Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Equality Plus

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,568
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 528 Times in 379 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov View Post
    This is a contentious point. There are two schools of thought. The PC view is what you have said above, and then there is the view that environment factors have had an influence. So, as with a lot of things in psychiatry, the question is how much is it environment and how much genetic. For example, we can ask a different question, and ask is intelligence environment or genetic. This is where it gets complicated, because if it is a genetic trait then we have to read the genes, and the genes are difficult to read. Some of the genome is understood, like for specific diseases they can be pinpointed to a certain gene expression, but the work is only just started. No one has found the gay gene, so you are weighting this incorrectly. Neither is it certain one way nor the other. To say it is, is a lie. I beleve you have been misled on this point.
    Now this is what I don't understand, so hope that someone can explain it to me. What is wrong with saying that being gay is a choice? There seems to be such a big palaver over saying that, and that instead you are "supposed" to believe that people have no choice in the matter and are born gay. To me that is nonsense, as being born gay would go against the very raison d'etre of life (which is to reproduce your genes). If you want to chose to be gay, then that's fine (unless you live in certain countries).

    But going back to the OP. It seems that there are busy bodies who love to take on a cause and once that cause is then "accepted" they move on to another. Sticking with homosexuality, that is now the norm, so "they" (whoever they may be) have moved on to try and normalise transgenderism, which to me in no way can be considered normal. Call me a bigot but XX is XX and XY is XY and never the twain shall meet (save in the bedroom). And once trans is the norm, and everyone with body dysmorphiagets inappropriate treatment as it is considered a mental illness - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ , "they" will move on to try and get something abnormal normalised. Goodness knows what, as we're scraping the bottom of the barrel already.

    And the other question....who decides what has to be accepted and why should we have to accept it? The last part is possibly easier - as the OP starts.....The Equalities Act states favourable treatment for 'protected groups'. But laws are really only so good if people willingly accept them. So who decides the norm and who these protected groups are and how they get protected status?
    In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to boggart For This Useful Post:

    Barry (20-05-2019)

  3. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 86 Times in 76 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    Now this is what I don't understand, so hope that someone can explain it to me. What is wrong with saying that being gay is a choice? There seems to be such a big palaver over saying that, and that instead you are "supposed" to believe that people have no choice in the matter and are born gay. To me that is nonsense, as being born gay would go against the very raison d'etre of life (which is to reproduce your genes). If you want to chose to be gay, then that's fine (unless you live in certain countries).
    Yes indeed, that logic is pretty tough to argue. Also the thing is with genes is it's not a simple one-to-one correlation with something like this. It's not the kind of thing like a Windows operating system where you set a tick to gay/not gay. If you change one particular part of the genetic code it can have several effects. It's an easier job to look at a genetic disease and see in every case there is a certain pattern, like where it is some physical deformity, but this gay thing is ill-defined in the first place. In their relentless search for this anyway, scientists have found genes that can determine the man is a bit more effeminate, i.e. lower testosterone levels. I think we knew that anyway, as it makes the hair grow and clearly some people are hairier than others, so that's about as far as they have got. The dead-certain view of the campaigners is wildly misplaced.

    Actually there is one theory that says genes don't simply optimise for reproducibility but they function in the communal sense, i.e. the gene expression is diverse such that there is a certain percentage of people with stronger abilities in some areas, and then another percentage strong in different areas, where if they were to live together they would be better equipped to survive that way. Like perhaps there is a techie gene which designs the shelters!
    Judged by the content of their character

  4. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 86 Times in 76 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post

    But going back to the OP. It seems that there are busy bodies who love to take on a cause and once that cause is then "accepted" they move on to another. Sticking with homosexuality, that is now the norm, so "they" (whoever they may be) have moved on to try and normalise transgenderism, which to me in no way can be considered normal. Call me a bigot but XX is XX and XY is XY and never the twain shall meet (save in the bedroom). And once trans is the norm, and everyone with body dysmorphiagets inappropriate treatment as it is considered a mental illness - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ , "they" will move on to try and get something abnormal normalised. Goodness knows what, as we're scraping the bottom of the barrel already.
    Absolutely, and it's all jobs for the boys eh!

    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    And the other question....who decides what has to be accepted and why should we have to accept it? The last part is possibly easier - as the OP starts.....The Equalities Act states favourable treatment for 'protected groups'. But laws are really only so good if people willingly accept them. So who decides the norm and who these protected groups are and how they get protected status?
    I think the answer to that is that our "leading" universities decide the underlying modus operandi on these equality issues. Then you may well ask, who instructs them, and this is where it gets interesting, because in academia, say if we are talking about the "science" of sociology, you get a whole tree of previous works, expressed in the form of published papers and sometimes complete books. Some of these books can be of the populist kind, as per your American "management consultant" book market. they work on sneaky tricks, like memes and telling people what they want to hear. A far larger body of influence though comes from celebrated thinkers of the past. I mean Marx was but one of these, but there are millions of them. The Germans in particular are big in sociology, and especially on matters of sex and what is known as sexology.
    Judged by the content of their character

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,568
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 528 Times in 379 Posts
    I just heard the headmistress of the school in Birmingham, where Muslim parents are protesting about LGBT lessons, being interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC. When I head it, I thought about your university bit above. When Ferrari asked her whether "his" religious views should be taken on board, she said that as a public sector worker, while taking on board parents' views [and obviously ignoring them] it was her duty to teach morals. Another teacher from the area calls in and says its religious rights vs human rights, and religious rights shouldn't trump human rights.

    I guess there is a certain irony involved in all this, which is completely lost on these people. And the piety from the headmistress, is this ingrained in public sector workers? And of course the question is why she thinks she should take the place of the children and "teach" them something that the parents have such strong views on. Here's a bit on Newsnight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKdzYmVSMus. One of the protesters says that "children are coming home with material that contradicts our moral values." So it comes down to the public sector worker's moral values vs the parents' moral values. The headmistress sees her's as being superior - why? Does public sector equal public interest?

    And here is the local MP turning up. Unfortunately she is one of the must intellectually challenged MPs out there, and possibly demonstrates quite why we are in the mess we are. Rather than having a conversation with the demonstrators, she just shouts at them telling them they are wrong and giving all Muslims a bad name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy9FAko75hE Let's not forget, this is Anderton Park Primary School - is there really a need to teach [sic] this at primary level? There is seemingly an insidious desire to rob children of their innocent years. They will become aware of the world and all it's good and bad soon enough, and should be allowed to form their own opinions.

    I always wonder why so many people insist that others tow a supposed "accepted" line, when they don't agree with it. So what if people are irrational?
    In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to boggart For This Useful Post:

    Barry (21-05-2019)

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,656
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 461 Times in 401 Posts
    Personally I think teaching such matters to primary school children is madness, and really is political correctness gone mad.

  8. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 86 Times in 76 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    I just heard the headmistress of the school in Birmingham, where Muslim parents are protesting about LGBT lessons, being interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC. When I head it, I thought about your university bit above. When Ferrari asked her whether "his" religious views should be taken on board, she said that as a public sector worker, while taking on board parents' views [and obviously ignoring them] it was her duty to teach morals. Another teacher from the area calls in and says its religious rights vs human rights, and religious rights shouldn't trump human rights.

    I guess there is a certain irony involved in all this, which is completely lost on these people. And the piety from the headmistress, is this ingrained in public sector workers? And of course the question is why she thinks she should take the place of the children and "teach" them something that the parents have such strong views on. Here's a bit on Newsnight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKdzYmVSMus. One of the protesters says that "children are coming home with material that contradicts our moral values." So it comes down to the public sector worker's moral values vs the parents' moral values. The headmistress sees her's as being superior - why? Does public sector equal public interest?

    And here is the local MP turning up. Unfortunately she is one of the must intellectually challenged MPs out there, and possibly demonstrates quite why we are in the mess we are. Rather than having a conversation with the demonstrators, she just shouts at them telling them they are wrong and giving all Muslims a bad name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy9FAko75hE Let's not forget, this is Anderton Park Primary School - is there really a need to teach [sic] this at primary level? There is seemingly an insidious desire to rob children of their innocent years. They will become aware of the world and all it's good and bad soon enough, and should be allowed to form their own opinions.

    I always wonder why so many people insist that others tow a supposed "accepted" line, when they don't agree with it. So what if people are irrational?
    You know the morals we accept as a society had their origin thousands of years ago. It's been a case of continual refinement and philosophical discussion which started with the Greeks, like Socrates and Aristotle, and was profusely developed throughout the Middle Ages in academic institutions like the great monasteries of the time. Oxford has been working on it since its foundation, and it's pretty accurate to say that by the current era we must have covered the lot a million times. These dullards are just not aware of what they don't know. I find it scary. They are unfit to enter into public debate on the matter.

    I support the protestors though. This is my one hope, that some people somewhere will start to suss something is going badly wrong.
    Judged by the content of their character

Similar Threads

  1. Repeal The Equality Act 2010
    By Confused in forum Political Correctness Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 14-03-2019, 03:51 PM
  2. Social Equality
    By Verion in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13-09-2013, 04:37 PM
  3. Sex Equality (or not) - Here, Now!
    By Quijote's Politics in forum Political Correctness Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-09-2013, 09:16 AM
  4. Equality: What Have You Lot Been Doing?
    By Quijote's Politics in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-07-2013, 04:29 PM
  5. Schools and that False God, Equality.
    By Quijote's Politics in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 28-06-2012, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •