Scottish Politics Thread

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Yes but this is one of the main ways the LGBT "community" get to promote their ideas and way of life. Just like the Labour Party do, influence the young early, but in this case even earlier still.

I'm all for people of all* persuations being able to live their lives the way they wish, but to deliberately influence children of Primary School age with this is completely wrong.


*Legal persuations that is
So no primary school kids should go to a pantomime?
Where the dame and often several other female parts are played by men.
And the principle boy is a girl?
 

offog

LE
So no primary school kids should go to a pantomime?
Where the dame and often several other female parts are played by men.
And the principle boy is a girl?
And some are trying to change that.:rolleyes:
 

SDFA

Old-Salt
So no primary school kids should go to a pantomime?
Where the dame and often several other female parts are played by men.
And the principle boy is a girl?
Yes, they do, and they go to be entertained. Also, the school requests permission from the parents should they wish to attend.
No parents were consulted as to the attendance of a drag queen who, whilst there to read stories, also discussed the pros and cons of growing up under the oppression of Sect 28 to a group of 9 yo's.
The thing that disturbs me, is the fact that this school has a 'rainbow' club at all. What is its purpose? When I was at school, we had chess club, swimming club, music club. Who decided that it is right and proper to introduce a club whose purpose is to discuss and promote the issues of today though a LGBTQ+ lens, to primary school children, in Feegie of all places?
Kids have enough pressures and distractions these days forcing them to grow up fast, without being introduced to these types of subjects without the mental acumen or maturity to see deal with such matter.
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
One of the main points of contention is that the drag artist involved, flowjob (it’s not advisable to look up the meaning of that on your work computer) put pictures of the school children up on his social media. Where there is rather a lot of adult content and other inappropriate posts, including some alleged to incite violence against those who don’t share his political viewpoint.
 
Don't know how true this is as I don't have kids at school, but if it's true, it's going a bit beyond the pale. Why can't kids just be left to be kids??

Highland Times Article
Hypothetical question:
Would you like to go to the doctor with your 13 year old daughter, and sit there whilst she explains to the doctor that she has a pain in her Noonoo? Or with your 13 year old son whilst he describes the issues he has with his Winkie? Would the situation be improved if instead they said "I've got a sore fanny" or "I've got an itchy cock"? Or do you think it might be better for them to refer to their own bodily parts by the accepted terms?
 
Hypothetical question:
Would you like to go to the doctor with your 13 year old daughter, and sit there whilst she explains to the doctor that she has a pain in her Noonoo? Or with your 13 year old son whilst he describes the issues he has with his Winkie? Would the situation be improved if instead they said "I've got a sore fanny" or "I've got an itchy cock"? Or do you think it might be better for them to refer to their own bodily parts by the accepted terms?
Oh I absolutely think kids should have a modicum of knowledge of their own bodies, but why do they need to know about these subjects while at school?
Now, under the SNP Scottish Government’s new policy, the mood has shifted dramatically to include discussions on genres of pornography (lesbian, interracial, facial); utilising porn in masturbation; paying for a prostitute; oral and **** sex.
 

Dredd

LE
Yes, they do, and they go to be entertained. Also, the school requests permission from the parents should they wish to attend.
No parents were consulted as to the attendance of a drag queen who, whilst there to read stories, also discussed the pros and cons of growing up under the oppression of Sect 28 to a group of 9 yo's.
The thing that disturbs me, is the fact that this school has a 'rainbow' club at all. What is its purpose? When I was at school, we had chess club, swimming club, music club. Who decided that it is right and proper to introduce a club whose purpose is to discuss and promote the issues of today though a LGBTQ+ lens, to primary school children, in Feegie of all places?
Kids have enough pressures and distractions these days forcing them to grow up fast, without being introduced to these types of subjects without the mental acumen or maturity to see deal with such matter.
At the risk of thread drift, you have an excellent point there.

Chess, swimming and music are all skills and activities. It therefore makes sense that they have a club where they can pursue these interests. A rainbow club is for . . . well, what exactly? It's a nonsense and a perpetuation of the victim mentality. We need to be in a special group because we are special, yet our goal is to persuade everyone that we are just people, same as everyone else. The psychology of it all is both fascinating and horrifying in equal measure. So at least they achieve equality in one way.
 
Oh I absolutely think kids should have a modicum of knowledge of their own bodies, but why do they need to know about these subjects while at school?
They need to have an honest and open discussion about them, for the very good reason that most of them will access porn via the internet before the age of 16, and for many, what they see portrayed is what they then consider to be normal sexual activity, when in most cases, it isn't. And parents baulk at the prospect of discussing gang-bangs, físting, atm, and so on with their little children. So teachers have been given that job.
 

Dredd

LE
Oh I absolutely think kids should have a modicum of knowledge of their own bodies, but why do they need to know about these subjects while at school?
Yes. Which is why it was taught in biology, where you learned that animals used their genitalia for the purposes of procreation. And that other animals had different ways of achieving the same things. As did plants.

The question is therefore not "if" but "when". Personally, there is a danger in keeping these things hidden or worse, making out as if there is something dirty or wrong in your biological urges and physiology. Demystifying it allows you to then have a more pertinent discussion on sexual health when the time is right, around the age of puberty.

As parents, we need to give our kids the knowledge and skills that help them to make the decisions that are right for them. They may choose to ignore them, or even deliberately go against them, but if we believe that ignorance will lead to abstention then the only person being fooled is ourselves. The sooner we can have the talk about these things then the better placed they are to protect themselves, but even then it may not be enough.

The "parents know best" line is a poor one. Many have limited knowledge themselves or are constrained by their own 'beliefs' so they do not give their children sufficient knowledge to be healthy and happy in this respect, so a basic level of education through the school system could make that difference. The question is then a matter of when and what.
 

Dredd

LE
They need to have an honest and open discussion about them, for the very good reason that most of them will access porn via the internet before the age of 16, and for many, what they see portrayed is what they then consider to be normal sexual activity, when in most cases, it isn't. And parents baulk at the prospect of discussing gang-bangs, físting, atm, and so on with their little children. So teachers have been given that job.
And this is where I draw the line.

Sexual proclivity is something that the individual can find out for themselves, and quite often in real life they would never encounter or indulge in these practices.

What they (the youngsters) need to be aware of is exploitation and abuse, which is where consent ends and becomes something darker. That is not necessarily the act itself, but the psychological drive behind it.
 
Hypothetical question:
Would you like to go to the doctor with your 13 year old daughter, and sit there whilst she explains to the doctor that she has a pain in her Noonoo? Or with your 13 year old son whilst he describes the issues he has with his Winkie? Would the situation be improved if instead they said "I've got a sore fanny" or "I've got an itchy cock"? Or do you think it might be better for them to refer to their own bodily parts by the accepted terms?
Do you think doctors only refer to those organs as penis and vagina? They'll have heard every word going and won't be confused or concerned.
 

Dredd

LE
Do you think doctors only refer to those organs as penis and vagina? They'll have heard every word going and won't be confused or concerned.
Agreed, but then it also gives them a mental assessment of where the individual is in terms of maturity and intellect.

A 12 year old referring to their nether regions with cutesy terms is normal and expected, a 35 year old is not.
 
With all the talk of Wee Nippy's impending demise, I thought an educational video was in order.


Next week is a legal video entitled "Gutting a Salmond"
 

Dredd

LE
Never actually eaten sturgeon.

Either variety.

ETA - actually, I have. Eggs.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top