Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle

[gerryh]

Other than that, I think teaching children under the age of around 13 about sexual acts (As you would have to, to explain homosexuality) is wrong, and quite frankly bordering on abuse.

SO sad, and I'm surprised. To explain that 2 men or 2 women could love and be in love with each other requires an explanation of their sexual preferences?

 

[SLM]

I've got to wonder how much freaking time this guy has on his hands to devote so much of his life to homosexuality.

I know homosexuals that don't spend that much time focused on it and it's actually relevant to them.

Other than that, I think teaching children under the age of around 13 about sexual acts (As you would have to, to explain homosexuality) is wrong, and quite frankly bordering on abuse.

I gotta say, 13 years of age is way too late to be explaining sex. Kids need to have an understanding of it before they hit puberty, not after.

Just my opinion.

 

[L Gilbert]

I gotta say, 13 years of age is way too late to be explaining sex. Kids need to have an understanding of it before they hit puberty, not after.

Just my opinion.

Mine, too, which is why I wondered where Bear got the figure of 13 from. We never begrudged any information from our kids when they asked. The hard part was putting it in terms they would understand. So they were quite well-informed about sexual issues years before 13.

 

[SLM]

Mine, too, which is why I wondered where Bear got the figure of 13 from. We never begrudged any information from our kids when they asked. The hard part was putting it in terms they would understand. So they were quite well-informed about sexual issues years before 13.

Personally I've always thought you just wait for them to ask the question, anytime I've tried to approach the subject with my kids when they didn't initiate it, they didn't want to her anything about it, lol. But I think you need to give them some factual information before their bodies actually begin to go through puberty. And it's pretty difficult to be so selective as to not explain the reasons why as part of it.

 

[CDNBear]

"Sodomites are .... 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!" Well, it's at least inciting hatred towards them.

Are the stats correct?

Where you get the age figure from?

"Around" or "13"?

To explain that 2 men or 2 women could love and be in love with each other requires an explanation of their sexual preferences?

Did ya miss this?...

You can teach children to be open, accepting and tolerant, without exposing them to sexual material.

I gotta say, 13 years of age is way too late to be explaining sex. Kids need to have an understanding of it before they hit puberty, not after.

The key word being "around".

SCB went through puberty 9.

Mine, too, which is why I wondered where Bear got the figure of 13 from.

The key, ignored yet again, "around".

We never begrudged any information from our kids when they asked.

Neither did we. Which is why I have two young men without children of their own, and a clean bill of health, in the town whose high school sported the first high school day care center for students, in Canada.

Personally I've always thought you just wait for them to ask the question, anytime I've tried to approach the subject with my kids when they didn't initiate it, they didn't want to her anything about it, lol. But I think you need to give them some factual information before their bodies actually begin to go through puberty. And it's pretty difficult to be so selective as to not explain the reasons why as part of it.

Geez, sounds like you and LG know your kids very well.

Can you tell me if all kids are exactly the same?

 

[L Gilbert]

Are the stats correct?

Dunno. I kind of doubt it.

"Around" or "13"?

Did ya miss this?...

You can teach children to be open, accepting and tolerant, without exposing them to sexual material.

The key word being "around".

SCB went through puberty 9.

The key, ignored yet again, "around".

Not ignored. Specifically you said, "...children under the age of around 13"

Geez, sounds like you and LG know your kids very well.

We figured ours were important enough to us that we should know them very well.

Can you tell me if all kids are exactly the same?

... in that they are sponges for information, yes. It's the parents that vary more than the kids. Some couldn't give a hoot what their kids know, other parents care deeply.

 

[SLM]

The key word being "around".

SCB went through puberty 9.

I was 10.

Geez, sounds like you and LG know your kids very well.

Can you tell me if all kids are exactly the same?

Lol, You were the one who equated it to child abuse.Your opinion, fair enough, I'm not judging, just stating my own.

But then the question you ask can also be asked of you then right?

 

[CDNBear]

Dunno. I kind of doubt it.

Then how can you say it's hateful if you don't know?

Not ignored. Specifically you said, "...children under the age of around 13"

Yes, that's what I said.

We figured ours were important enough to us that we should know them very well.

Do you know my kids that well?

How about the kids down the road?

... in that they are sponges for information, yes.

That's sort of the problem. They're sponges for information, but they don't all necessarily have the faculties to disseminate the information they absorb.

That can lead to confusion.

It's the parents that vary more than the kids.

Maybe...

Some couldn't give a hoot what their kids know, other parents care deeply.

So, kids are sponges, but they aren't absorbing what they observe their parents are doing, saying?

So the kids vary less than parents?

I was 10.

So you feel it would help you to have known more about your body and how it works prior to?

You were the one who equated it to child abuse.

Yes, because kids with out the faculties to disseminate the information, can end up more confused than without it.

But then the question you ask can also be asked of you then right?

Right... of course they aren't.

But we don't have schools for kids that have parents who are good, open and skilled communicators, and schools for those that don't.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sounds to me like the difference between homosexuals and child-molesters are that homosexuals have a defined preference for same gender associations, whereas child-molesters have a defined preference for age associations. That's a whole different ballgame and given that information, I tend to think homosexuals are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

[SLM]

Yes, because kids with out the faculties to disseminate the information, can end up more confused than without it.

Right... of course they aren't.

But we don't have schools for kids that have parents who are good, open and skilled communicators, and schools for those that don't.

Wait a minute then, when are you equating it with abuse? When the schools have sexual education prior to 'around' 13 or when anyone does it? Because I read that comment as the latter.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with sex ed beginning younger than that in schools personally, but I'm confused as to what you're saying.

 

[CDNBear]

I tend to think homosexuals are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals.

I tend to agree.

But how do we discuss that now?

I can't forward any information to refute yours, without breaking hate speech laws.

Wait a minute then, when are you equating it with abuse? When the schools have sexual education prior to 'around' 13 or when anyone does it? Because I read that comment as the latter.

When you teach kids about sexuality, when they do not have the faculties to disseminate what they are being taught.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with sex ed beginning younger than that in schools personally, but I'm confused as to what you're saying.

That's because like most parents of older children, you don't fully understand what is being taught to kids today.

There's a difference between sex ed and what is being taught in schools today.

 

[Colpy]

What does the Criminal Code say? I keep hearing Charter, Charter, Charter but nothing on the CC. Why 4?

Where is your Charter protecting hate speech now folks?

Whatcott is GUILTY!

You have just proven you do not understand the slightest thing about a bill of rights, which the Charter pretends to be.

A bill of rights is the supreme law, and any criminal code provision that does not live up to its ideals is not law.

 

[L Gilbert]

Then how can you say it's hateful if you don't know?

One can incite hatred using information that's either based in fact or lie.

Yes, that's what I said.

Yes, you did. Then assumed that we ignored the comment and in your following comments, you conveniently left out the word "under".

Do you know my kids that well?

How about the kids down the road?

Relevance?

That's sort of the problem. They're sponges for information, but they don't all necessarily have the faculties to disseminate the information they absorb.

That can lead to confusion.

As to whether they should be given the information? I'd sooner give them the info at home or in class than have them in the playground speculating amongst themselves, if that's what you're alluding to.

Maybe...

Probably would be a more appropriate word. Parents have simply been around longer to develop more differences more acutely. Kids are still developing.

So, kids are sponges, but they aren't absorbing what they observe their parents are doing, saying?

Wut?

So the kids vary less than parents?

As I said, adults have been around longer to develop more differences more acutely. Kids are still developing. It's pretty basic psychology.

I tend to agree.

But how do we discuss that now?

I can't forward any information to refute yours, without breaking hate speech laws.

lol Take a chance. I don't blab.

So according to you, Colpy, the right to freedom of speech trumps the right to not be discriminated against? Please say that isn't so.

 

[CDNBear]

One can incite hatred using information that's either based in fact or lie.

1, They can? I read Whatcott's pamphlets, I don't hate 5P now.
2, How do we discuss things if we can't offer information without the risk of being branded a criminal?

Then assumed that we ignored the comment and in your following comments, you conveniently left out the word "under".

I didn't assume anything, you ignored the word "around" and latched onto "13" alone. And I didn't conveniently leave out "under", it wasn't relevant to comment.

Relevance?

We all know our OWN kids.

As to whether they should be given the information?

No, and honestly I have difficulty believing you actually lost the context there.

I'd sooner give them the info at home or in class than have them in the playground speculating amongst themselves, if that's what you're alluding to.

No, it isn't. And the playground fallacy is weak.

Kids are still developing.

Exactly. Which is why you have to be very careful about what you expose them to.

Wut?

You said kids are sponges but don't vary much, while in the same breath said parents vary more than kids.

How can kids not vary much as sponges in varying environments?

Kids are still developing.

Which is why you have to be careful what you teach them and when.

It's pretty basic psychology.

Actually, no it isn't.

lol Take a chance. I don't blab.

You missed the point I was making.

So according to you, Colpy, the right to freedom of speech trumps the right to not be discriminated against?

Who's being discriminated against?

 

[Goober]

You'll have to point out where he did that in what I quoted.

Other than that, I think teaching children under the age of around 13 about sexual acts (As you would have to, to explain homosexuality) is wrong, and quite frankly bordering on abuse.

But than again, I think forcing children to be devout (Insert religious choice here), is tantamount to child abuse too.

I think the whole "Get them when they're young" mantra that was used to teach younger and younger children about sex and sexuality is misguided.

You can teach children to be open, accepting and tolerant, without exposing them to sexual material.

I was going from the OP-

 

[L Gilbert]

1, They can?

Well, yeah.

I read Whatcott's pamphlets, I don't hate 5P now.

Um, good. I never did hate 5P but what does that have to do with Whatcott's pamphlets?

2, How do we discuss things if we can't offer information without the risk of being branded a criminal?

:shock: PMs?

I didn't assume anything, you ignored the word "around" and latched onto "13" alone. And I didn't conveniently leave out "under", it wasn't relevant to comment.

Ah, so if I "ignore" a word, it's bad, if a word isn't "relevant to mention", it's ok. lmao
Ok, then I didn't ignore your word. I simply found it not relevant enough to mention.

We all know our OWN kids.

Again, relevance?

No, and honestly I have difficulty believing you actually lost the context there. No, it isn't.

Well, then I have to guess?

And the playground fallacy is weak.

Fallacy? You mean kids don't speculate about sex and other things in playgrounds?

Exactly. Which is why you have to be very careful about what you expose them to.

We prefer accurate information.

You said kids are sponges but don't vary much,

Nope. I said kids don't vary much in that they are all (or most by far) sponges for info.

while in the same breath said parents vary more than kids.

Well, yeah. Adults have had more years to be more diversified by the various environments they've been exposed to. How many different environments are kids exposed to? Not as many. 4 year olds will have more differences between them than 2 year olds. 10 year olds will have more differences between them than 4 yr olds. 34 yr olds will have more differences yet. etc. So yeah, there are more differences between adults than there are between kids.

How can kids not vary much as sponges in varying environments?

Read the above replies.

Which is why you have to be careful what you teach them and when.

<.<

Actually, no it isn't.

Yeah, it is. In developmental psychology classes it is almost taken for granted that students know that adult psychology is more complex than child psychology because adults simply have more knowledge and other factors that influence our behavior. When a kid starts out, their concerns are pretty damned basic; like food, water, warmth. They get older, life gets a bit more complex, they need to play more, are able to play with more complicated toys, learn more intricacies of language, etc. And so on down the lifespan it goes. So, yeah, it is pretty basic psychology.

You missed the point I was making.

I guess I did.

Who's being discriminated against?

Homosexuals.

 

[CDNBear]

Well, yeah. Um, good. I never did hate 5P but what does that have to do with Whatcott's pamphlets?

Well the claim is it promotes hate.

Did you hate homosexuals after you read it?

:shock: PMs?

Dude, you're making my points for me now, lol.

Ah, so if I "ignore" a word, it's bad, if a word isn't "relevant to mention", it's ok. lmao
Ok, then I didn't ignore your word. I simply found it not relevant enough to mention.

:roll:

Again, relevance?

How can you speak for anyone elses kids?

Well, then I have to guess?

Nope, just go back an d see where you went off the rails.

Fallacy?

Yes.

Nope. I said kids don't vary much in that they are all (or most by far) sponges for info.

So when you say "Nope", you actually mean yes. OK, good to know.

Yeah, it is.

The psychology of children may be basic, but in the training I've undergone to work with at risk youth, I've learned that in the context of how children disseminate information, it is not basic at all.

Which is why environment, and acquired faculties play a huge role in how children absorb information and how they process it.

In developmental psychology classes it is almost taken for granted that students know that adult psychology is more complex than child psychology because adults simply have more knowledge and other factors that influence our behavior. When a kid starts out, their concerns are pretty damned basic; like food, water, warmth. They get older, life gets a bit more complex, they need to play more, are able to play with more complicated toys, learn more intricacies of language, etc. And so on down the lifespan it goes.

You're making my case for me again, thank you.

I guess I did.

No need to guess, I assure you, you did.

Homosexuals.

How were they discriminated against?

I can see how they would be offended, or feeling hurt.

 

[Goober]

Bear - How many parents actually really know their kids. Say kids are between ages 12-16-

 

[CDNBear]

Bear - How many parents actually really know their kids. Say ages 12-16-

I bet I know as much about my kids as LG did about his.

LG has always come off as above average, it wouldn't surprise me that he was an attentive and involved parent.

To answer your question outright, I can't say.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well the claim is it promotes hate.

yes.

Did you hate homosexuals after you read it?

Nope. But, what does that have to do with 5P?

Dude, you're making my points for me now, lol.

How? Discussing things in a PM is a whole different ballgame than spreading pamphlets all over a province.

:roll: If you aren't capable of going back and seeing where you got lost, the conversation is for not.

You speekee funny Ingleesh. I no understandee. Rereading eet won't help.

Yes.

lol Well, if you want to think that kids don't speculate about sex in playgrounds and other hangouts, then you go right ahead.

And that is where that ends. The rest of that paragraph was

The psychology of children may be basic, but in the training I've undergone to work with at risk youth, I've learned that in the context of how children disseminate information, it is not basic at all.

Which is why environment, and acquired faculties play a huge role in how children absorb information and how they process it.

You're making my case for me again, thank you.

Fine then. I guess.

No need to guess, I assure you, you did.

Oh, c'mon gimme a clue what I missed.

How were that discriminated against?

ah ah. None a that. I said Whatcott was promoting discimination against homosexuals. But I wouldn't put it past him to be above directly discriminating against them, as well.