• Scotland introduces LGBT+ lessons in school curriculum
    199 replies, posted
So it's dumb. Ok? It's what *I* feel best describes how people act the way they do. And at that, it's not like I'm holding the belief that all people of a group need to die or something insane like that, it's a pretty benign idea that falls into my beliefs on human nature more than any other description. Can you not say that there was at least *some* truth in Jung and Freud's description of psychology? And this isn't to say that I reject the current models for typing people, but personally I feel Jung and Freud's descriptions are more applicable to me at the least.
Nuh uh buddy. You're the one who made this grand claim, the burden of proof is on you. And when people ask for evidence they mean studies and such, not "intuition." Until you can properly substantiate your ideas, nobody is under any obligation to do the same with theirs.
If you're so confident that I'm wrong, why not explain why you personally feel my description about this doesn't work, rather than relying on other people to do it for you?
So something is dumb, but you feel it's right. This is "flat earth" levels of logic dude. No one should have to explain to you that what you feel and what is real, are not mutually exclusive. I don't care if it's benign if you can't prove it's right at all, believing it to be true is harmful to you, and anyone else because it's just a dismissal of reality because you don't like reality. Jung and Freud are discredited, there isn't a lot of truth to their models, and I don't really care if you anecdotally think it's correct, if you can't prove it, it's bubkiss to me pal. You apparently cannot use these ideas to have a thought out discussion because as soon as you attempt to, you get defensive at the idea you might hold invalid ideas, and you act like a child. People provided evidence, you ignored it. You seem to do this in every thread you stir shit in. You're clinging onto 60 year old ideas that have been long since discredited, and your response to this being pointed out to you is "NO THEY'RE NOT". Look at yourself. Fucking look at yourself. Be aware of your own fucking behaviour for once in your history of shit posting on this site.
One person provided evidence, and if you go back and read my post, I accepted that what he said is also a decent explanation, but it's not the one I personally accept. And how is this flat earth levels of logic? You can easily prove that the earth isn't flat with evidence you can attain at your own home, but psychology is something that's notoriously hard to put into concrete and empirically provable terms.
You. Dimiss. Things. You. Don't. Like. That is childish logic. You have yet to accept that modern psychology COMPLETELY rejects Freud and Jung. That is flat earth levels of logic. Yes, psychology is a difficult study, that's why we don't rely on the anecdotal beliefs of people like yourself who believe things just because they like it.
Again, if you're unwilling to properly substantiate you're position, them I'm under no obligation to take you seriously. All you have done is explain the logic behind your idea, but this isn't Ancient Greece. Logic alone is not enough.
Well that was a massive waste of everyone's time. At least I can ignore any Bee York posts in future.
Sounds a lot better than what we got in PSHCE/Sex ED. We had a PE teacher teach us sex ed, and he basically just said "I'm not going to talk about gay people, because frankly they are disgusting, right?" to the whooping and cheering of chavs.
You're banned so I dunno that you'll come back to this thread but why don't you actually provide evidence supporting your claims rather than constantly saying it's intuitive or whatever. It's clearly not intuitive if you're the only one finding it intuitive. And people would take you a lot more seriously if you actually backed your claims up. Seriously enough to actually spend the time trying to debate with you more seriously.
remember kids, if your only knowledge of psychology is binging the Jung facts sessions in Persona 4 Golden and a vague understanding of what Freudian is, you probably shouldn't be trying to debate psychology
So proud of this wee country, I swear. As someone who spent a fuck ton of time time confused and alone in a lot of my issues and only found out because of the internet (particularly the trans thread here <3), I'm so glad to know that future transpeoples will be learning about themselves and how to get further help! also if you wanna understand trans people @Bee York , I'd recommend reading leading science and research and y'know listen to trans people, you arrogant cunt.
Bee York - "Why do these classes exist?" Everyone else - "So it can teach people to not be as ignorant as you"
You're acting as if being taught about the potential signs of being trans, or talking about things that can cause distress to a transperson or what NOT to ask someone who is trans is some how forcing you or other people into the spotlight. I understand that fear but I don't think the classes are going to encourage students to stand up and proclaim their transness to the class some how. I dunno, this type of thinking to me is akin to the idea of "don't ask don't tell" treatment of gay men in the military and fuck that. I'm not going to hide who I am or expect others to fear just to comfort the people who'd want to silence my voice or kill me, infact I'm going to be louder just to spite them. I understand the want to be out the spotlight, I'm the exact same but no transperson/non-binary or curious cis person should have to wade through all the misinformation and vitriolic hate that can be found on the internet on trans issues, come to understand it themselves, question themselves and figure all that out then actually get help in terms of transitioning when it could be taught in school and actually handled in a private way or in anyway that is comfortable to the individual. Why not cut out both, by teaching people who might be trans during/before puberty that its ok and normal, and teaching cis people that shit isn't as simple as the binary is
Putting transgenderism in the spotlight is not the same thing as putting a transgender person in the spotlight. One is bringing attention and education to an entire subject. The other is bringing attention to a specific individual.
I really don't understand people that act against their own best interest. This stuff has to be taught SOMEHOW. Like other people say, there's a difference between the subject being taught and actually putting individuals in the spotlight.
so are the mods going to do anything about the fact you use this account to evade every single time you get banned or what
@c👌de_g🎷 ban evasion should equate to extending the main accounts ban Otherwise why even bother
you guys could try using the report function. it exists for a reason and you avoid messing up the thread even further than it has already become.
I have been, liberally. It doesn't help that the report window tells you not to report things that you are, indeed, allowed to report.
You know as well as anyone else that people have been instructed to ignore the reporting rules and report anything they think should be addressed.
Yes, of course. I can't assume anybody else knows that, since it's only been discussed in past Forums Discussion threads which are now locked.
Or missing completely.
https://pics.me.me/state-enforced-homosexuality-27365795.png
Yeah, a dumb one
And you're sitting here wondering why nobody is taking you seriously
Im not really sure how this applies to scotland, but in the US at least elementary and middle school social studios/english/history classes have a huge focus on america's history of racism against black people, and basically don't talk about any other forms of prejudice with a very brief stopover at the holocaust. When i read the OP it made me think about how they might as well cut most of that and replace it more general anti-prejudicial content which would include those things, but also be way more generalized. It could include various physical and mental disabilities, religion, gender, trans people, even more vaguely defined ethnic groups, heck even politics, the various forms of prejudice across the world and even do a segment on prejudice against white people in modern south africa just to prove the point that there is no human being on earth that is really safe from prejudice under the wrong conditions. Frankly i think it's a bit damaging to children to basically use black people and slavery as a singular example of historical prejudice because it primes children to think along those lines, to either see themselves as aggressors or as victims. Because instances of prejudice are common and wide, they could rotate the topics pretty much for the whole length of schooling instead of just boring kids to death with the same information about the same people over and over again. Such a curriculum could be more or less generalized globally too, and used in a place like scotland. prempting dumb replies: yes, slavery is the most important historical example of prejudice and racism in the US, it wouldn't be excluded or something, but if doing this would reduce prejudice and prevent children being primed along those lines it's obviously worth whatever "reperations" style justification for the exclusive hyper-focus. It'd also just straight up be a better education. Whatever, this is all pretty idealistic and it'd be several people's life work actually implementing this.
i remember in my youth i really hated gay guys but also thought lesbians were perfectly fine until i started talking to gay guys that didn't act flamboyant or hysterical if the material is very hugboxy and seems forced(like it was at my school), it may just reinforce those prejudices, but if it's more down to earth then it might just work.
it's true though, especially one with a half naked loli as their avatar
His avatar or affinity for ye olde Japanimation does not diminish his argument
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.