Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm going to guess that my father dying and my going to uni left him with just his sister and mother as role models and it turned him a bit fruity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,My brother is gay.
Who turned your brother gay?
If you've moved the goalposts so far from the OP that I've now no idea what you are talking about, that's you running away, not me.I don't think any teachers should talk to children about gay relationships.That wasn't the topic of conversation you're responding to, but I assume you know that and just don't want to answer my question, so I'll chalk this up as another running-away thread.
I don't think any teachers should talk to children about gay relationships.I'm sorry, what? How is the sexual orientation of the teacher remotely relevant? Do you think it's impossible for a straight teacher to talk about gay sex, or vice versa?Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?Yes. Heterosexual men are less likely to commit sex crimes per capita.
Truly wonderful, the mind of a Thork is.
But as my little pie chart shows ... abuse from teachers is way more common. They are the number one perpetrators.And yet child abuse is a thing...He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality.The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
As for a good understanding of sexuality: maybe because they had sex ed? Like, are pimples good or bad? When can I get a girl pregnant? Can you get pregnant from oral sex?
Rabbits are not humans and don't have complex societies. They also have mating seasons, while humans do not. They also are mature ,sexually, after 6 months of living. And their behavior is hormone driven. Imagine if people were purely hornome driven. It would be like teenagers but without any filters.Imagine thinking that humans are different to all other creatures ... but only after the 1960s at which point sex education needed to be delivered.
Then lobby your government for some parental controls on the internet instead of lobbying them to mandate that teachers talk to your kids about gay sex.I do not live in a country like that. USA isn't like that. But my point wasn't that they'd go looking for porn, my point was that porn would be what they found most when searching for answers.So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites. Because that'll be healthy....
And unless kids today have become far more wholesome.... Porn was big when I was a teenager. Clearly your teen days were more... Tame.Porn in my teens was finding a soggy torn up magazine in the woods and trying to put the pieces back together to reveal a fat middle aged woman smothered in cream.
So ban teachers, got it.Almost, but you are getting there. Just ban teachers from teaching children about homosexuality. They can still teach them English, Maths and Science. You know, subjects that might help them get a job one day. The actual reason we send children to school in the first place. We don't send them to talk to middle aged men about being gay.
You already posted that image. Do you want me to point out that you have provided no source or methodology for a second time?It has a url. You can follow that to the source.
Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?Yes. Heterosexual men are less likely to commit sex crimes per capita.
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.Being as you like scientific data ... pick the bones out of that.
Homosexuals do not abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexuals. In fact, rates of pawdophikoa are higher among heterosexuals than homosexuals.Your own linked study shows it does.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
This is you, once again, beginning with a fantasy and forming real world opinions based on that. Be better.You misread a scientific study to back your opinions.
You could treat him like he isn’t subhuman. I doubt you’re capable though.I treat him like the wretched little shit stabber that he is. And that seems fair.
You want teachers talking to children about same sex couples. Some teachers will be homosexual. Ergo you are encouraging homosexuals to talk to children about sex.Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.I'm not trying to encourage homosexuals to talk to children about sex. You're the one under the spotlight for being a shitty person right now.
I actually never said that. See? You start from a fantasy and proceed as if it has some bearing on the real world. Stop forming opinions on your fantasies.
But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality?Because education is about teaching children about the world that exists, not the world Thork would like to exist.
Imagine how ignorant you just be to think that the “nuclear family” is the natural order of things.Imagine thinking that placing a small boy in the care of two homosexual men is a low risk endeavour. Sometimes when a couple of gay men come crying to you about love and families, you need to have the balls to stand up to them and tell them to fuck off. If you are weak, then you may condemn a child to sexual or emotional abuse. You are weak. This is why you'll do anything to be agreeable.
The plot thickens.Blew your assumptions out of the water, I have no doubt.
Irrelevant. Sad that you you are comfortable with this, but irrelevant.What can I do about it? He's a man in his mid 30s. He can do whatever the hell he wants. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.I'm not trying to encourage homosexuals to talk to children about sex. You're the one under the spotlight for being a shitty person right now.
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,My brother is gay.
know that he sees them as less than human?He himself will admit that he is a colossal pervert.
It’s truly astounding that he can project his personal discomfort on to the world as some kind of broad truth.I'm able to come to conclusions. I'm sorry that they don't match yours. Its only, I'm not trying to make myself feel like a good person by making myself a doormat whilst others steamroller me with their 'feelings'.
Assuming you aren't placing children with same sex couples and interfering ... yes. But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality? Seems somewhat sinister, no?A natural family just happens. To make a gay family, you have to muck about with the natural order of things.Sounds great! Then there's no need to restrict conversations about gay families to over-18s, because a "natural family" will just happen anyway.
Then you need to learn to interpret data.Then you must have come to the same conclusion and agree with me.No.
I like Taylor Swift and Jaffa Cakes. Those opinions also aren't based on data. Do I need data to form all my opinions?I'm saying I don't know where to find such data when I live in a post-truth age full of fake news and government narratives.So you admit that your opinions aren't based on data? That's a bit better than providing irrelevant data, I suppose.
Only the same sex guardians.Orphans have guardians. So do children whose parents are in prison.Yet you just said that them having guardians should be made illegal.
What if there are more orphans than heterosexual couples or single parents willing to adopt?There aren't. We haven't just had a major war or genocide.
Do you think it's better for a child to have no upbringing at all than a "normal" one? Is it better for a child to be adopted by an abusive heterosexual couple than a loving homosexual one?Why would you want to place a child with either, you sicko?
You can't have it both ways. If "the selfish gays" can't force their idea of family life on kids, neither can you.A natural family just happens. To make a gay family, you have to muck about with the natural order of things.
I went from you shouldn't teach about homosexuality to children to you shouldn't teach about homosexuality to children. Seems pretty consistent to me. Please try harder to read properly.I've just taught them that homosexuality is not a discussion to be had in public or in polite conversation.Yes, exactly. But earlier you said this:They shouldn't be taught anything.Are you now retracting this statement?
I didn't say your data were wrongThen you must have come to the same conclusion and agree with me.
In other words, you won't provide data to support your case. Noted.I'm saying I don't know where to find such data when I live in a post-truth age full of fake news and government narratives.
Orphans have guardians. So do children whose parents are in prison. And yet it is you who accuses me of having poor reading comprehension.Why should it be anyone's job? Children have parents and guardians. People who love them. Those are the people who should provide guidance.So you're okay with children receiving a poor education, but only orphans, children whose parents are in prison, or children of busy working parents who rarely see their kids?
What about children with same-sex parents?There is no such thing. And placing children in such situations should be utterly illegal. If you chose to be gay, it means you chose not to have a family. You shouldn't be able to acquire one at the expense of a child having a normal upbringing.
Are you okay with them being encouraged to be gay, as you put it?Absolutely not. Homosexuality should be an 18+ topic in public, just as porn is. Both are destructive to young people's perceptions of how family life should be.
No, that is not a "job done" according to you. You have just communicated for everyone in the class that the topic is inappropriate in public. That's not teaching them nothing.I've just taught them that homosexuality is not a discussion to be had in public or in polite conversation. Go learn some manners from your family about what is and isn't appropriate. Maybe they can steer you back from your mixed ideas if it isn't too late.
Thork's reply explains alot.I do make excellent points. Thank you.
He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality.The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
Now I'm picturing a world a generation or two down where 'Ask your parents' goes into a loop because the parents don't know shit because they weren't taught anything because their parents didn't know anything.your parents managed to form a relationship, have sex and then produce you. The idea that they 'don't know shit' is ridiculous. A rabbit is able to set up a family. Do rabbits do sex ed? Name a single other creature that needs sex education please.
So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites. Because that'll be healthy....
Ignoring for a moment the fact that you have provided no source or methodology for these data, by itself this is a useless statistic.It is at least some data. I almost always provide a source or some reference. You don't. How about you come back with some data showing my data to be wrong?
Would the overall rate of grooming increase or decrease if sex education in schools were abolished? That is the statistic you want.I don't believe that data like that wouldn't be suppressed or manipulated by government. It is too political for them not to shape the narrative with bent data.
Why should it be anyone's job? Children have parents and guardians. People who love them. Those are the people who should provide guidance.And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?I think it should be given to them by the people whose job it is to give it to them.
Imagine for a moment that you are a sex education teacher. You are teaching the syllabus of your dreams — heteronormative traditions to make the Bishop of Rome blush. A young lad timidly raises his hand and tells you he feels attracted to other boys, and asks you what to do about it.This absolutely wouldn't happen. Kids don't come out in the middle of class in front of all their friends. Should such a ridiculous and rare situation occur, you reply "You should tell your parents how you feel". Job done.
In your fantasy world, where children are taught nothing about same-sex relations, how would you as the teacher respond?
And you think the way to prevent children from being groomed is not to teach them about the realities of the world, so that when they encounter someone who wants to take advantage of them they have no idea what's going on?Most children who are groomed, are groomed by someone in a position of power over them. Teacher is the biggest slice of the pie. Let's not make it bigger. They are the people you need to watch.
Now, it stands to reason that children must be given some form of sex education.And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?
If you want to avoid teen pregnancies and the spread of STIs, you need to teach children how to have safe sex. They are going to have sex either way, so a responsible education system will help them to do it safely. And if you are giving children sex education, then you are implicitly teaching them what is okay and (whether through omission or condemnation) what is not. It is not possible to deliver sex education without addressing this issue.What has any of that to do with teaching children about 'diverse relationships'?
So, unless you are saying you want to see 14-year-old pregnancies popping up all over the country, it's not an argument about whether to teach children or not to teach children. They just aren't being taught in the way you would like.Correct. They should not be given the gay propaganda by teachers. I don't know why this is so unreasonable.
I'm not afraid of gays. I'm afraid that children will be groomed by some of them. Vigilance is how you prevent terrible things from happening.Why are you afraid of gays?Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay.This is what I fear, yes.
I feel the same way about made up garbage such as new born babies being gay. Just because you hope something is true, doesn't make it so.I don't need a liberal professor to bullshit me into believing that people are born gay. It is obvious that they are notNothing about human development is "obvious". If we were still basing our biology knowledge on what is "obvious", we'd still be insisting that people think with their hearts. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to assert that your made-up garbage is obviously correct.
Don't be jelly. You're a big boy now. Have your own job and everything. If you want some sex, you go out and buy yourself some.Of course. Being gay sucks. Lesbians have to put up with no children and lesbian bed death.As opposed to all the healthy sex you're having, you mean?
Its almost like you took that quote out of context. Well done. That's the way to win a debate.They shouldn't be taught anything.I don't think that's really what you meant to say.
Define grooming for me.Discussing homosexuality with children is a gateway to child sexual abuse.I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry
Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay.This is what I fear, yes. Been going on for decades. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Absolute horseshit. Not a person alive remembers being born. No one remembers being 4 months old. In fact you have very few memories of before you were 3 years old if any. You aren't gay as a new born baby. In fact you've just opened your eyes and decided the first thing you looked at must be your mother. She's a source of food and protection. You aren't deciding that screwing people of the same sex might be fun. Your sexuality will develop as you grow. I don't need a liberal professor to bullshit me into believing that people are born gay. It is obvious that they are not and I don't care that gay people want to romanticise it "I was born this way". No ... you turned out that way. Its very different.Your formative years are just that. Formative. You aren't born having any sexuality.I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry.
This is demonstrable bullshit. If you bother to talk to any gay person you’ll know that they often always knew they were gay.
(On being asked when he knew he was gay)You realise that was a joke. You know ... haha ... a joke. Its funny because we know a newborn baby isn't thinking about sex. haha. Come on ... with me ... one two three ... hahahaha!
“Oh, I’ve always known. As soon as I came out of my mother I looked up and thought ‘I’m not going up one of those again!’”.
- Stephen Fry
You know this is not true from your own experience. Unless you’re saying that as a teenager you thoughtNo, your formative years will define your sexuality. If you have a new age parent that likes to dress you as a drag queen so you can express yourself at the age of 4 ... you might well turn out gay. Which will delight your awful parents but ruin your life.
“Well, I like a bit of cock, but I kinda like pussy too. Think I’ll go with pussy”.
No one has that experience.
A friend of mine “came out” to me and in the ensuing conversation she said that in some ways she wishes she wasn’t gay as her life would be a lot easier. But you can’t control who you are attracted to.Of course. Being gay sucks. Lesbians have to put up with no children and lesbian bed death. We should do all that is possible to shape the formative years of a child's life with heterosexual norms. Give them the best chance at a happy and healthy life. That's good parenting.
Kids should obviously be taught that being gay is a thing.Why? Why even put that silly notion in their heads. If they turn out gay anyway, then have the chat. Encouraging children to be gay is wicked.
They shouldn’t be taught it’s “good” or that it’s “bad”.They shouldn't be taught anything. They should be allowed to grow up naturally without you pounding gay propaganda into their little minds.
It’s just a thing and it’s a thing for a significant enough percentage of the population that kids will probably know gay couples.Which may well be one of the reasons through out history that homosexuality was unacceptable. So that you keep it behind closed doors and stop pushing it in front of children. Society is for everyone, not just the selfish gays who want to shape the world the way they'd like it.
Just not talking about stuff like that has worked out horribly for previous generations.You mean the previous generations that went on to create great civilisations over thousands of years? You are one of those people that thinks everyone who lived in the past was stupid. They weren't. they figured out everything. They are the reason you are wearing clothes. Sat in a house. Using electricity. Get medicine. Able to spend money, get a job, use roads, sewers, get food whenever you need. Those people from the past figured out everything, and yet you think they were stupid and didn't know how to raise children.
But it should obviously be done in an age appropriate way, which is what this bill is apparently about.It is none of the state's business. It is for parents to guide their children. Not a heavily lobbied education department.
Pretty sure the greeks thought it was ok.No, they didn't. Provide a source.
Oh and English theater had only men for centuries. So those steamy kissy scenes were two dudes.And children didn't go to the theatre.
And being taught facts about human life isn't wrong. As long as the teacher doesn't try to convince their students that they ARE gay, its fine.Teachers are encouraging children to be gay. Telling them to consider it. They likely never have until that point.
Its like being taught that there are homophobic people in the world.Good job men like you are around to talk to young children about gay sex.
My son has really only learned that people are diverse and that it’s not abnormal to have feelings for people of the same sex. He is in grade 5.So before he has even begun puberty, you are ramming ideas about being queer into his head. Poor little guy. He is likely interested in Fortnite and playing outside with his friends. Now he wondering why a large hairy man would have feelings for him.
Holy shit. Why are the GOP such fucking snowflakes? Haven’t they figured out yet that kids can’t catch the gay? Teaching kids about the existence of sexual orientation and non binary gender identity is crucial for the mental health of kids who might identify as LGBTQ+Discussing homosexuality with children is a gateway to child sexual abuse. Such discussions should only be instigated by parents. Teachers should not be talking to children about sex - especially gay sex. Why would you want a 40 year old man that you barely know, talking to your little boy about gay sex? Yet another example of liberal ideology over practicality.
Today, I made $22/hour after taking gas into account.Sounds like your town needs more Mexicans.
Unfortunately, UK messaging has to be pretty infantile and basic, because the UK populace is, uh, experiencing the long-term effects of an unequal education system.
Hands, face, space.
Stay alert -> control the vitus -> save lives.
Catch it -> bin it -> kill it.
Vaccines are like batteries.
Referring to mask-induced acne as "COVID acne" (because the BBC's attempts at coining "maskne" were too much to ask)
It's extremely sad to watch, but not for conspiratorial reasons.
The Australian government called him a risk because of the misinformation he was spreading. It was never because of the danger of him spreading COVID.You just made that up.
Just because you make shit up doesn’t mean other people do.
Although Djokovic is not vaccinated against Covid-19, he has not actively promoted anti-vax disinformation.