Scotland introduces LGBT+ lessons in school curriculum
199 replies, posted
OK, I may be incorrect about monetary funding however they have definitely reshuffled and reorganised schools in a negative way. My mum worked as a classroom assistant, but in the last few years their positions have been scrapped (see: moved into a different postion ) and the only way she can keep that job is to be a learning support worker, now rather than helping out with the teachers' admin and classroom stuff, has now got to look after disabled kids in their classes and literally assist with the fun that comes with that ( including wiping their arses ) - ON TOP OF all of the previous work she had to do. There workforce helping the teachers was halved, and the teachers are feeling it, and the remaining support workers are not happy with having to do so much more work - potentially things they are not qualified for - for the same amount of money. That was because of the SNP.
Ok. provide me some evidence stating the contrary.
not until you provide me evidence for your statement. i am not expending effort you yourself are unwilling to expend.
have you heard of russell's teapot?
provide evidence that your claim isn't just some wild theory you cooked up in your head first. "it's not something you need evidence to grasp" "use your intuition" doesn't really make anyone wanna take any of the shit you peddle seriously
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/135/35ed0774-cd99-43ed-aefb-671241c6441a/image.png
take a break, you big baby.
wait so first what you say is clearly evident by intuition alone, suddenly you need to dig through pages upon pages of literature to prove your point?
i find that the best test of one's understanding of literature is to paraphrase what is said in your own words - can you at least do that? can you tell me, even without linking evidence, WHAT research has been conducted to serve as evidence for these claims? do you honestly expect me to disprove what you literally haven't proven?
let me make this simple
is it so hard to believe a person's dislike of something could be rooted in a subconscious trait that's present in all humans?
For example:
People dislike dying
that's a subconscious trait.
some people *do* like dying, it's called suicide
suicide is stigmatized by most people.
??
this can easily be an explanation for the evolution of social norms in societies - something EXTRINSIC and MALLEABLE, as opposed to some magical connection between the biological imperative and a person's subconscious - something INTRINSIC and IMMUTABLE.
yes. IT CAN BE HARD TO BELIEVE.
Do you really think sexuality is not a biological trait? I mean do most people *not* have the desire to breed and make babies? When did that stop being a part of humanity? Like I've said before, when sexuality is something fundamental to every human, it would just make sense that people who fall out of the norm of wanting to make babies would be stigmatized. Can you provide any evidence as to how sexuality is taught, rather than something you're born with?
sexuality is (as far as we know from evidence) a biological trait. hatred of sexuality is not necessarily a biological trait.
can you provide evidence that this hatred of sexuality is borne of a biological fact, immutable to all humans with identical cognitive infrastructure, variable as it might be from person to person but a biological fact nonetheless; and not, as i have hypothesized as a counterpoint with equal evidence as you, a result of norms learned in society and present in societies perhaps because of natural selection of certain societies?
surely, if this was an inherent part of types, as you claim it is, there would not be such a huge variance in homophobia between different countries as statistics show, and it would be more or less evenly distributed? how, if this is intrinsic, is this statistic changing as education improves and society becomes more inclusive in its values? do you perhaps claim that there is some natural selection that is somehow making these "bigot types" more extinct in society?
please don't try to pass this off as people "not understanding you" - i, and others here, understand you loud and clear, we just choose not to agree with your interpretation when others exist, equally valid. you are insulting everyone's intelligence in this thread by doing so.
What's your point anymore, @Bee York ?
What's this? Bee York acting like a jackass?
Say it ain't so!
What a fuckin baby.
You see now that's the kind of explanation I was looking for. You make a good point! it's also believable that hatred of a seuality could be a learned trait, but I would still like to choose a different method of rationalization for it. That kind of thing being a biological drive rather than a taught one just makes more sense to me personally.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh fuck boyo, you really sandbagged whatever credibility you might have ever had with this one.
He doesn't have an damn evidence, just his personal belief.
Incredible argument my dude, I can see Jung just rolling in his grave from this masterpiece of a refutation. His entire life's work absolutely destroyed in one fell swoop.
It's pretty clear you're arguing in bad faith just to support your own social ineptitude here
Jung, and Freud are both largely discredited today in modern psychology.
So, this isn't me taking him down. This is you using bad information to connect the dots YOU want to connect.
You haven't really said anything anyone needs any evidence to argue against. Everything you've argued is based on a "I'm right, and that's all there is to it" basis, predicated on the idea that Jung and Freud aren't discredited.
They are. They have been. So your ideas hold less water than either of theirs, because yours is some weird bastardization of half their ideas, and half yours that doesn't end up working.
Sometimes just accepting you're wrong will allow you to make better decisions down the line.
I mean, Bee, get some quotes from those literatures you've read and source them.
Because right now, your arguments are based on your experience, which we can't verify nor confirm.
Maybe if ya'll didn't turn into dicks at the tail end of this, it would have gone differently. At the end of the day, I'm still going to hold my belief, and you're still going to hold yours, and that's ok. To each their own. I'm glad I could hear some solid reasoning from *someone* at least once. (cough Newb cough)
@Bee York
Your long history of shitposting and trolling sort of makes it hard to understand your intentions here.
It almost seems like you have some irrational fear of LGTB, and you're trying to prove with some vague scientific jargon that it's bad to teach people about a very prominent part of human sexuality, culture and history.
I seem to recall you shitting up some other LGTB thread a while back, and then claiming that you yourself is trans as a defense, as if that validates your arguments.
So what's with you? Are you just a massive contrarian?
This is how someone who refuses to learn, or educate themselves behaves.
I honestly doubt you're read much scientific literature if you don't even know how proof and sources work.
You bear the burden of proof you clown. You can't tell others to disprove your claim.
Your excuses are worthless. If you can't prove your claims, you can't prove your claims!
Not that we've heard any from you.
You claim "you don't need evidence, it just makes sense, can you prove me wrong?"
And then you whine when people don't provide evidence against you.
Or you simply ignore when they actually do.
You could argue that people instinctually hate gay people because "they don't make babies". I could argue that people instinctually love gay people BECAUSE they don't - gay men, at least - and thus freeing up possible competitors for mates.
Neither really has any evidence besides theorycrafting.
And no, "big five was inspired by Jung and Jung was inspired by Freud so therefore Freud is still completely right" is not evidence.
congratulations, ya'll won.
i just wanted to explain why i believe people act the way they do based on the things I've read about human nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure it could be complete bogus, but it's what makes the most sense to me, and for the time being, I'm going to stick with it.
I love how every time @Bee York goes on a shitposting spree he always acts like everyone is a big idiot for getting mad at him and yet here we are with him getting super pissed and telling everyone to get raped by a cactus.
Nah, it's because you have a well documented history of being both a contrarian and a troll.
Dude, sticking your fingers in your ears when you hear shit you don't like is how children react.
This is how you're reacting to being told, and shown, you're wrong.
You're basing your arguments off of Jung, and Freud. Discredited, and dismissed psychologists who are no longer relevant. You refuse to acknowledge modern psychology has discredited them.
Your argument for it "Not being bogus" is "I like it".
Do you see how dumb this actually is?
So you're blaming us and our tone on your inability to change your mind in the face of fact? Pathetic
Holy shit dude, I only did Psychology 101 and even there they made it incredibly clear that their research was flawed to the point of uselessness.
Why you're a contrarian?
You try so hard to argue against something just for the sake of it, even when it's abundantly clear that you don't have a case. You only care about being right.
The fact that you're trans doesn't give you a free pass to bullshit your way through LGBT discussions, especially when you always seem to pick the stance that most resembles anti-LGTB. This is typical behaviour of a contrarian.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.