What are your thoughts on this?

[Bradskii]

If it’s the same message it’s indoctrination, it’s just camouflaged

So that headmaster was, in your opinion, saying all the wrong things? He was admitting that he wanted to indoctrinate children? You really can't be serious. Can you point to anything he said that would anywhere near what you are claiming?

 

[rockytopva]

To spell it out in just four letters...

Sick!

But... That is classic Laodicean church age in which...

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. - Revelation 3

 

[BPPLEE]

So that headmaster was, in your opinion, saying all the wrong things? He was admitting that he wanted to indoctrinate children? You really can't be serious. Can you point to anything he said that would anywhere near what you are claiming?

False equivalency. Or else the headmaster was hiding something

 

[BPPLEE]

Really? You can explain racism without literally pointing out that other 'races' are no different to your own?

What's a race, miss?
Well, you'll have to ask your parents about that.

Don't be silly. You point out the obvious differences and say that they make no difference.

Pointing out differences is not the same as giving a science lesson. You can do all that without going over their heads

 

[Bradskii]

False equivalency. Or else the headmaster was hiding something

What? It's a hypothetical. I have someone saying exactly what was sung and no-one in their right mind, reading what was said, could complain about it in any way whatsoever. If you can, then point it out. Saying 'He was hiding something' is beyond nonsensical.

 

[rockytopva]

To spell it out in just four letters...

Sick!

But... That is classic Laodicean church age in which...

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. - Revelation 3

Imagining God looking down from heaven thinking to himself... My Word! What a bunch of sickies!

 

[Bradskii]

Pointing out differences is not the same as giving a science lesson. You can do all that without going over their heads

Exactly. You don't need a scientific discussion about why some people look different. But you do need to point that fact out. And the same with gay people. You don't need to discuss dna, nature v nurture, identical twins or anything associated with the why. But you obviously can't tell people that the differences aren't important without pointing out the differences.

Then hopefully we'll have less people talking about them as being 'sick'.

 

[BPPLEE]

What? It's a hypothetical. I have someone saying exactly what was sung and no-one in their right mind, reading what was said, could complain about it in any way whatsoever. If you can, then point it out. Saying 'He was hiding something' is beyond nonsensical.

There is nothing wrong with what he said but we may not agree on what he calls the right information

 

[Bradskii]

There is nothing wrong with what he said...

Good. So as it replicates exactly what the choir was singing about, it's not the message but the messenger that causes the anger.

 

[ozso]

Deny deny deny.
Then admit it's happening a little but they just minimize it.
Then admit it's happening a lot but it's no big deal
Then admit it's happening a lot and should be happening more and more.

QFT

 

[ozso]

Nothing is wrong with that. It is a start, but not an education. How does the teacher answer the obvious questions that such a statement of fact will elicit? With silence? With 'I am not going to answer that. You will have to ask somebody else'?

In some households the 'somebody else' will be somebody ill-equipped to answer. For many children the questions will be answered in the playground by other children - who know just a little bit more, or think they do.

Children have a right to expect better than that.

They don't need it explained in extreme detail coupled with graphic reading material. That's not teaching, that's indoctrinating and sexualizing.

 

[BPPLEE]

Good. So as it replicates exactly what the choir was singing about, it's not the message but the messenger that causes the anger.

You edited my post

 

[Bradskii]

You edited my post

What 'he' considers the right information is a nonsensical thing to discuss, because 'he' doesn't exist. It's beyond bizarre to talk about what a hypothetical figure might think about certain matters. Again, what I wrote and what was sung are the same. And you literally posted 'There is nothing wrong with what he said'. So we are agreed. There is nothing wrong with the message being conveyed.

 

[BPPLEE]

What 'he' considers the right information is a nonsensical thing to discuss, because 'he' doesn't exist. It's beyond bizarre to talk about what a hypothetical figure might think about certain matters. Again, what I wrote and what was sung are the same. And you literally posted 'There is nothing wrong with what he said'. So we are agreed. There is nothing wrong with the message being conveyed.

Then any other conversation about him is nonsense, it’s just a way to come up with a gotcha question. It’s something defense attorneys try to do. If you frame it the right way well who could object? But that’s not what’s going on

 

[Bradskii]

Then any other conversation about him is nonsense, it’s just a way to come up with a gotcha question.

It seems to have turned into a gotcha. But it was, I thought, too obvious for it to be thought of as such. It was a simple analogy. Have someone say the same thing in a different setting and if it is deemed acceptable (and you said it was) then any claims that the same thing said by anyone else is unacceptable can only be based on who is saying it.

I think that has been shown to be the case beyond any doubt.

 

[BPPLEE]

It seems to have turned into a gotcha. But it was, I thought, too obvious for it to be thought of as such. It was a simple analogy. Have someone say the same thing in a different setting and if it is deemed acceptable (and you said it was) then any claims that the same thing said by anyone else is unacceptable can only be based on who is saying it.

I think that has been shown to be the case beyond any doubt.

At what point in your hypothetical scenario did the headmaster say “ We’ll convert your children and you will barely notice “ ?

 

[Bradskii]

At what point in your hypothetical scenario did the headmaster say “ We’ll convert your children and you will barely notice “ ?

Don't like that word, do you...but it's one you always use. That was the satire.

But if you say the same thing but use a different means to say it: 'if some children are, because of what they see on the internet perhaps, intolerant and unfair to others, then we teach children that tolerance and fairness is to be expected.'

In other words, they will be converted from being poor examples to good ones. And who knows, they may, by their example, help you to become better as well. But if it just means that there may be gay people who they encounter and they treat them no differently to anyone else, then you will barely notice it.

That was exactly what the message was.

 

[BPPLEE]

Don't like that word, do you...but it's one you always use. That was the satire.

But if you say the same thing but use a different means to say it: 'if some children are, because of what they see on the internet perhaps, intolerant and unfair to others, then we teach children that tolerance and fairness is to be expected.'

In other words, they will be converted from being poor examples to good ones. And who knows, they may, by their example, help you to become better as well. But if it just means that there may be gay people who they encounter and they treat them no differently to anyone else, then you will barely notice it.

That was exactly what the message was.

That’s a nice way to spin it but that wasn’t the message. There’s no point going on and on trying to defend the indefensible. It just looks bad.

 

[ozso]

That’s a nice way to spin it but that wasn’t the message. There’s no point going on and on trying to defend the indefensible. It just looks bad.

It was a genuine message presented as a parody. A good way to get a message across and maintain deniability, is to present it as a parody or as fiction. And indoctrinating kids in woke and lgbt ideology is euphemistically called teaching them tolerance.

 

[Divide]

'Yes, you're certainly correct, in this school we teach children that tolerance and fairness is to be expected. Let's face it, with the access to the internet these days they'll find all sorts of views that promote just the opposite. And it's our responsibility, for us as teachers, to ensure that they get the information they need to make informed decisions. So we'd welcome your child and we'd look forward to helping to ensure that she grows into the sort of person of whom you'd be proud. And to be honest, I find that the children here can often teach us a thing or two about how we should treat others.'

But those are a bunch of lies. ??