What you want?

Oh I think the better question would be, how would you convince others to join you in your plans for the new world order?

If people have frustrations then they should try to sort them out in a peaceful manner. Hate, violence and aggression should not be encouraged.

For example, if I have a problem with a colleague at work what should I do? Should I rage about them to my other colleagues and create negativity in the work place or should I arrange to meet with them and discuss these problems in person? Any sensible and mature adult would do the latter, though I suppose you're none of those things?



I don't think it should be. Aside from the issue that some parents won't even understand these subjects themselves, can you honestly tell me that people are actually going to have the time, energy and interest in teaching their children about these things? I don't think they will.

Regardless of whether you think they should, there will still be parents that do not adequately educate and support their children. Even in your fantasy world of perfect, happy families there will be some people that slip through and don't do what they should be doing. This is the world we currently live in, and this is why the government steps in to provide people with the education that they aren't receiving at home.

If they didn't then they'd just causing more problems for future generations than they'd solve. It will cause, as you say, a vicious circle.

1. Speech is not violent. It could be deemed as aggressive or hostile occasionally if one is passionately against something, but on the whole the mantra sticks and stones seems to hold. I've never been harmed by a torrent of words, no matter what Tumblr might have told you about getting PTSD from Twitter.

Hate Speech is any kind of speech that the government dislike. Just like "extremism". An extremist in the Conservative centrist view is just somebody who wants non-incremental, rapid change in something. Today's centrist liberal government is tomorrow's Communist government is the day after's Conservative government: do you not want the ability to criticise a conservative government's actions without the threat of legal prosecution simply from your words? Imagine if their mantra was "Gas The Marxists: Conservative Revolution Now!"? You'd be considered a terrorist and spreading hate.

For example, many people complain about the tide of Islam coming in to Europe. This is an ideology which mustn't go unscrutinised, as it is a foreign ideology and most people don't know a whole lot about it. It must be understood and either accepted or rejected as ideologies go by our own people: does it replace our own? Is it preferable?

If these discussions could take place without retaliation from both Muslim terrorists and the government, we would have a more peaceful society. The other mantra is that if you cannot be heard with words, you make yourself heard with bloody means.

2. How is culture formed? Is it from the government's curriculum or is it based on the shared experiences and assumptions of a population which manifest in art, literature, religion and architecture?

I don't seek a Utopia, because they only lead to disappointment. I'm trying to understand the importance of state-learned, cherry-picked history. Why not through books, television and art? And when not those: family members and friends can always impart knowledge.

The issue is, none of this knowledge is actually required for you to become a decent human being or be able to perform a role in working society.

People slipping through the net is a consequence of us not living in a perfect world, by nature. I don't know really what you're inferring with this statement: do you want a more perfect world or believe the whole thing is futile and nothing matters because it cannot come close to perfection?

Sure, but if speech encourages people to be aggressive then speech can become violent. Sticks and stones might break your bones if words encourage them to do so.

I don't use Tumblr and the person who said they got PTSD from Twitter isn't important to me.



Hate speech, generally speaking, is defined by law as: ''threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with the intent to stir up racial hatred or being likely to stir up racial hatred''.

Hate speech doesn't have anything to do with being critical of government. I do not think that it should be illegal to criticise and scrutinise government. In areas where the government has ballsed up this should be encouraged.



You can be critical of Islam without using hateful speech. For example, I can say that the Islamic story of creation is a load of rubbish and that the attitude Islam has about womens rights and sexuality are hurtful and unjustified. This doesn't mean though that I think people should be hateful of all Muslims or that people should be aggressive towards Muslims.



These discussions already take place. They happen on this forum and they've happened on various TV debates, like Question Time. You could take people like Richard Dawkins as an example of someone who is very critical of Islam.



I think it can be formed by both and by several other things, such as technology, though I don't see how this is relevant to what we've been talking about.



Not all of these methods will be available for everyone, which is why the state comes in.



I don't think so. I think that subjects like RE can help people understand eachother, that is if they live in a religiously diverse area, which I think can help people get along better.



If we were to leave education entirely up to parents, which is what you say we should do, at some point there will become parents who cannot educate their child. I think that the people who cannot get adequate education from their parents, the people who 'slip through the net', should be given an education by the state else they'd have no education at all. Since I think that most families would end up in this situation anyway, I think that the state to provide education for everyone.

I talked about two things... Why did you feel the need to quote war me? It looks horribly messy. Just get your ideas down in a coherent, fluid paragraph or two. This is just obnoxious.

Yes, Hate Speech is inciting violence against racial and religious lines, but at the same time, discrimination is also an offence. Might I also add, this law came in to being in 2010, under a Conservative government. Why are the Conservative party acting like socialists is a question for another thread, but I want you to consider where this leads. What about slut shaming, fat shaming, etc. What if you are religious and oppose same-sex marriage or even just sodomy in general? If you opine these views, will you suddenly be sent away and punished for Wrongthink? It's a slippery slope that we are already goose-stepping towards of our own accord. What kind of person do you think is leading us there, Mr Vale?

Now look. You think the government should provide education for everybody: so do I. I never said "end public education", I called to abolish certain unimportant subjects which are full of propaganda and cherry-picked history, which do not aid anybody for working life, unless you go in to academia. Now should state education be mandatory? Should parents be given the choice to send their children to school or not? I believe they should have that freedom. Slipping through the net, as I have said, is a consequence of an imperfect system. The current system is not perfect either, with private schools producing 80%+ of the middle class.

2. I'm unsure what you're point is about discrimination already being a crime. I think that both discrimination and hate speech are wrong, hence I think that they should both be illegal under the law.

3. As a side note, the Equality Act had it's foundations in various different anti-discrimination acts that had existed for decades prior. You can think of the Equality Act as a consolidation of these. I don't see what the Conservative government has to do with this. I don't necessarily dislike the Conservative Party.

4. Slut shaming and fat shaming don't promote hatred/violent action against sluts or fat people, hence they are not relevant to hate speech. Opposing same-sex marriage and sodomy may be of a hateful nature but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Hence people are able to debate these things without being accused of hate speech. Islam is a good example of this, as I have previously explained. You don't get punished for having these views you get punished for acting upon them.

5. Ok, but by the same logic we should abolish all three sciences, geography, citizenship, most of English and most of Maths for the same reason. On the topic of humanities I think we should teach them to give children a broad understanding of the world. Some children might want to take these subject to an academic level, but they wouldn't be able to do this if they were never taught the basics.

6. Parents already have the choice as to whether they send their children to a state school. I'm not entirely sure about homeschooling but I believe you're free to do that too, provided that you're capable of actually doing it. I think most parents choose to send their children to state schools since it's the most economical and practical option.

My phone is being uncooperative at the moment in pasting links, so I'll ask you to check the gov site on homeschooling and compulsory education. The claim is you don't have to fit the national curriculum, but are to be checked up on by the council to see if you are learning the right stuff. Now, by my logic, the cultural lessons such as art, geography and English would also be abolished, however I see these classes as innocuous at best and help to provide the least biased understanding of the world around you. The subjects all need a slight repair, but science the most. Having taken science at gcse level as an adult, I saw lesson after lesson about environmental activism and everything tied back to promoting the green movement. It's as if the green movement is a dogmatic church funding the schools, not unlike a type of school funding secularists oppose vehemently. Regardless, the sciences can be saved by restoring science's initial meaning: to provide technological advancement for the needs of people. Having a sceptical mind is also important to question everything, which is not what we learn in the most basic levels of this class. We learned about global warming, health and safety, politics, the NHS and were made to feel awful about an albatross island covered in oil and plastic bags. This is designed for 14 year olds!

Tl; dr the scientific fields are always going to be useful in encouraging logic and scepticism, not so much culture (except they do now)

I bring up discrimination because of it's ever increasing scope when it comes to how much offence one can take citing it, coupled with the degree of punishment for being discriminatory. You can be punished by the law for hiring a white man over a so-called minority if they complain; you can be punished for complaining about immigration, when those complaints are not based on free market liberalism. In the USA, it has been made an offence to 'manspread' on public transportation. We also see people being fired from their jobs because of their unrelated opinions and women often taking men to court over being offended. What card do they often play? Discrimination. Anything can be argued in this way and it breeds mistrust.

That's why I want antidiscrimination and equality laws along with hate speech laws abolished

1. I don't know what you mean by biased so I cannot comment. A lot of modern science will relate to the environment and the green movement because that is where most industries are heading anyway, and for a good reason. I don't entirely recall what I learnt at GCSE but I cannot recall learning too much about the environment. It had been covered briefing in Chemistry but it wasn't a significant part of the course, at GCSE and A Level. I don't think we covered it at all in Physics.

2. Science already is about providing technological advancements for the needs of the people, though at GCSE level and for the bulk of A Level science will be able teaching people the theory. Besides, you act as though the green movement won't provide technological advancements for the needs of the people?

3. I'm all for people asking questions and learning new things but I'm unsure what you think people should be skeptical of. Much of what is learnt isn't fresh new stuff that is worthy of peer review, let alone the skepticism of teenagers.

Again, I'm going to have to skip the discrimination stuff because you are fundamentally opposed to it's abolition or amending in any form due to ideological beliefs. That's fine. You didn't comment on hate speech, so I will assume you got on board there?

Could you answer how old you are? Between 20-24? I ask because back when I was first in secondary school, before being hoisted off to Spain, I remember everything I was taught in science up to year 9. It was a lot of theory, a lot of question asking, and learning about the foundations of the scientific method. It was Normal Science. Normal Science is about using the structures of scientific method to solve problems, research and learn; to use rigour, scepticism and empirical evidence. So at some point in the mid-00s, we suddenly decided to go in this direction of Post-Normal Science, designed by a Jewish Marxist (no surprise), to control the direction of science making environmentalism possible in the first place. The scientific method is supposedly still there, but thrown in to the mix is ethics, economics and politics. Facts are softened and everything becomes about feelings- not evidence.

These extended facts are the political blurring of issues that get people on board. It is the riling of peoples' emotions that encourage and enforce a way of thinking that is wholly unscientific. Post-Normal Science has created a religion out of science, and nobody really knows about it.

When I was in college doing my GCSEs, I seemed to be the only one in the class to point this out. Admittedly, I was surrounded by single mothers, a couple of apathetic 20-somethings and a couple of 16 year olds who were the most vocal about their activism and hostile to anything vaguely offensive or counter-culture. I said "this isn't science..." and another guy would say "I guess, but this is only GCSE, we have to learn the basics first, right?" So I replied, "OK, you think environmentalism and this political activism is the foundation of science? Their propaganda has achieved success then."

The Environmentalism movement is less about our needs than the Earth's. What the environmentalist nuts would rather do is have humanity killed off. A paper presented to the UN, Sustainable Development, otherwise known as Agenda21 sets out to achieve a reduction in humans, but most consider this a conspiracy theory. It's laid out there, if you'd like to read it.

Simply question what do you want in political terms?

I want to constrain the power of the government as an institutions, stop Liberalism and maintain the legacy of my ancestors.

And what legacy is that?

The Protestant faith, English language, Liberty, Justice, Freedom, Glorious Revolution, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution.

Ahhh you're one of those. Well, you do you, chum.

What am I? I guess you disagree with me? In political terms I am Loyalists, Reactionary, High Tory of the Church of England.

my crush lol @ my life