced political anti-LGBT movement in the UK that forcibly removed LGBT representation in the books via legislation that I am not aware of, I dunno, you may be right. But if that did happen, I would not have agreed with that either. In fact, I would be much more strongly against that.

With this, I agree with you. I hope the kids are educated on the existence LGBT community as well. No arguments here. Our opinions simply differ on the method, not goal.

2a) Interesting, I didn't know that, apparently homeschooling is handled very differently in the UK compared to Germany.

"It's ludicrous because the crux of your argument was about choice yet you want it done by taking away choice, a contradiction fallacy."

No it's not a contradiction fallacy, you're equating two different kind of choices who aren't equal. I "want to take away" the choice of the parents in order to give the children a choice later on. How can someone decide if he wants to follow the same values as his parents when he never learned about other values?

2 b) I was not facetious, history is also not a hard science.

You have a very principal standpoint on this issue. What can I say, I totally disagree with you, the bad things that come out of this freedom weigh heavier than the good ones from my perspective.

3) I know what you meant but I disagree. I don't think there is a place in society that is unpolitical and the school system is no exception. There are only place that are "politically normalised", we don't recognise that these places are still political until they denormalise.

A great example for this mechanism are games, nowadays many people complain about politics in their video games but games were always political we just didn't recognize it because the political topics were so normal/common for us.

You know why there was no LGBT representation in old school books. Not too long ago homosexuality was forbidden in the UK and pretty much everywhere around the world.

2a) I feel your interpretation of the unequal value of certain freedoms to be rather subjective and a false dilemma. You are assuming that the kids would never be exposed to such things. Many parents consider the problem to be as much the timing as it is the lesson. Remember that this is something being taught to 4-5 year olds. At this age, kids are too young to choose for themselves. At this stage the responsibility of choosing for the kids lies onto the parents. Perhaps provide a choice to the children when they are old enough to make the choice for themselves?

And you don't need to be forced into learning the entire subject before being able to decide whether you want to learn it or not. You can opt out just by being given a synopsis of something and deciding there. The way you word your proposal, it looks like you want to remove the choice of the kids (even if they decide they don't want to) so that they would be given the choice? Again that is the contradiction fallacy I am pointing to. Maybe it is just poor articulation on your part but I'm sure my explanation clarifies your contradiction.

2b) There are some who find that history should be optional as well. I don't agree, but there are arguments leading to such (one such argument being that history is simply subjective interpretations used for propaganda).

 Those who give up their freedom for security deserves neither. While not directly related to the issue, it is representative of my logic behind protecting one's freedoms. Those who are so eager to give up their freedoms perhaps have never experienced what truly losing it means. You have to realize that once you start thinking it is ok to give up your freedoms so easily, you are giving way to tyranny whether it be by a single tyrant or via the majority. It is not a decision one must take likely. It is not about equivalent exchange of the good/bad. Freedoms do not grow on trees after all. Once we lose our freedoms, it is supremely hard to get them back. So I choose to surrender my freedoms only in the most extreme cases. And as an overprotective father, they will likely need to forcibly pry my parental rights from my cold dead hands (I'm not being literal of course, in case you're wondering, but this is simply to stress my point).

3) There is selling an idea and there is hitting people in the face with it. Using mediums that communicate certain political messages (lets talk about games as an example) should be used to encourage the idea, not shove it down people's throats. By forcing the issue, you end up accomplishing the opposite of your goals. Which is what is happening in games these days. Instead of encouraging people to get together and exchange thoughts and ideas, they instead create a divide and accomplish the opposite. My personal take on why politics being so in-your-face is in games these days (for many but not for all) is less forgiving than yours however. While some creators in games DO have sincere goals of showcasing their ideology within their games, I am more convinced of the likelihood that the actual decision makers who listen more to their marketing teams believed that controversy and ideology within the charged landscape nets them free publicity and the favor of the biased journalists. So they make these political messages as controversial and on the nose as possible. To save marketing $$$. In the end, it is always about the money.

I remember you mentioning that one does not give up rights parents by adhering to the status quo. Do you believe then the the LGBT community back in the day didn't give up any rights because LGBT representation was not allowed in books?

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 10 June 2019

Yes, Islam is essentially "untouchable" these days, or at least that is how most Muslims and "SJWs" want it.

Which is ironic as hell, because Islam, in the Quran itself, expressly forbids and demonizes most of what SJW types want: Equality for everyone, LGBT elevation, female elevation, religious equality, child rights/protection, etc. According to the Quran, LGBT people are evil, and SHOULD be put to death for existing. Women and children are to be considered property, women and girls especially, and they shouldn't have any rights, should cover their bodies head to toe, and if they ever step out of line even a little bit, they should be put to death. Abuse of women and children, both violent or sexual, are 100% A-OK, so long as you keep up your "Good Muslim" points in other areas. Non-Muslims are to be considered evil, and should either be converted by force, or, you guessed it, eventually put to death.

These and more are all things the Quran literally says. And when extremist terrorists, who other Muslims and "The Left" love to claim "have nothing to do with Islam", stab people in public, or drive vehicles into people, or shoot people or blow shit up, that literally does have 100% to do with what they're being taught by their Imams, coming from the Quran. The only way in which Islam is a so-called "Religion of Peace", in the most fundamental terms, is that according to their teachings, the world will know "peace", just as soon as they finish converting the ENTIRE planet to Islam, by any means necessary. And if you think this is hyperbole, no, it isn't. Those were literally the "Prophet's" original teachings. Christianity, or some of its' strains, do indeed also dream of making the ENTIRE planet (their version of) Christian. But that doesn't mean for a moment that Islam in general, and I would wager a majority of Muslims, don't also dream of a world in which EVERYONE is like them.

Personally, I am not an atheist by any means. In fact I'm a very spiritual person. But I am not religious at all, even though I was raised with Christianity as a kid. And there is a massive difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality colors people's perception of life and the world around us, adding that "spiritual element" to often even mundane things. Religion, on the other hand, tells people that it's ok to molest children, or to keep women covered and treat them like pets or property. Or that killing people who aren't like you is OK, because they are heathens anyway, basically "less human".

In all blunt honesty, Christianity has done FAR more serious harm to the world in human history, than it has any good. And yes, there are absolutely still scary Christian fundamentalists who are, at least in belief, little better than Muslim terrorists. But the major difference there, is that they mostly exist in America, and are a minority even among Christians. Islam, on the other hand, has over a Billion followers worldwide, and counting every year. And while it is completely fair and accurate to say that NOT all Muslims agree with the fundamentalists and hardliners, there ARE moderate or even "liberal" Muslims who do genuinely want peace, and don't seek to convert or trash the entire Non-Muslim world. That does not, however, mean that Islam itself, an an entity, isn't a very scary and frankly very serious threat. While "most Muslims" may indeed just want to live their lives and leave others to do the same, if you were to ask "most Muslims" if the idea of converting the entire world to Islam was OK. If ideas like stoning women to death for not covering themselves head to toe, or threatening and KILLING literally anyone who so much as gently criticizes any aspect of Islam, let alone openly mocks, challenges or attacks it verbally/intellectually, that those things are OK. There's a strong and very realistic chance, that "most Muslims", if privately surveyed, would indicate that those things are "justified" or OK on some level.

I do not personally hate Muslims, in fact I've met several who are really cool people. But I DON'T like Islam as a religion, at all. I hold no love for Christianity and its various strains either, but Christianity isn't nearly the overt, open threat to "infidels" that Islam is these days. Because while there ARE some scary and demented, hateful Christians in the world, they almost exclusively live in and were raised in countries where their madness is greatly contained. Islam, on the other hand, is another story entirely. NOT all terrorists in the world today are Muslim, to be certain, just look at some of the sicko shooters in the USA. But looking at things pragmatically and honestly, it IS truthful to say that a MAJORITY of major terrorist attacks (not carried out by official militaries that is), are Islam-related.

Most especially in European/Western countries that welcome in refugees by the thousands. And therein lies the real issue. It is inhumane and shitty to NOT give refugees who are genuinely fleeing for their lives, with their families, from dangerous or deadly circumstances in their homelands, SOMEWHERE to go where they can be safe. But, at the same time, it is next to impossible to tell who among these refugees might be the next ticking time bomb. The next dumbass kid taught by his demented Imam that attacking Western crowds or blowing shit up, is doing "God's Work". And yeah, some of them ARE fake refugees sneaking in with the rest, which is incredibly scary and messed up. But many of them aren't. Some of the terrorist attacks just in the last few years, in places like Australia, or the UK or France or Germany, were carried out by actual refugees, or even people who were born and raised in those countries. And not all of it is even "Terrorist" attacks. Some of it just plain criminal behaviors, like intimidation, rapes, beatings, even murder.  Which is far more terrifying.

And the fact that "Intersectional Feminists" and "Social Justice" clowns basically AGREE with fundamental Muslims, who think you should NEVER question or criticize anything Islam-related, certainly doesn't help anything. These are the same kind of people who condemn bigoted and scary beliefs and actions by Christians, but for the SAME exact shit from Muslims, they cry "That's their culture, leave those poor Muslims ALONE!" These tired and trite Western Feminists, who would absolutely flip their shit if/when fundamentalist Christians, let's say, say it's OK for women to be raped, that it's "God's Will", and that aborting a rape baby is still sinful and shouldn't be allowed. Yet literally ALL of that is exactly how Islamic countries/culture view those same things, but THAT'S ok, "It's just their culture". Western Feminists act like women in Western nations are SO oppressed, even if in most ways that matter they're literally not. Yet they don't say a damn word, nor allow OTHER rational people to say a damn word, about/against the fact that the MOST oppressed women on the planet, are women stuck living in Islamic countries/cultures. The LEAST feminist cultures/nations on earth, are predominantly Muslim. Yet they are either bewilderingly blind to this fact, or they don't WANT to see/acknowledge it, because "those are brown people, which means they're oppressed by White Man and totally innocent".

For the record, not that it matters in the least, I myself am part Lebanese, though I don't speak Arabic and wasn't raised with Islam. I also tend to lean pretty hard "Left" on many issues, most especially Environmental stuff. But it is absolutely silly, while at the same time being outright terrifying, that so-called "Leftist" elements in all of these western countries, are SO hardcore about allowing more and more Muslims to flood into their lands, and SO hardcore about offering them "special protections" and treating them as a "protected class". Yet it is many (not ALL) of these same Muslims being invited to live in Europe, Canada, etc., who absolutely refuse to acclimate and integrate themselves into Western Society. As far as many of them are concerned, the only "law" that matters is Islam, which means it takes absolute precedence over whatever the laws of the actual countries they now live in are. They basically set up camp and live as if they were still living in their original home countries, and expect to be allowed to do so, ignoring the laws and traditions of the nations who invited them in. And worst yet, as the OP talks about, they fully expect to be allowed to push Islamic values onto the REST of the populace. Which, guaranteed, will only get worse over time, as their own population within those countries grows. That's just simple, basic logic.

So what is the answer? Send them all home? Keep more from coming to The West? There are no easy answers. But frankly, inviting them to come live in Western nations whose cultures totally clash with their own, was/is definitely NOT the right thing for the EU, the UN, or anyone else to do. That was not the correct call. There are relatively peaceful and stable, mostly Islamic countries that they SHOULD have been sent to, or allowed to flee to, which would for obvious reasons work FAR better for everyone in the long run. And yet, ironically enough, most of those nations refuse to allow their "Muslim Brothers" to come live with them, to take them in in their time of need. Instead, they too, encourage Western nations to take them. Funny, eh?

Anyway, I know I just wrote a "novel", and honestly there is a LOT more than could be said on the subject. Personally, while I do not savor the idea of living in a totally Atheist world either, I do not like, and in fact do feel realistically threatened by the idea of ANY religion dominating and covering the planet. Personally, I don't want to live under so-called "Sharia Law" any more than I want to live under "Christian Law". Both are completely medieval and backwards in their own ways, but more importantly, no one who is NOT in agreeance with such BS, should ever be forced to live under it. And while that is, of course, not an active threat right now in "The West", how long will it honestly take, measured in years, before fundamentalist Muslims and the "Leftists" who actively enable them, actually start pushing for it in Western countries? I honestly hate politics as much as I do these "One God, One Truth" religions. But I don't think it's a terribly "political" stance, to not want some frankly pretty scary religion, to keep on spreading itself unabated, to the point that it literally starts taking over Western laws and systems of government. Maybe that'll never happen, but then again, there are millions in the world who would LOVE for it to. And I don't care WHAT religion that is, whether it's Islam, Christianity, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. People who don't believe in and follow that shit, should never have to even WORRY about living under it.

Last edited by DevilRising - on 10 June 2019