Club Dynasty
Toronto Escorts

Ford Scraps New Sex Ed

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
Another proud day to be Canadian. Good on Ford. The notion of teaching (indoctrinating) first grade kids with gender identity politics trash and sex, is inappropriate.

Teach me how to Dougie, teach me teach me how to Dougie
 

Luton

Active member
Jun 7, 2012
1,115
18
38
I have not engaged in this topic, and cannot form any judgements based on ignorance, but is it only me who wonders how a document created under the direction of a convicted pedophile (B Levin), does not deserve some scrutiny?
I'm not going to research your claim whether it is true or not because I don't care and even if true why does it affect teaching children tolerance. What I care about are that children are taught to be tolerant of others and not be ashamed if they have feelings different than others. It is obvious you have formed a judgement. Sorry, please be informed not just opinionated.
 

Luton

Active member
Jun 7, 2012
1,115
18
38
Another proud day to be Canadian. Good on Ford. The notion of teaching (indoctrinating) first grade kids with gender identity politics trash and sex, is inappropriate.

Teach me how to Dougie, teach me teach me how to Dougie
Smallcock, it astonishes me you weigh into something when it is obvious you don't have the mental capabilities to make a rational assessment of any issue.
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,058
1,003
113
web.archive.org
Overall it is ridiculous to revert back to the old curriculum. It was in dire need of an update. Nothing wrong with tweaking it or allowing flexibility in certain demographics to respect their culture.

However most kids today learn about sex, genders, relationships, emotions, etc. the same way we did - On the playground and now on the net (we had books and/or magazines). In school we were never taught about anal sex. But guess what? We figured out what it was, how it was done and if it was something we were willing to permit/enjoy. We did not need a teacher to explain this to us.
 

glamphotographer

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2011
15,901
15,641
113
Canada
Back to 1950's style of sex ed. Rubbing noses with give you the clap. While kids can watch Jules Jordan videos on pornhub.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
Only one comment is appropriate for this thread.

If you do not have any kids, then what right do you have in raising someone else's kid?

None!

:nod:
 

Johnny Utah

Active member
Jun 9, 2017
589
60
28
Only one comment is appropriate for this thread.

If you do not have any kids, then just shut the hell up.

:nod:
I disagree. Having kids is not a licence to understand a whole generation of them and what they go though.

Working with them everyday does. I don’t expect policy makers or psychologists and educators to have kids in order to understand what they need.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
I disagree. Having kids is not a licence to understand a whole generation of them and what they go though.

Working with them everyday does. I don’t expect policy makers or psychologists and educators to have kids in order to understand what they need.
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.

A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.

Not someone else.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.

A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.

Not someone else.
Not necessarily true. Look at anti-vaxers, for example, or religious people who refuse to take their kids to the doctor when they’re sick. There are quite a few cases where a government may need to intervene on a child’s behalf because their parents are making decisions that are harmful to that child. Now, does that extend to eduction? Well, that’s up for debate. I certainly don’t want a nanny state that exerts control over all aspects of our lives, but there has to be a happy medium.

As far as sex ed, specifically, goes though, it does have more far-reaching consequences than simply what your child is learning in school. Not teaching kids about safe sex, for example, can lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and STIs, which can be a strain on our healthcare system. So in that sense, yes, we as a community should be ensuring that children are receiving a comprehensive education about sex.
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
9,819
1,603
113

Johnny Utah

Active member
Jun 9, 2017
589
60
28
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.

A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.

Not someone else.
Actually you are likely to be completely wrong. Any competent parent takes information from experts, regardless if they have children themselves.

Doctors, police officers, nurses, psychologists, teachers, etc.. to throw out a blanket statement that one has to shut up if they don’t have kids is just ignorant or combative.

The world is getting stupider and antivaxxers and racism can’t be curbed if only the parents are the ultimate judges to how to function in society.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I don't think explaining "gender identity" to grade 3's is appropriate.
In fact, the whole concept of "gender identity" is somewhat dubious.
In fact at that age lots of kids are quite uncertain why boys and girls are 'supposed' to be different; they don't see the difference when they play together. And they ask, and even pester their parents about the "whys".

Surely that's good time to point out there is biology, there's behaviour and there's what other people expect, and they all have a place in what any person does, and how. "Just like walking to school, to get there on time, which is what we're going to do now. So march!"

If it isn't too personal: I do not see how the concept of gender identity can be at all dubious, don't you have a concept of yours?

Some entries on some people's lists of identities may be dubious, but we have educated brains and speech to deal with that aspect of living together.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.

Not someone else.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

There's shit loads of bad parents out there. Abusive parents, deadbeat parents, superstitious parents, religious whack job parents, over protective parents, missing parents, uninformed parents, ignorant parents, racist parents, the list is endless.

As a progressive western society we are supposed to be able to come up with a system for sex education that is based in reality and not the way it should be.

As far as the "new sex Ed" goes, only one of my kids is still at that level and frankly she is far more informed and knowledgeable about the issue than the program itself. I'm not worried about her. I only worry about my sons being stung in a me too moment. That's what I worry about and I tell them they need to be so fucking careful in how they behave. It's not like it was for me when I was in university when no meant try harder.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.

A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.

Not someone else.

IF you are a parent (and I have two kids) then where does this BS about "what is best for their kid" get mixed up with sex ed? Schools do NOT raise your kid, unless you are a bad/lazy parent. If you do your job as a parent then school is just ONE influence in a world filled with many. The notion that killing this curriculum somehow is in kids' best interests is burying your head in the sand.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I think that schools teaching kids a code of conduct that applies to their behaviour at the school needs to be separated from schools determining what academic topics should be covered with the limited resources and time there is to teach them.

The precise problem with the sex education curriculum is that it deals with a number of code of conduct issues but wraps them up as if they are academic subjects. As an example, there is a difference between telling children that they may not bully or harass anyone for any reason, including based upon their sex, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identification, versus then telling them that the reason they must not do so is because: a) gender is a fluid concept, b) all sexual behaviour is equally valid, etc. Parents do not agree on all these "whys" that are offered to underpin the code of conduct. However, the "whys" are unnecessary.

The pragmatic solution is to dispense with these debatable explanations. Instead, schools should focus of communicating and enforcing their codes of conduct, and delivering academic teaching on subjects that aren't subject to social science and political debate. Frankly, there's plenty of room for improvement in teaching math, english and science at the elementary and secondary level, and there is more than enough of these subjects to teach in order to occupy all the teaching resources that we can afford.

We should not only LET parents be parents, we should design a school systems that REQUIRES them to do the parenting.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I think that schools teaching kids a code of conduct that applies to their behaviour at the school needs to be separated from schools determining what academic topics should be covered with the limited resources and time there is to teach them.

The precise problem with the sex education curriculum is that it deals with a number of code of conduct issues but wraps them up as if they are academic subjects. As an example, there is a difference between telling children that they may not bully or harass anyone for any reason, including based upon their sex, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identification, versus then telling them that the reason they must not do so is because: a) gender is a fluid concept, b) all sexual behaviour is equally valid, etc. Parents do not agree on all these "whys" that are offered to underpin the code of conduct. However, the "whys" are unnecessary.

The pragmatic solution is to dispense with these debatable explanations. Instead, schools should focus of communicating and enforcing their codes of conduct, and delivering academic teaching on subjects that aren't subject to social science and political debate. Frankly, there's plenty of room for improvement in teaching math, english and science at the elementary and secondary level, and there is more than enough of these subjects to teach in order to occupy all the teaching resources that we can afford.

We should not only LET parents be parents, we should design a school systems that REQUIRES them to do the parenting.
So it's OK for the school to lay down rules about what 'Thou shalt not do' but an improper waste of time to teach why? Surely that's backwards. The 'whys' are the most important part of any subject.

Roughly speaking, the abandoned curriculum was about a dozen pages per grade. While your concern for wasted class time is admirable, I hardly think covering the bits within those pages that you might call "debatable explanations" negatively impacts anyone's math skills. At least your 'no debatables' restriction rules out teaching Creation Science(sic) or Christian morality. But if a school teaches only those topics that "…aren't subject to social science and political debate", their grads will be entirely unequipped to deal with real life and the reality of people no matter how well they know their 13x table.

And they still won't know why that line is straight and this one isn't.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
So it's OK for the school to lay down rules about what 'Thou shalt not do' but an improper waste of time to teach why? Surely that's backwards. The 'whys' are the most important part of any subject.

Roughly speaking, the abandoned curriculum was about a dozen pages per grade. While your concern for wasted class time is admirable, I hardly think covering the bits within those pages that you might call "debatable explanations" negatively impacts anyone's math skills. At least your 'no debatables' restriction rules out teaching Creation Science(sic) or Christian morality. But if a school teaches only those topics that "…aren't subject to social science and political debate", their grads will be entirely unequipped to deal with real life and the reality of people no matter how well they know their 13x table.

And they still won't know why that line is straight and this one isn't.
It's not backward, it's pragmatic. In a democracy, it doesn't matter why we agree, it matters THAT we agree. And that matters most of all when we can agree what to do but can't agree on the "why". Of course, your insistence in framing the code of conduct as a "subject" illustrates my point as to what the problem is.

Not everything pertaining to real life need be taught in the schools, nor can it be. Parents can supplement the schools curriculum in any way they wish, and children will continue to learn about a variety of topics through private study, extra-curricular activities, involvement in community groups (including religious groups), television, movies, the internet and their peers.

And of course there is always private post secondary education (hopefully paid for by the student) to explore the myriad "whys' involved in any field of study of the student's choice (subject to inevitable usurpation of that choice by government if it decides to assume all post secondary funding).
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts