Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Also, playing dwarf fortress, whilst not itself a psychological abnormality, it does generally point to psychosis. Just look at the upper boards, chrissakes.

I WANT TO EAT YOUR BABIES!
[/absurdism]

[MonkeyHead]

So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.

[GavJ]

I don't use it as a part of any argument, really

But you are. You're suggesting that tax dollars should be spent to set up an entire parallel curriculum with alternative classrooms and teachers for classes that mention homosexuality in a neutral fashion (I presume, since you didn't give anybody actually promoting homosexuality in curriculum).

That's not free or simple. Doing that puts a burden on your neighbors, and thus makes it their business and right to demand explanations and evidence supporting your reasoning behind it. I don't personally live in Poland, so they aren't my tax dollars, but you could pretend that I do for sake of argument.

If you don't want to have an obligation to convince anybody, then that's fine. Go ahead and teach your kids your own beliefs in your own home. But you don't get to suggest sweeping, tax-dollar-requiring legislative changes at the same time. Or I guess you can suggest them, but it ain't gonna happen.

Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life

Except it's not... No scientist anywhere would classify a human who lived 50 years and never had any children as "not having been alive"

Now that is a very dangerous classification, in a society where 50% of all labour is not productive, but destructive, yet classified as productive just because it's labour.

...? Not sure what you're talking about.

But regardless, notice that I said "ABILITY" to do productive work. You don't have to actually be doing it, necessarily. Unemployed people aren't disordered. It refers to where a compulsion or belief consumes you to the point where you are actually unable to work even if you want to.

[martinuzz]

But regardless, notice that I said "ABILITY" to do productive work. You don't have to actually be doing it, necessarily. Unemployed people aren't disordered.

Who defines said ability?

It refers to where a compulsion or belief consumes you to the point where you are actually unable to work even if you want to.

What if you believe that by sitting at home unemployed, you do less damage to our planet's environment, or the global economy, than if you were to take a job forced upon you by government laws, where you assemble luxury products that use up the world's resources for the decadent pleasure of a lucky few (and you will never make enough money on said job to buy those products yourself). We live in a technological era, where more and more 'productive work' is being, and will be done by machines. Full employment for everyone, and 'life fullfillment through labour' are popular myths desperatly clung onto by politicians, who will happily try to create new jobs from thin air, which often leads to labour that can be categorized as 'destructive', on a global level.
The line between political conviction and psychological disorder should be very, very strictly guarded.

[BlindKitty]

I don't use it as a part of any argument, really

But you are. You're suggesting that tax dollars should be spent to set up an entire parallel curriculum with alternative classrooms and teachers for classes that mention homosexuality in a neutral fashion (I presume, since you didn't give anybody actually promoting homosexuality in curriculum).

That's not free or simple. Doing that puts a burden on your neighbors, and thus makes it their business and right to demand explanations and evidence supporting your reasoning behind it. I don't personally live in Poland, so they aren't my tax dollars, but you could pretend that I do for sake of argument.

If you don't want to have an obligation to convince anybody, then that's fine. Go ahead and teach your kids your own beliefs in your own home. But you don't get to suggest sweeping, tax-dollar-requiring legislative changes at the same time. Or I guess you can suggest them, but it ain't gonna happen.

It is almost funny as you people can ready only a part of the post, then get angry at something that is directly contradicted at the part you haven't read. Sorry about being passive-aggresive in that sentence, but I'm stressing in several posts the fact that I *don't* want any changes in curriculum (at least our, Polish one, which is pretty broad and makes surprising amount of sense), and I *don't* want to spend any taxpayer money on any alternatives. What I *do* want is the right to choose a school among many *private* ones without repression from the state.
Actually, if anything, it would save a ton of money, as private is always more efficient than state-controlled. I want to give my neighbours their tax money back and let them decide what to do with it, and I'm telling it from today's morning over and over again. I have even said that American way is already good enough for me!

Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life

Except it's not... No scientist anywhere would classify a human who lived 50 years and never had any children as "not having been alive"

Actually a few places, like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, seems to agree with me that reproduction is a part of a definition of life. I will let you draw conclusions.

So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.

http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie

Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).

http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html

A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.

Well, I could go on, but those have one thing in common - they are all in Polish. Actually, the thing from the first link happened at least a few times in different cities so far, and it doesn't seem to be stopping...

Let me say this again: I'm absolutely not opposed to teaching facts about homosexuality. I'm actually tolerant for it; I know that homosexual people can lead fulfilling lives and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with propaganda (any propaganda, really, but especially one targeted at children).

[GavJ]

Who defines said ability?

It's empirically testable. Generally a psychologist who wasn't sure one way or the other (such as when seeing an unemployed patient who can't tell you whether they would be able to keep a job) could run various tests to see how well a person can focus and concentrate and learn new skills and do other things relevant to what they would need to do to hold down jobs, and compare these to applied studies that have been done to norm the tests.

Or they might request that the patient simply try and get a job and see what happens, if that's available as an option and is easier and more efficient or whatever.

What if you believe that by sitting at home unemployed, you do less damage to our planet's environment, or the global economy, than if you were to take a job forced upon you by government laws, where you assemble luxury products that use up the world's resources for the decadent pleasure of a lucky few (and you will never make enough money on said job to buy those products yourself). We live in a technological era, where more and more 'productive work' is being, and will be done by machines. Full employment for everyone, and 'life fullfillment through labour' are popular myths desperatly clung onto by politicians, who will happily try to create new jobs from thin air, which often leads to labour that can be categorized as 'destructive', on a global level.
The line between political conviction and psychological disorder should be very, very strictly guarded.

If you believed that to the point of literally doing nothing, as in not even gardening for your own food or digging wells, but instead sitting there wasting away /starving to death, then yes, it would be classified as a suicidal type self harm disorder.

If you simply didn't want to participate in the national normal economy, but were otherwise successfully taking care of yourself at home sustainably, then that would not be considered a disorder. Your own domestic gardening work or whatever it is you're doing to keep yourself alive satisfies the third requirement against you having a disorder.

[GavJ]

Actually a few places, like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, seems to agree with me that reproduction is a part of a definition of life. I will let you draw conclusions.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong,then, by means of simple counterexamples.

Or are you actually claiming that a heterosexual man who lives 50 years without having children was not, in fact, ever alive?
And are you also claiming that YOU aren't alive currently? Since (I hope) you aren't having sex or giving birth while reading this forum post and thus are not showing reproductive behaviors right now?

These are absurd conclusions. Which makes it evident that Britannica probably meant to refer to entire species, not individuals. As a species, we do reproduce, so our species is alive.

Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.

This by itself is not propaganda. It depends on what the organizations said while they were visiting schools. Were they telling everybody how much better it was to be LGBT? If so, that's inappropriate, and propaganda.  Or were they providing careful, neutral facts and realities and figures, which would not be propaganda?

While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).

Does it control for the fact that a higher proportion of those children are going to be adopted and thus possibly therefore have experienced a greater degree of trauma like their biological parents dying possibly, or being in the foster system, or at the very least being shuffled between caregivers at a young age? If not, then that can explain these findings without implicating gay parents as the cause, but rather adoptions/foster care, which is simply a necessary evil (since the alternative would be throwing the kids in dumpsters).

The answer is no, they did not control for this. From the article:
"employing controls for respondent's age, race/ethnicity, gender, mother's education, and perceived family-of-origin income" "additionally I controlled for having been bullied" "...and state's legislative gay friendliness"
(bullying is close, I'll give him that! Author is thinking along the right lines. But didn't go far enough or be nearly thorough enough for something he should have known was obviously controversial and would involve close inspection)

A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.

It depends to what degree. Up to 10% of same-sex relationships is statistically realistic, and removal of that same 10% of same-sex families is thus also statistically realistic.
If they suggest showing hugely disproportionate numbers of same-sex families, then that could be considered propaganda, but not realistic numbers, so this depends on more information.

[MonkeyHead]

So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.

http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie

Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).

http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html

A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.

Well, I could go on, but those have one thing in common - they are all in Polish. Actually, the thing from the first link happened at least a few times in different cities so far, and it doesn't seem to be stopping...

Let me say this again: I'm absolutely not opposed to teaching facts about homosexuality. I'm actually tolerant for it; I know that homosexual people can lead fulfilling lives and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with propaganda (any propaganda, really, but especially one targeted at children).

Google translate really struggles with that first link, but from what I can tease from it into a language I can read is that it is from a fairly right wing frame of reference, and is not really giving a balanced or unbiased report, making it hard to get at the actual truth, so I can really make much of a comment on it. It does seem to echo your own sentiments, but I do hold some worry about how it describes individuals seeking equal rights as "pro-gay" and somehow oppressive to the majority. I just don't get how wanting to be the same as everyone else is "pro" anything.

Your second link is prepared by the New Family Structure Study - this body is funded by the Witherspoon Institute - a known right wing conservative group in the USA with a track record of opposing homosexual marriage (and abortion and stem cell research, amongst other things, just to give the group some context), so it should come as no surprise as to what it found. In any case the methods and conclusions of the study are contested for a number of reasons...

Google translate also struggles with your third link, but I am familiar with the book "Tango Makes Three". The book does not praise same sex relationships at all. All it does is tell a story to kids about a happy little penguin who happens to have 2 dads. What can be translated from the blog post seems to be angry vitriol from someone who misses the point of the book, and more right leaning beliefs being espoused. The author can hardly be expected to give a fair and unbiased account when his mind has already been strongly made up.

So, yeah, to summarise, it is hard to make any comment about the 2 polish language resources you have offered, but that study you have found is far from reliable.

[Sirus]

Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.

[GavJ]

Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.

This is true, but it shouldn't matter or be the basis of granting them any rights or privileges, unless the same logic is applied to all other people. Which currently it isn't. You don't have to prove that you're not sterile to get a heterosexual marriage.

[Sirus]

Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.

This is true, but it shouldn't matter or be the basis of granting them any rights or privileges, unless the same logic is applied to all other people. Which currently it isn't. You don't have to prove that you're not sterile to get a heterosexual marriage.

I know that. Just trying to show that the "can't reproduce" line of reasoning is invalid from the get-go.

[BlindKitty]

Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing. They actually won't publish poll results for months when those get better for opposition party, and then jump back to publishing them twice a week as soon as the trend changes (relevancy is in opposition being right-winged now, while party in power is quite left-winged). Which is actually a real shame! I would much better like reading from both left and right, as I don't really believe in unbiased journalism, but it is pretty much impossible, because our left-wingers in press and TV are *so* biased it makes reading them/watching them entirely pointless. It is faster for me to just predict what they are going to say, with nearly 100% accuracy.

Anyways! It is getting really, really late here (well, it's 10 pm, but for me it's late recently), I will have to abstain from further discussion. I don't really think I will have time to wall-o-textin' tomorrow, or in any close future for that matter (not that I really had time today), but it was nice to talk with relatively calm and reasonable people who are strongly opposed to me.

Come, visit Polandball next time you have some free time. It's cheap in here and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks.

[GavJ]

and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks.

Sounds luxurious.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Spoiler: SECTION THREE OF THE GREAT TEXT WALL (click to show/hide)

No, you are exaggerating a little. Well, a lot. I didn't say that I have *zero* trust in *any* professionals. But they have to earn my trust, each and every one, because they start with it on the level that every other person starts - a little above zero, with a bonus regarding their own discipline, as I assume they know quite a bit about it. But not about anything else - you could be absolutely brilliant chemist, revolutionize your field, and still believe that pyramids were build by werewolves to hide from vampires, or whatever. Cracked.com did a list of most outlandish claims by Nobel Prize winners, and Nazi Germany had most advanced science in the world - there is no reason whatsoever to believe them outside their own field. And even inside... There are numerous, numerous examples of various people from every field of science being fraudulent, changing their minds about pretty much everything, and being swayed by propaganda too. I think that about 80% scientists shown in our (Polish) TV and mentioned in newspapers fail to see such basic fact that a child is a human being, even before it is born, and due to that abortion is killing a living person. How could I trust somebody like that? Mind you, it might be different in other parts of the world, I'm much less interested in those, and our scientists are largely post-communist lot. Which will tie in to the second part down there.

True, there are cases everywhere of those things, (there are no homogenous groups), but I suppose we're nitpicking exactly how wary you are of 'scientists' as a group. Skepticism is good after all.
Meanwhile, ABORTION! A further step into the controversial.
...when do you think 'life' starts, what are the qualifying factors?

I will go back to my original order here. So for the first thing - if the adult being are fully autonomous and able to make informed decisions (which is not obvious for me, but that's digression), why are they unable to make decisions about education of their children? I will weave a story here. Imagine that you are Ignaz Semmelweis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis). You want to teach your children that they should wash their hands, but in school they are repeatedly told that this is unnecessary. What is more, you are told that you are hurting them by telling them otherwise. How would you feel? Of course, the schools were not backward - every major person in every field of science knew that washing has can not have anything to do with diseases, right? So either people are informed enough to make their own decisions, or not. Why are they informed in politics, but not in education? Especially seeing as politics is so much broader subject?

Because 'their' children are autonomous beings themselves, and so they have their own rights. If the parent is harming the child through inaction, that's a problem. And preventing education (keeping their kid locked up at home) is harmful inaction. Taking them aside and telling them to 'wash your hands', however, is very legal and that is exactly what parents can do, (even if what they teach is wrong). That doesn't mean the parents won't get criticized for teaching their kids the 'wrong' stuff, but they can do it.
As for voting for your representative vs deciding what your child learns, there are 3 points I'd like to make:
1. Voting for your representative is just that: choosing who you want to vote for you. This doesn't require a broad knowledge of society's issues, (though it is strongly recommended).
2. There must be a third party in child education because parents can do harm to their children- 'locking them in the basement'.
3. The best way to establish what this third-party does is by group consensus AKA the democratic way. Ergo you vote for representatives, representatives set guidelines & delegate the responsibility to the schoolboard, the schoolboard sets more detailed guidelines and delegates the teaching to teachers.

As for the second part... We have had left-wing people installed on all our universities after World War II by Russian commies. It has been 25 years since we kicked out the Russian commies (not our own, which is part of a problem), and many of those people already either died or retired, and yet still universities are much more left-winged than general populace. Also, do I really need to take out any of the stories of people not understood in their times? I think not. Why this effects are so mild? Because we don't actually have such board (at least here, in Poland) for higher education (universities) - and I personally have had many a professor with conflicting views of the world on the very same alma mater. There is no unification of education, at least for now.

Universities everywhere tend to be more liberal than the general populace. Something about the increased levels of education is the prevailing wind, (though it comes with a whiff of arrogance..).

We should not try to wrestle as much control as possible from the individual, but give them as much control as possible.

Also, the part about them feeling like a criminal/feeling accepted is what I would probably call propaganda, because it is biased to make one choice feel right and the other wrong, when it is obviously not true. Catholic school are in my opinion much better in forming self-confident, self-accepting individuals than public schools, and not the other way around. I have no say in other religious schools, and we don't get many of those in Poland. To illustrate my point: I prefer my (hypothetical, heterosexual) children to feel equal, belonging in their society and feeling that their orientation is no big deal, and not feel like deceitful criminal for not having sexual experience with twenty partners of both sexes before age 14.

Humbug, an individual's freedoms should be extended to the point of not infringing upon others'. That means control over your own body & to a degree your property.
And a child is neither.

My 'propaganda' is true. Have you been a gay student in a catholic school? How is a society's, religion's, & family's opinion that being straight is superior to being gay, that gays cannot and should not display their relationships in public, or ever raise kids, that talking about homosexuality on an internet chatboard is a criminal offense, that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and let's not forget catholicism's hellfire, how are these things conducive to developing self confidence & self acceptance in a gay youth? Confidence in your ability to be condemned? Acceptance of your role as an outsider?

I don't exactly follow your metaphor. Are you arguing that the wordage is biased?

Again, you seem sure that gay people are 'born that way', so there is no choosing whatsoever. I have just today stumbled upon the research that may (and I stress *may*) suggest otherwise; I will have to research further. But even if actually true, and nobody can be swayed by it, it is even more hurtful for heterosexuals; they are instantly labelled 'worse' and with no fault on their side.

How is what hurtful for straight people? Anti-gay studies being dismissed hurts all other heterosexuals in society?
Not all heterosexuals are anti-gay.
This might be a translation issue.

No (I speak for myself, obviously, not for martinuzz), although child licence might not be such a bad idea. No, I'm actually joking here, I can not even imagine such an idea being actually enforced. I was mostly referring to the parent's right 'to being left the hell alone' as Frumple worded it; I just think that people should bear in mind, while engaging in coitus, that there are more stakeholders than just people engaging in the aforementioned coitus. Also, people engaging in some form of surrogate parenthood should keep in mind that there are multiple stakeholders here - people who will raise the kid, people who's genes will the kid have, and last but not least, the kid itself. And sometimes people tend to forget the kid in this calculations.

Eh I think they do (and/or are strongly encouraged/helped to) understand these things. And if they do, whether or not they are anonymous is up to the parents & the surrogate.

Ah well thanks for taking time out to argue with us.

Come, visit Polandball next time you have some free time. It's cheap in here and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks.

Aw but I take my tank everywhere! What will I do without the cupholders? And the sabot rounds? I NEED MY SABOT-ROUND CUP HOLDERS!

[GavJ]

No, you are exaggerating a little. Well, a lot. I didn't say that I have *zero* trust in *any* professionals. But they have to earn my trust, each and every one, because they start with it on the level that every other person starts - a little above zero, with a bonus regarding their own discipline, as I assume they know quite a bit about it. But not about anything else - you could be absolutely brilliant chemist, revolutionize your field, and still believe that pyramids were build by werewolves to hide from vampires, or whatever.

You can also be a brilliant rheumatologist, for example, but still be less of an expert than myself about my own very specific type of arthritis and what it does or does not respond to, and perhaps even the general subtype. Because I might have spent 5 years researching it, whereas the rheumatologist might have spent a few months researching it based on its proportional occurrence. They are obligated to keep up to date on ALL the variants, whereas I am free to spend all my research time on just my stuff and things relevant to it. Even with their advantage of having the perspective of other variants of disease, I may still have a leg up on them with regard to my own disease if I'm a smart enough person and know how to research well.

In my own life experience, this has often been the case (not arthritis, that's a made up example), because I am a smart person and I have a strong research background, and I have discovered treatments before that my doctors didn't mention yet still agreed were good ones after I made a case (as well as rejected treatments on the flip side of the coin, for educated reasons). Once or twice I have simply overridden them even if they didn't agree, because of them clearly being wrong IMO, and this is a reasonable right that people should have.

An example of the latter situation is having refused treatment from doctors who were OBVIOUSLY ill with the flu, even though they insisted they "couldn't be" because of having gotten a flu shot 
One time a doctor even sneezed on a tongue depressor (in addition to multiple other flu symptoms) and then tried to use it on me. While I was already sick and immuno-comprimised from my own separate illness that I was being seen for... seriously wtf.