Hypocrisy and hysteria from our politicians and media over Crimea

1235»

Comments

  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    Sex education in schools seems to be doing a swell job of educating children to have sex as is evident by the UK teenage pregnancy rates. I think the focus of the education might need to be better placed on relationships and the importance of birth control as opposed to all the diffrent ways to do it and its all normal and fun.

    Sex is normal and fun - despite the efforts of religion to turn it into something distasteful, to be hidden away and merely tolerated for the creation of more brainwashed unfortunates.

    Lessons in birth control and relationships should be - and I thought are - an integral part of sex education lessons.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sex is normal and fun - despite the efforts of religion to turn it into something distasteful, to be hidden away and merely tolerated for the creation of more brainwashed unfortunates.

    Lessons in birth control and relationships should be - and I thought are - an integral part of sex education lessons.
    I was thinking more about if sex education promotes promiscuity, casual sex as a fun leisure activity to do whatever you fancy with whoever you fancy as long as they are willing. With anyone not willing or not willing to do certain sex acts being viewed as frigid and not normal as having hang ups, or whatever. As opposed to sex being part of a long-term loving relationship. We have a high rate of teenage pregnancy and a high rate of unmarried lone parents. I guess it depends on what you think the social norm should be and if you think long-term loving relationships are something to aim for or if hedonism should be the norm.
  • Alex_Davies1973Alex_Davies1973 Posts: 989
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was thinking more about if sex education promotes promiscuity, casual sex as a fun leisure activity to do with whoever you fancy as long as they are willing. As opposed to sex as part of a long-term loving relationship. We have a high rate of teenage pregnancy and a high rate of unmarried lone parents. I guess it depends on what you think the social norm should be and if you think long-term loving relationships are something to aim for or if hedonism should be the norm.

    In this day and age does it matter if people are un married if they have kids just as long as they happy,who cares, As for unage if not right them having sex and babies .But what can be done as you can not watch your kids 24/7 and to do so is also wrong as they got to learn from their own mistakes.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In this day and age does it matter if people are un married if they have kids just as long as they happy,who cares,
    I used the term unmarried lone parents. I think it is often beneficial financially and possibly psychologically for a child to be brought up with two parents who are in a long-term loving relationship. With our welfare state I also think it is beneficial financially to other tax payers if the family unit is more likely to need less state support due to having potentially two adult earners or one adult earner and a spare should the earner become unable to work.

    I also think it is often beneficial if a child's parents are not adolescents. That having a child ideally should be decision made by someone emotionally mature enough and ideally financially able enough to care for the child's needs.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 471
    Forum Member
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Lets just assume that documentary I watched was complete fiction, and not a single gay person is hunted in Russia..

    It's still a valid sexuality which is being 'censored' by the government. It's infringing the rights of people who are gay and bisexual - that's enough for this to matter.

    In the explanatory notes to the Russian law, translation here, it is made clear that no censure is being applied to homosexuality per se. I believe the crux of their point is that homosexual relationships should not be seen as having 'social equivalence'. This is not the same as personal equivalence. In the notes we see that the 'norm' should be consistent with 'how the ancestors have ushered in future generations' - which is by procreation. This should also be seen in the context that Russia is facing a demographic crisis caused by falling birth rates. So maybe it is fair to say that the new law is not so much anti gay but part of a strategy to increase the social capital of straight relationships which will produce children?
  • Alex_Davies1973Alex_Davies1973 Posts: 989
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I used the term unmarried lone parents. I think it is often beneficial financially and possibly psychologically for a child to be brought up with two parents who are in a long-term loving relationship. With our welfare state I also think it is beneficial financially to other tax payers if the family unit is more likely to need less state support due to having potentially two adult earners or one adult earner and a spare should the earner become unable to work.

    I also think it is often beneficial if a child's parents are not adolescents. That having a child ideally should be decision made by someone emotionally mature enough and ideally financially able enough to care for the child's needs.

    Just as long as the people have kids are over 18 it not any other person business if they are married it's not the 50s anymore,abd if they are happy be a lone parent still none of other peoples business,

    Why can others not keep there nose out of other people's business as it wrong to tell others there life is wrong.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do some people seem to think that teaching children about any non-heterosexual orientation is going to be disturbing or that its going to involve anal sex 101 lessons? I loathe the supreme arrogance that is evident in this idea that only heterosexual students are worthy of comprehensive sex education and the rest of us should just sit quietly and then try and stumble through ourselves when we're old enough.
  • zelda fanzelda fan Posts: 6,330
    Forum Member
    FMKK wrote: »
    Why do some people seem to think that teaching children about any non-heterosexual orientation is going to be disturbing or that its going to involve anal sex 101 lessons? I loathe the supreme arrogance that is evident in this idea that only heterosexual students are worthy of comprehensive sex education and the rest of us should just sit quietly and then try and stumble through ourselves when we're old enough.

    Some people think being gay is all about in their opinion "unnatural sex" they forget that we also develop feelings for each other and seek committed relationships as well. Not to mention some education on the subject can be of great help to any young LGBT teenagers who are struggling to come to terms with this aspect of themselves.
  • edExedEx Posts: 13,460
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So maybe it is fair to say that the new law is not so much anti gay but part of a strategy to increase the social capital of straight relationships which will produce children?
    How will it raise birth rates for the Russian police to ignore gay-bashing? Because that's exactly how they're interpreting it. Gay people are being arrested for being bashed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just as long as the people have kids are over 18 it not any other person business if they are married it's not the 50s anymore,abd if they are happy be a lone parent still none of other peoples business,

    Why can others not keep there nose out of other people's business as it wrong to tell others there life is wrong.
    Why over 18?
    The age of consent is 16 in the UK.
    And the CPS will not generally prosecute those having sex with under 16 year olds if there is little age gap and they are boyfriend and girlfriend relationship.

    People having children who lack the emotional maturity or financial ability to look after the children, rely on other people supporting them. So it is other peoples business. Also the psychological and emotional and financial wellbeing of children is society's business.
  • Alex_Davies1973Alex_Davies1973 Posts: 989
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why over 18?
    The age of consent is 16 in the UK.
    And the CPS will not generally prosecute those having sex with under 16 year olds if there is little age gap and they are boyfriend and girlfriend relationship.

    People having children who lack the emotional maturity or financial ability to look after the children, rely on other people supporting them. So it is other peoples business. Also the psychological and emotional and financial wellbeing of children is society's business.

    But having to be married to have kids or live together is out of date and old fashioned in 2014,and who to say who is emotional maturity and the financial ability is so wrong as poor people have the right to have kids.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    finbaar wrote: »
    So only views that agree with those held in the liberal west are correct? I can assure you that many in the UK do not want their children learning about homosexuality in school.

    Yeah, and those people are irrationally fearful dimwits.

    I'm sorry, but I have zero time for these wretchedly backward opinions these days.

    As per my previous post, we know, conclusively, certain things - and one of those things we know is children learning about homosexuality does not make them homosexual.

    Therefore any fear the parents have is unfounded and irrational - that makes it wrong. Unless you think irrational and unfounded fear ('hysteria') and mis-information are good things for humanity?
  • MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    This thread is going way off topic.

    Baroness never been elected in her entire life Ashton is currently in Iran swarming the Iranians. Their government actually executes gay people.

    Russia ain't the greatest place for gay people but there are much worse places. And places the UK and EU are very happy to do business with including trade deals.

    This in the end is all about money not principles. Hence us not touching the laundered money of all those Russian oligarchs in London.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the financial ability is so wrong as poor people have the right to have kids.
    If they can not afford to provide for the child that means a child in poverty or since we have a welfare state having children at other people's expense.
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Johnbee wrote: »
    I did not think I would write about Hitler, but people here seem to not know how he got into power What happened was that his party got increased votes at elections until they were the largest party. It is correct that they did not win an overall majority, but they gained power and governed as a minority.

    Putin is extremely popular in Russia with opinion poll ratings that Cameron would give up some of his servants for. Well, a few anyway.

    No
    1. The Nazis vote had fallen
    2. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in a coalition government
    3. The Nazis took power via an enabling act, passed via
    banning the Communist Party and arresting sufficient SPD and Liberal MPs

    The enabling act transferred dictatorial powers, so he did rule as a minority government
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I did not think I would write about Hitler, but people here seem to not know how he got into power What happened was that his party got increased votes at elections until they were the largest party. It is correct that they did not win an overall majority, but they gained power and governed as a minority.

    Putin is extremely popular in Russia with opinion poll ratings that Cameron would give up some of his servants for. Well, a few anyway.
    1. The Nazis vote had fallen
    2. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in a coalition government
    3. The Nazis took power via an enabling act, passed via
    banning the Communist Party and arresting sufficient SPD and Liberal MPs

    The enabling act transferred dictatorial powers, so he did rule as a minority government

    Redtux, you're close...but there's still a couple of things astray there...
    3. The Nazis took power via an enabling act, passed via
    banning the Communist Party and arresting sufficient SPD and Liberal MPs

    Hitler took on various emergency powers designed to keep order by the Enabling Laws - this is what allowed him to lock up opposition and potential opposition ;-) He already had the power to rule (as in govern) Germany as Chancellor...AND once he amalgamated the offices of Chancellor and President into one on Hindenburg's death, he could LEGALLY rule by decree ;-) There were three parts of the Weimar Constitution that if used together allowed the President to rule by decree. That was how Hindenburg had effectively ruled Germany from 1930 onwards...because he could.

    Hindenburg however had kept a very loose hand on the tiller, preferring to keep parliamentary government going, and the only REAL manifestation of this legal "power" was that from 1930 HE decided directly who would be Chancellor....THEN that person had to try and manufacture a workable majority in the Reichstag. But the important thing is that once those Presidential powers accrued to Hitler...Hitler was actually ruling by constitutional provisions set down in the German constitution in 1918/19! :o
    The enabling act transferred dictatorial powers, so he did rule as a minority government

    See above about him taking over the powers of the President on Hindenburg's death...and remember - there was both an election later in the year AND an "approval" referendum held for the Germans to rubberstamp his actions....which of course he "won"...and the NSDAP also "won" that set of elections, though we don't tend to regard them as legal results for many and various...and obvious!...reasons :D
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,542
    Forum Member
    finbaar wrote: »
    The west set the precedent with Kosovo. The Crimean's have the right to join Russia if they want.

    They will be treated better in Russia rather than fascist Ukraine.

    Except that the people in Kosovo were under attack, the people shooting them had recent form, and there's no evidence at all of anyone attacking Russians in the Ukraine, or of any significant fascist activity.The only question is if Putin believes this fiction , or he's actually relying on the gullability of his own people and his propaganda machine.

    The logic of Putin's position is pretty clear. He obviously can't accept the idea of a successful popular movement and then a parliament removing an authoritaran President. His own people might catch on. He's also trying to rebuild the Soviet empire and presenting himself as a macho leader - so losing the Ukraine just makes him look horribly weak. Creating a crisis also may help his campaign to pretend the rest of the world is against him, and full of alleged decadence that he is the man to keep out.

    The problem is that this all suggests he is truly paranoid, or vulnerable, or thinks of himself as another Catherine the Great (who was pretty disturbed) or caught in a self serving logic that he will find difficult to back down on- where events will dictate events.
  • gratuitousgratuitous Posts: 1,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The hysteria and hypocrisy of western politicians and media is spelt out by Marina Lewycka, a Ukrainian living in London writing for the Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gratuitous wrote: »
    The hysteria and hypocrisy of western politicians and media is spelt out by Marina Lewycka, a Ukrainian living in London writing for the Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia

    Thanks for that article - A very fair minded assessment of the situation and a welcome change to all the posturing.
    Her next to last paragraph summed it up perfectly as to why Britain will do nothing other than wag a finger at Russia.

    "What will happen next? I predict that nothing will happen. There will be a tremendous amount of huffing and puffing of hot air; well-oiled muscles will be flexed and machinery moved about. Some kleptocratic Russian and Ukrainian ladies will have to put on hold their next shopping trip to Harrods or Gucci. But for the bankers, oligarchs and oilmen, it will be business as usual. They will still own big chunks of London. And, fortunately, their offspring will still be able to enjoy their elite education in some of the world's finest private schools cut-price, thanks to the generosity of the British taxpayers who have deemed those institutions to be charities."

    Time for the fantasy war games avatars to abandon their threads.....
Sign In or Register to comment.