Oh dear
Comments
-
Chris Bass wrote:what is wrong with that? abnormal doesn't mean bad.
should they only have examples of couples of the same nationality, race etc etc because that is "normal"?
"but, teacher, i only have a mum", "shhhh now, we aren't allowed to talk about you"
" my dad is white but my mum is black", "pipe down you, we only talk about normal families here"
"I have two mums", "GET OUT!!!!!"
i see, so do out think that more time should be spent discussing abnormal relative to the distribution? There seems to be a lot of effort teaching kids what to think.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.0 -
Slowbike wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.
you dont think im tolerant or understanding? well thats your opinion though it demonstrates your lack of tolerance and understanding
at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:Slowbike wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.
you dont think im tolerant or understanding? well thats your opinion though it demonstrates your lack of tolerance and understanding
at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
Can you expand on what you mean by extolling, perhaps with specific examples?
I mean I've heard of someone extolling the virtues of a daily walk, or a particular diet, but I've never heard of anyone saying "Being gay is brilliant and I encourage everyone to try it!"1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
They don't need lessons on that, they most probably live in one, as do most of their friends, and all the books, tv programmes, films & other culture they are exposed to will also show mainly "heterosexual nuclear families".
These are just a couple of lessons that let the kids know that not everyone they meet might come from such a family.0 -
I don't think you comprehend at all ... or more likely, you do, you just like an argument.Alejandrosdog wrote:Slowbike wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.
you dont think im tolerant or understanding? well thats your opinion though it demonstrates your lack of tolerance and understanding
at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
Whatever ...0 -
hopkinb wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
They don't need lessons on that, they most probably live in one, as do most of their friends, and all the books, tv programmes, films & other culture they are exposed to will also show mainly "heterosexual nuclear families".
These are just a couple of lessons that let the kids know that not everyone they meet might come from such a family.
Further, the kids won't care. Unless they have someone at home telling them that it's wrong that one of their friends has two dads, two mums, one mum or one dad caring for them at home. They just won't care - it's their friend.0 -
right so as long as the only "lessons" they receive in school are to think the way required to counteract what they might come accross elsewhere.
Smacks a bit of you can think what you like so long as its what we think. a sort of right on authoritarian liberalism.0 -
Soon there will be lessons to teach Leavers how to get along with Remainers. Or vice versa.
Also how to spot when someone (other than Boris Johnson - too easy) is lying.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:right so as long as the only "lessons" they receive in school are to think the way required to counteract what they might come accross elsewhere.
Smacks a bit of you can think what you like so long as its what we think. a sort of right on authoritarian liberalism.
You are a bit thick, aren't you? Or trolling? It's so difficult to tell.
The lessons are to inform children that not everyone has the same family background. Not to "counteract" the child's experiences elsewhere. Not to "extol the virtues" of the different background.0 -
I started this thread as it is a indication in modern Britain on the role of religion versus the rule of law and a reflection on which should take priority. This particular school like the majority is funded almost entirely by public money and is essentially teaching a national curriculum approved lesson which funnily enough is inline with UK legislation. Around 600 out of 750 pupils parents decided that it was better to remove their kids from mainstream education than risk them hearing about alternative family units. Why is a head teacher left to defend upholding equality to a bunch of idiots that would be enraged if society were to treat them with the contempt they reserve for others. It is the definition of rights without responsibility.
My kids have got a lunch assistant that was changing gender and they pulled all the primary kids into assembly to explain that this individual would be changing. Guess what my 6 and 7 year old literally could not give a toss. As long as this individual gave them food this was the limit of their interest in that persons situation. The only benefit was cutting down the direct questions to the person through children's natural curiosity as most queries had been covered already.0 -
john80 wrote:I started this thread as it is a indication in modern Britain on the role of religion versus the rule of law and a reflection on which should take priority. This particular school like the majority is funded almost entirely by public money and is essentially teaching a national curriculum approved lesson which funnily enough is inline with UK legislation. Around 600 out of 750 pupils parents decided that it was better to remove their kids from mainstream education than risk them hearing about alternative family units. Why is a head teacher left to defend upholding equality to a bunch of idiots that would be enraged if society were to treat them with the contempt they reserve for others. It is the definition of rights without responsibility.
My kids have got a lunch assistant that was changing gender and they pulled all the primary kids into assembly to explain that this individual would be changing. Guess what my 6 and 7 year old literally could not give a toss. As long as this individual gave them food this was the limit of their interest in that persons situation. The only benefit was cutting down the direct questions to the person through children's natural curiosity as most queries had been covered already.
Sadly the bunch are now trying to recruit others around the country to their cause.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Genuinely curious - are you saying that there are more and/or better virtues of hetero nuclear families compared to same sex nuclear families? And, if so, what are they? My view is that the key element there is "nuclear", which applies to both.Alejandrosdog wrote:at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:Slowbike wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.
you dont think im tolerant or understanding? well thats your opinion though it demonstrates your lack of tolerance and understanding
at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
what do you think they actually teach them in these lessons?
do you think they say gay couples are better? do you think they say hetero couples are worse?
they just talk about families and mention the different types and forms this can take? what is your issue?
they are telling kids to treat all family types the same, is there a problem with that? do you think it is better for kids to think certain families are better than others?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Slowbike wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
Seems like you could've done with a bit more teaching on tolerance and understanding.
you dont think im tolerant or understanding? well thats your opinion though it demonstrates your lack of tolerance and understanding
at the end of the day the lessons extolling gay and TG lifestyles (word chosen carefully) are just two or three lessons.
interestingly thats more than the lessons extolling the virtues of hetrosexual nuclear families.
what do you think they actually teach them in these lessons?
do you think they say gay couples are better? do you think they say hetero couples are worse?
they just talk about families and mention the different types and forms this can take? what is your issue?
they are telling kids to treat all family types the same, is there a problem with that? do you think it is better for kids to think certain families are better than others?
why dont you do some research and get the facts before starting with your low intellect approach to psychiatry.0 -
Public service announcement: If someone is just an obvious troll, you can prevent their posts being visible to you by adding them to your "Foes" list under "User Control Panel".0
-
I was kind of playing along for fun before but think i'll retreat now! have a "normal" day!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
Chris Bass wrote:I was kind of playing along for fun before but think i'll retreat now! have a "normal" day!
thats trolling Chris0 -
rjsterry wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?
Your advocating state sponsored force feeding of the correct way to think? my god another good reason why this social engineering is inappropriate.
or more specifically force feeding dogma to counteract ideas their parents might have? Parents are incapable of doing the right thing?0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?
Your advocating state sponsored force feeding of the correct way to think? my god another good reason why this social engineering is inappropriate.
or more specifically force feeding dogma to counteract ideas their parents might have? Parents are incapable of doing the right thing?
Is there someone that can sit with you?0 -
PoweredByIdris wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?
Your advocating state sponsored force feeding of the correct way to think? my god another good reason why this social engineering is inappropriate.
or more specifically force feeding dogma to counteract ideas their parents might have? Parents are incapable of doing the right thing?
Is there someone that can sit with you?
Your mother though its normally on me
MOD EDIT: 1 week ban issued, I'm getting bored of moderating your posts.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:PoweredByIdris wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?
Your advocating state sponsored force feeding of the correct way to think? my god another good reason why this social engineering is inappropriate.
or more specifically force feeding dogma to counteract ideas their parents might have? Parents are incapable of doing the right thing?
Is there someone that can sit with you?
Your mother though its normally on me
Graverobber eh?
That figures0 -
0
-
PoweredByIdris wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:PoweredByIdris wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is because it is unnecessary- kids of that age are very accepting. They do not need to be taught that some people are different as they can see it for themselves.
They are accepting; they also see and hear everything, particularly their parents' ideas and behaviour. If junior hears someone he trusts making some derogatory comment about a gay couple, guess what he'll be parroting to the next two male classmates he sees playing with the 'girls' toys. Both he and they will probably not understand what the words mean, but they'll pick up that being different is bad. I think that's worth challenging from the start, rather than waiting for the ideas to set in before tackling them.
The whole sex education thing is a red herring as the 'No Outsiders' project (Sub-title "Teaching the Equality Act in Primary School") clearly isn't anything to do with sex.
Thats is exactly the sort of force feeding kids can do without.
I thought you were all in favour of exposure to different ideas so that people could form their own views. Or do you mean that only parents should be allowed to 'force feed' their children?
Your advocating state sponsored force feeding of the correct way to think? my god another good reason why this social engineering is inappropriate.
or more specifically force feeding dogma to counteract ideas their parents might have? Parents are incapable of doing the right thing?
Is there someone that can sit with you?
Your mother though its normally on me
Graverobber eh?
That figures
Bah aha0
