Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

5 year old upsets homosexuals, thought police called in Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    You have such an ironic username......

    But to return to the point, no I'm not trolling. Of course you'll label it that since you're not prepared to debate with someone - it's a typical go-to tactic when someone doesn't want to engage.



    No, but knowing someone like you who'd happily slap bans on what people can and can't say, I'd wager you'd want to do likewise.
    Do I? That must be why I keep going around telling people they have a right to free expression, and arguing that hate speech and public order laws go too far...

    Making up **** in an attempt to provoke a reaction is the definition of trolling.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Funny, because the 5 year olds I've seen where I work seem t be intelligent enough to understand what the word means.

    (Original post by mmmpie)
    The bit about the five year old and the shoes was made up by the press apparently, not that it really matters. Whether because of a particular incident, or just principle, a school became aware of the issues around homophobic language and bullying and invited the foremost organization in the country that deals with the issue to come and brief their staff on it. This was never about shoes.
    This was never about homosexuals. There is no way a child saw another child being attracted to someone of the same sex and decided to tease them for it. As a word, 'gay' has several meanings - the one meaning 'bad' or vague negative is the one used by the children, who also happen to use other nonsensical words like 'wicked'/'sick' for good if I remember correctly, and many more besides going by the gibberish I hear on the bus.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    This was never about homosexuals. There is no way a child saw another child being attracted to someone of the same sex and decided to tease them for it. As a word, 'gay' has several meanings - the one meaning 'bad' or vague negative is the one used by the children, who also happen to use other nonsensical words like 'wicked'/'sick' for good if I remember correctly, and many more besides going by the gibberish I hear on the bus.
    Now at this point all I can really do is refer you to post 69, which is on this page:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&page=4&page=4 .
    You seem to have missed the point about why using gay as a negative word is offensive, hopefully this will explain adequately why it is offensive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    This was never about homosexuals. There is no way a child saw another child being attracted to someone of the same sex and decided to tease them for it. As a word, 'gay' has several meanings - the one meaning 'bad' or vague negative is the one used by the children, who also happen to use other nonsensical words like 'wicked'/'sick' for good if I remember correctly, and many more besides going by the gibberish I hear on the bus.
    Like many people, I identify as gay. It is not some casual tag, it's the handle that I and much of society use for a major aspect of my identity. For the word to regain a perjorative sense creates a connotation that everything it attaches to is bad. To teach that this is not a proper sense of the word negates that connotation.

    So far as I know, nobody uses "wicked" or "sick" to define themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Now at this point all I can really do is refer you to post 69, which is on this page:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&page=4&page=4 .
    You seem to have missed the point about why using gay as a negative word is offensive, hopefully this will explain adequately why it is offensive.
    its only offensive to milksops or pantywaists, what happened to gay pride?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This whole hate of "gay means bad" is bull****. Black has meant "evil" for how long? Left has meant "clumsy" for how long? Girl has meant "timid" for how long? Words can have different meaning you know.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    The government uses the estimate of 6-8%, based on a meta-analysis commissioned when the Equality Act was being drafted. It seems a reasonable estimate based on my experience.

    What they did was bring in an organization to brief teachers on how to address specific issues. Where did you get the idea that this has anything to do with sex education?



    It's excessive to have teachers say "don't say that, it's not nice" and be prepared to explain why? No wonder discipline is such a problem in schools.



    I'm sorry, but I really don't see what your problem is.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, take the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption for example. Both are very politically contentious issues - and if Stonewall are called in, young children are going to be told explicitly that both are acceptable. Whether one sees them as acceptable or not, it seems to go without saying that young children should be taught how to critically evaluate such issues and make up their own minds, not flat-out told that they're right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Well, take the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption for example. Both are very politically contentious issues - and if Stonewall are called in, young children are going to be told explicitly that both are acceptable. Whether one sees them as acceptable or not, it seems to go without saying that young children should be taught how to critically evaluate such issues and make up their own minds, not flat-out told that they're right.
    Well, that's not really relevant to what's happened here.

    That aside, it seems you're keen on encouraging critical thinking on an issue without actually presenting the arguments, which surely misses the point of doing so in the first place. Adoption by same-sex couples (which isn't particularly contentious - it's been going on for quite a while without any great issues political or practical) is a very complex matter which draws upon vast bodies of evidence and theory from many different fields, so is probably beyond primary school - although it might be interesting to see what five year olds think of the idea of having two mums or two dads. I don't see why the same-sex marriage argument can't be made accessible to primary school children though, and I'd be very happy to see children engaging with such issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peter12345)
    This whole hate of "gay means bad" is bull****. Black has meant "evil" for how long? Left has meant "clumsy" for how long? Girl has meant "timid" for how long? Words can have different meaning you know.
    Oh apparently it can only have one meaning according to the far left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They need to watch that South Park episode
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Oh apparently it can only have one meaning according to the far left.
    Being left or right makes no difference to this argument. Again, you're trolling. And badly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Being left or right makes no difference to this argument.
    I think we both know that's not true lol.

    Again, you're trolling. And badly.
    And again, you're not bothering to engage, you're just positing a label of troll to extinguish the problem :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I think we both know that's not true lol.



    And again, you're not bothering to engage, you're just positing a label of troll to extinguish the problem :rolleyes:
    Can't engage when you don't manage to justify your reasoning in the slightest.

    You're essentially going:
    -insert- seemingly random conclusion -/insert-
    What you need to do is start at the premises, make sure they're not false, then post the conclusion and ensure that the argument is valid (meaning if the premises are true then the conclusion MUST follow).

    Furthermore, you need to be careful not to put words into people's mouths. This is because it's ****ing stupid, especially when you do it in such an obvious manner.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    And again, you're not bothering to engage, you're just positing a label of troll to extinguish the problem :rolleyes:
    Why is it that only you seem to be warranting this label, hmm? Nobody is calling tufc or Hopple trolls...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Why is it that only you seem to be warranting this label, hmm? Nobody is calling tufc or Hopple trolls...
    Sorry, didn't mean to neg you there. I'll rep you to make up at the first available opportunity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    since my opinions seem to be in such a minority around here shouldn't you be like giving me extra rights or something?
    why would i?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Well, that's not really relevant to what's happened here.

    That aside, it seems you're keen on encouraging critical thinking on an issue without actually presenting the arguments, which surely misses the point of doing so in the first place. Adoption by same-sex couples (which isn't particularly contentious - it's been going on for quite a while without any great issues political or practical) is a very complex matter which draws upon vast bodies of evidence and theory from many different fields, so is probably beyond primary school - although it might be interesting to see what five year olds think of the idea of having two mums or two dads. I don't see why the same-sex marriage argument can't be made accessible to primary school children though, and I'd be very happy to see children engaging with such issues.
    You've just admitted that the complexities of these issues are beyond five-year-olds. This is essentially my argument: they are too young to understand, so learning in terms of philosophy at that age should be geared to teaching them how to think; the actual issues themselves shouldn't be discussed until they're a bit older. Give them the tools at a young age to make their own decisions on important issues; but don't confront them with the issues themselves until they've had a little more life experience.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    The government uses the estimate of 6-8%, based on a meta-analysis commissioned when the Equality Act was being drafted. It seems a reasonable estimate based on my experience.

    What they did was bring in an organization to brief teachers on how to address specific issues. Where did you get the idea that this has anything to do with sex education?

    I just simply don't agree with that estimate. In my year of 175 male pupils, 1 is openly gay, yes I understand a few may not have 'come out' but the suggestion that there are up to 14 seems very dubious. Also, everyones 'experiance' differs based on their social circles so I think any kind of individual perception will vary greatly.

    And I'm not saying it is to do with sex education, I'm saying its just as inappropriate as bring in a organisation of that nature which specialises in 'straight' sexual issues. A five year old should not have to be subjected to that kind of interrogation and also is very unlikely to have formed a meaningful and dangerous prejudice at that age so there is no need for such an organisation in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    I see where you are coming from. However, two gay brothers or bisexual brothers who are over the age of 18 can engage in homosexual sex. No risk of disease or a child with a genetic ilness. Yet, using the principle of 'anything two people accept, and concept to is fine' does not apply.

    Animals for instance , can consent. Dolphins among other animals have been known to initiate sex. They are not harmed at all by this zoophilic sex. Infact, you could argue having sex with an animal causes it next to zero harm, while butchering an animal and eating it truly causes harm. Interestingly, in many animal species, there is no concept of rape, but there is a concept of murder.

    I would accept homosexuality as a practice if someone gave to me some objective principles that they are able to freely use and apply universally.

    Male-Female relationships are what we are biologically adapted to engage in, and i just can't bring myself to logically accept any other kind of relationship, other than where a male and female, who are not brother/sister/mother/aunt/father/ i.e immediate family, engage in a relationship together for the human species at least.
    You mean 'penis fits in vagina'? Well penises also fit in bum holes. Tongues and fingers fit in vaginas.

    By your logic heterosexual anal sex is also immoral.Heterosexual sex using toys is immoral. Porn is immoral. Living in a house of concrete is immoral. Manufacturing toilet paper is immoral. Having a phone is immoral.

    Do you see what I'm getting at here? Just because something isn't 'natural' or we aren't 'biologically adapted' to it it does not mean it is immoral or bad.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    You've just admitted that the complexities of these issues are beyond five-year-olds. This is essentially my argument: they are too young to understand, so learning in terms of philosophy at that age should be geared to teaching them how to think; the actual issues themselves shouldn't be discussed until they're a bit older. Give them the tools at a young age to make their own decisions on important issues; but don't confront them with the issues themselves until they've had a little more life experience.
    Sorry but I would want sensitivity training to my kid's class if one or two classmates started using words like '*****', 'half-caste', 'Ching Chong china man', 'sand monkey' etc.

    It's exactly the same thing.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.