Am I a bad person?

[ForEverAfter]

Absolutely, willow. I totally understand why the laws exist.
Even though eighteen is a relatively arbitrary number in terms of physical development, we need a number.

It confuses people, though, to pretend like sixteen year old girls aren't attractive. Because they (future sex offenders) don't realize - that it's natural; that everybody thinks they're attractive, and we just don't talk about it - and they think, "Is there something wrong with me?"

If I see the female form, before I realize how old the girl is, there is a natural reaction.
Why should I feel guilty about it? I don't jerk off thinking about sixteen year old girls.
I obey the law and I decide not to act on certain attractions, because they're wrong.

The OP needs to consider this.
It doesn't matter if there's a material victim.
It's wrong to fantasize about snuff porn, or to fantasize about fucking children.
People are capable of finding practically anything arousing. There are so many weird porn niches.
But, the question has to be asked: should we be indulging these feelings?

Well the thing is... If you expect me to believe that looking at drawings and jack off to them in my privacy is harmful to children, then I'm gonna need some sort of evidence. I mean, even the anti-video game people who criticize GTA bring up some sort of evidence... even if it is bullshit evidence.

I have heard repeat sex-offenders say in interviews, multiple times, that zero tolerance is more effective to prevent them from relapsing.

But, ignoring that, and in the absence of evidence: I don't want to take the risk. If there is even the slightest potential for sexualized images of children to result in a single act of molestation or rape, that is not acceptable. This is why it is illegal; because there is no benefit, only potential harm... The idea that cartoon child-porn actually discourages child-rape/molestation is just convenient, I think. Especially since sex-offenders themselves admit otherwise.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I think it's less of them "admitting" and more of them just making excuses for themselves. They'd still like kids even if there wasn't lolicon. If they couldn't look at that, then they'd jerk off to legal nudism images or they'd jerk off to their own personal drawings, or they'd jerk off to medical videos of kids, or they'd just fantasize about kids.
"It's wrong to fantasize about snuff porn, or to fantasize about fucking children."
Then it's wrong to play violent video games... You're telling me someone is allowed to fantasize about mass shootings and spray down innocent people, but jerking off to imaginary kids is bad? And why is liking snuff porn any different than watching gorey films? The only difference is that the person is jacking off.
I'm sorry about molesting those imaginary children... I know their non-existent minds have been scarred.

Molesting kids is wrong, liking kids isn't. Molesting kids is a choice, liking kids isn't. Taking away simulated snuff porn isn't gonna stop sick sociopaths from killing. The same sick bastards who wanna do it aren't gonna be motivated or c

But again... People have claimed to have killed people because they were inspired by movies. Does that make the film makers accountable. What you're saying about lolicon could easilly be applied to anything else.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I think it's less of them "admitting" and more of them just making excuses for themselves.

You think that, but you don't know.
And, I'd rather not take the risk.

I find it a bit odd, that you presume to know.
You said that I was making this statement, in the absence of evidence.
Then, you deny the evidence.

These people (who are not you) are saying child-porn contributes to relapse.
And you're denying that, possibly because you don't want to admit it?
I mean: why is it so difficult to accept that this could happen?
(On the contrary, it seems entirely logical to me.)

They'd still like kids even if there wasn't lolicon. If they couldn't look at that, then they'd jerk off to legal nudism images or they'd jerk off to their own personal drawings, or they'd jerk off to medical videos of kids, or they'd just fantasize about kids.

Yes, it wouldn't solve the whole problem.
But it might reduce the number of offenses.
If banning lolicon results in even a single prevention, it is worth it.

"It's wrong to fantasize about snuff porn, or to fantasize about fucking children."
Then it's wrong to play violent video games... You're telling me someone is allowed to fantasize about mass shootings and spray down innocent people, but jerking off to imaginary kids is bad? And why is liking snuff porn any different than watching gorey films? The only difference is that the person is jacking off.

Yes, that is the only difference.
And, it is significant.

If my son wants to play GTA, that's fine with me.
If I find him jerking off over violence in the game, I'll get him psychiatric help.

I'm sorry about molesting those imaginary children... I know their non-existent minds have been scarred.

There's no need to be sarcastic, or childish.
I'm treating you with respect; and, I'd appreciate the same in return.

Molesting kids is wrong, liking kids isn't. Molesting kids is a choice, liking kids isn't.

But you can decide whether or not to act on those feelings.
That is the choice.

Taking away simulated snuff porn isn't gonna stop sick sociopaths from killing.

If snuff porn was socially acceptable, more people would indulge in it.
Since it is illegal and socially unacceptable, people are less likely to think it is okay.
You're unusual in the sense that you don't appear to care what the consensus is.
Most of us gauge what is right and wrong, to some extent, through community.

We are all telling you this is wrong, and that you should stop doing it.
What's more likely: that we're all mistaken; or that you are?

People have claimed to have killed people because they were inspired by movies. Does that make the film makers accountable. What you're saying about lolicon could easilly be applied to anything else.

The two issues can't be blended together, entirely.
And, the thing is, we'll never know if some people really do commit more violent acts because of certain movies.

But, again, it comes back to community.
We have collectively decided that we're okay with violence being explored on screen (at least, more so than sexual depictions of children).
The fact that child pornography is deemed utterly unacceptable by the majority of mankind says something, doesn't it?

You mentioned nudist photography.
Let me ask you this: why is it worse to masturbate to that?
Presumably, there aren't any "victims" (as such).
So, do you think that's okay too?
And, do you masturbate to it?

What about necrophiliac pornography?
Is it okay for people to dig up bodies and film themselves fucking them?
They're dead, after all. So, as you say, "who gives a fuck"?

What about cartoons that mix violence with child-sex?
Do you think it's okay to masturbate to animations of children having their arms ripped off while they're being sodomized?
According to your logic, that should be fine. Because, again, there are no victims. And there is no potential for influence.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

You think that, but you don't know.
And, I'd rather not take the risk.

I find it a bit odd, that you presume to know.
You said that I was making this statement, in the absence of evidence.
Then, you deny the evidence.

These people (who are not you) are saying child-porn contributes to relapse.
And you're denying that, possibly because you don't want to admit it?
I mean: why is it so difficult to accept that this could happen?
(On the contrary, it seems entirely logical to me.)

I'm just not taking the word of some child rapists as a justification for banning artwork and throwing artists and collectors in prison for cartoon porn.

Yes, it wouldn't solve the whole problem.
But it might reduce the number of offenses.
If banning lolicon results in even a single prevention, it is worth it.

You don't know that it wouldn't backfire? Perhaps people would start molesting kids because they no longer have an outlet for thier sexual aggressions? I can't prove that, but you can't prove the opposite.

Yes, that is the only difference.
And, it is significant.

If my son wants to play GTA, that's fine with me.
If I find him jerking off over violence in the game, I'll get him psychiatric help.

I'm not sure what a psychiatrist would do? If they fantasize about gore and stuff, I'm not sure a psychiatrist would help them.. especailly if they don't care about it.

But you can decide whether or not to act on those feelings.
That is the choice.

And if I don't act on them, it's not objectively wrong. My feelings affect no one but me.

If snuff porn was socially acceptable, more people would indulge in it.
Since it is illegal and socially unacceptable, people are less likely to think it is okay.
You're unusual in the sense that you don't appear to care what the consensus is.
Most of us gauge what is right and wrong, to some extent, through community

We are all telling you this is wrong, and that you should stop doing it.
What's more likely: that we're all mistaken; or that you are?

I was referring to simulated snuff. Not real snuff. Though there are a few snuff films out there online. And that's some bullshit logic... I should stop doing something that harms no one becuase the majority of people think it's wrong? I could have said the same thing about homosexuality 50 years ago.

The two issues can't be blended together, entirely.
And, the thing is, we'll never know if some people really do commit more violent acts because of certain movies.

But, again, it comes back to community.
We have collectively decided that we're okay with violence being explored on screen (at least, more so than sexual depictions of children).
The fact that child pornography is deemed utterly unacceptable by the majority of mankind says something, doesn't it?

You mentioned nudist photography.
Let me ask you this: why is it worse to masturbate to that?
Presumably, there aren't any "victims" (as such).
So, do you think that's okay too?
And, do you masturbate to it?

What about necrophiliac pornography?
Is it okay for people to dig up bodies and film themselves fucking them?
They're dead, after all. So, as you say, "who gives a fuck"?

What about cartoons that mix violence with child-sex?
Do you think it's okay to masturbate to animations of children having their arms ripped off while they're being sodomized?
According to your logic, that should be fine. Because, again, there are no victims. And there is no potential for influence.

Necrophilia involves the stealing of dead bodies... which is illegal for good reasons. I'm not into jerking off to nudist kids, but what can I do? Send the parents to jail? Shut down the sites? Stop letting nudist people have their fun all because some sicko might jerk off? And what about violent loli hentai? Who am I to tell someone what to jerk off too? You can jerk off to animals, as long as you don't fuck them.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm just not taking the word of some child rapists as a justification for banning artwork and throwing artists and collectors in prison for cartoon porn.

Whether or not people should be jailed is another issue.
The thing is, it seems, that you're not willing to change your views no matter what.
It cannot be proved that cartoon child-porn contributes to sex offences.
If you don't take offenders word for it, then how else can you know?
Isn't that the best indication that we have?

You don't know that it wouldn't backfire? Perhaps people would start molesting kids because they no longer have an outlet for thier sexual aggressions? I can't prove that, but you can't prove the opposite.

Yep, again, I can't prove it.
What's the point of this thread, exactly?
A number of people have asked you this.
What do you want from this discussion?

I'm not sure what a psychiatrist would do? If they fantasize about gore and stuff, I'm not sure a psychiatrist would help them.. especailly if they don't care about it.

A psychiatrist might help them, though. It's worth a shot.
(I'm just telling you what I'd do if my son was masturbating to GTA.)
Some people, of course, are beyond help.

if I don't act on them, it's not objectively wrong. My feelings affect no one but me.

But you are acting on them.
You're promoting (cartoon) sexualization of children as harmless, and you're masturbating to images of children.
Not acting on these feelings would involve not masturbating to child-pornography.

I was referring to simulated snuff. Not real snuff. Though there are a few snuff films out there online. And that's some bullshit logic... I should stop doing something that harms no one becuase the majority of people think it's wrong? I could have said the same thing about homosexuality 50 years ago.

You're comparing homosexuality and child-porn again.
As for the majority rules mentality, you're twisting my words.
I didn't say that the majority is always right.

But, there's a lot of good people on this forum.
And all of us think what you're doing is wrong.
All I'm saying is: maybe there's a (genuine) reason for that?

I was referring to simulated snuff. Not real snuff. Though there are a few snuff films out there online.

You can't confirm whether or not snuff is simulated or real, so there is no point in differentiating.

Necrophilia involves the stealing of dead bodies... which is illegal for good reasons.

Child porn is illegal for good reasons.
A necrophiliac would argue, just like you, that it shouldn't be illegal.
They're not really stealing bodies, after all, because the dead don't belong to anyone.
And, they're not causing anybody any harm.

Do you think it would be okay for the Real Doll corporation to make a child model to prevent pedophiles having sex with children?
What about brain dead children (without families) on life support? Should we set up a system, so that pedophiles can visit them in hospital and molest them?

I'm not into jerking off to nudist kids, but what can I do? Send the parents to jail? Shut down the sites? Stop letting nudist people have their fun all because some sicko might jerk off?

The question is: why aren't you into nudist photographs of children?
I mean, you are into jerking off to cartoon kids... what's the difference?
Why is the guy who jerks off to that stuff a "sicko"?
Are you a sicko? (I'm not judging you, just trying to understand.)

And what about violent loli hentai? Who am I to tell someone what to jerk off too?

So you think it's okay to jerk off to cartoon images of children being gang-raped to death?
Should there be any restrictions on this sort of material?

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Whether or not people should be jailed is another issue.
The thing is, it seems, that you're not willing to change your views no matter what.
It cannot be proved that cartoon child-porn contributes to sex offences.
If you don't take offenders word for it, then how else can you know?
Isn't that the best indication that we have?

I've said morality is subjective. It's okay for you to think it's wrong. I'm just not okay with peoples freedom being fucked with through censorship. I think it's okay to find homosexuality disgusting and immoral as long as you respect their freedoms, so I'd be a hypocrite not to feel the same way about lolicon. Lolicon is wrong because peoples perceptions make it wrong. For you, lolicon is wrong.

Yep, again, I can't prove it.
What's the point of this thread, exactly?
A number of people have asked you this.
What do you want from this discussion?

Nothing, I made this thread to talk about whether or not it's okay to see homosexuality as disgusting or sinful if you aren't willing to step on their freedom. I'm board with talking about lolicon.

But you are acting on them.
You're promoting (cartoon) sexualization of children as harmless, and you're masturbating to images of children.
Not acting on these feelings would involve not masturbating to child-pornography.

I meant I'm not arguing in a harmful way.

Do you think it would be okay for the Real Doll corporation to make a child model to prevent pedophiles having sex with children?
What about brain dead children (without families) on life support? Should we set up a system, so that pedophiles can visit them in hospital and molest them?

With the real doll, yea... But come on... don't you think comparing fucking a vegetated child to lolicon is just a little bit of a stretch?

The question is: why aren't you into nudist photographs of children?
I mean, you are into jerking off to cartoon kids... what's the difference?
Why is the guy who jerks off to that stuff a "sicko"?
Are you a sicko? (I'm not judging you, just trying to understand.)

Good point, objectively they're not a sicko... and yes, to some extent I'm a sicko, but that too is subjective. Being a sicko is okay if you're a harmless sicko. And what's the difference?
Anime girls are KAWAII!!! They're so cute and hugable. Real children are snot nosed little varmints. They're annoying and have annoying voices. Loli's are cute and voiced by adult women who's voices are trained for cuteness. Loli's are just so much prettier.

So you think it's okay to jerk off to cartoon images of children being gang-raped to death?
Should there be any restrictions on this sort of material?

I'm not for the government regulating what people beat off too unless it's directly harmful. The freedom of religion is indirectly harmful, I don't think it's the governments job to regulate society, but to protect the individual rights and freedoms of it's people.
That's why I oppose LGBT tolerance classes in school. If you support tolerance great... teach your kid to be tolerant of gays, but leave your views out of the life of christian children.

 

[ForEverAfter]

LiLy, a popular writer of books for young women - Sex in the City, Tokyo-style, she says - told me about her school days when men would approach her and her friends and offer money for their socks or panties.

"I think that is disgusting..." she says. The fascination with adolescent sexuality is "all about the power that men want to achieve, men who are tired of strong independent women," she argues.

Among the manga shops of Akihabara, child protection campaigner Kazuna Kanajiri takes me to see something she thinks is a much bigger problem than cartoons and comics. We climb a flight of stairs off the main street and emerge into a room packed full of DVDs.

Kazuna picks one off the shelf - it features real images of a girl she says is five years old, wearing a skimpy swimsuit and posing in sexually suggestive positions that mimic adult pornography. All the other DVDs in the shop also feature real children.

"I feel sorry for the children," Kanajiri tells me.

Article: Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?
(http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30698640)

If you'd ever lived in Japan, OP, I think you'd understand why this is an issue.
Girls are constantly molested on subways and Japanese media encourages it.

It happens constantly in Japanese society, and women can't do much about it.
The statistics for rape and child-abuse are inaccurate, because women aren't allowed to speak up.
It is an extremely sexist (not to mention racist) part of the world, and lolicon certainly doesn't help.

From a feminist standpoint, embracing/promoting lolicon is harmful to women (not just girls).

 

[ForEverAfter]

don't you think comparing fucking a vegetated child to lolicon is just a little bit of a stretch?

You said, "If it doesn't do any harm, why does it matter?"
So, I'm giving you examples of situations (in an effort to answer your question).
And you haven't explained why - according to your logic - it would be wrong to molest brain-dead children.

I'm not for the government regulating what people beat off too unless it's directly harmful. The freedom of religion is indirectly harmful, I don't think it's the governments job to regulate society, but to protect the individual rights and freedoms of it's people. That's why I oppose LGBT tolerance classes in school. If you support tolerance great... teach your kid to be tolerant of gays, but leave your views out of the life of christian children.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Why shouldn't we teach our children to be tolerant of others?
And, isn't that a big part of Christianity anyway?

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Article: Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?
(http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30698640)

If you'd ever lived in Japan, OP, I think you'd understand why this is an issue.
Girls are constantly molested on subways and Japanese media encourages it.

It happens constantly in Japanese society, and women can't do much about it.
The statistics for rape and child-abuse are inaccurate, because women aren't allowed to speak up.
It is an extremely sexist (not to mention racist) part of the world, and lolicon certainly doesn't help.

From a feminist standpoint, embracing/promoting lolicon is harmful to women (not just girls).

I think banning free speech is worse than all your talking about. I'm pretty sure you can fix the issue without fucking with manga authors. There's one objective form of morality I follow... one law... Thou shalt not fuck with thy neighbor unless he starts some shit...

That's why I support gay marriage? Why? Cause it's none of my business. Why am I against giving homosexuals a minority status? Because they choose to be with the same sex, so they get discriminated against. I don't think homosexuals should be a protected class any more than pot smokers, alcoholics, religious people, ideologies, or other lifestyle choices.... If I ran a christian book store, I wouldn't hire a gay person or a goth... because it's my store. However, I wouldn't do that because I'm not a christian.
I'm glad to live in NC where my christian school was free to decide if they want to admit gay students or not.
(remember, I feel the same way about religion, so if you call me an anti-gay bigot, then you must also call me an anti-christian bigot)

I don't think the government needs to change or manipulate soceity. It's job is to ensure freedom of all, and not make objective assumptions of who is or isn't worthy of that freedom.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Women in Japan don't have the freedoms that you do.
And, you're not helping.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
In the end, it seems like you just don't want to take any personal responsibility.
What: you don't care that schoolgirls are being harassed by Japanese businessmen?

What you're jerking off to is exploitative of Japanese girls (and women).
You are exploiting their image and wiping your hands after the fact, by exercising deniability.

There isn't any point talking to you about this.
Unfortunately (for you), it seems like you've made up your mind.
I'm going to stop contributing to this thread.

May God have mercy on your soul.
I'm going to go jerk off to pictures of adults.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Women in Japan don't have the freedoms that you do.
And, you're not helping.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
In the end, it seems like you just don't want to take any personal responsibility.
What: you don't care that schoolgirls are being harassed by Japanese businessmen?

What you're jerking off to is exploitative of Japanese girls (and women).
You are exploiting their image and wiping your hands after the fact, by exercising deniability.

There isn't any point talking to you about this.
Unfortunately (for you), it seems like you've made up your mind.
I'm going to stop contributing to this thread.

May God have mercy on your soul.
I'm going to go jerk off to pictures of adults.

Listen... agree to disagree. However, I don't like how you assume that I don't care about sexual harrassment and pedophilia?
I just simply don't believe you when you say that lolicon is causing and contributing to it, and I believe more heavilly in the first amendment than you do. I believe in fixing the problems your talking about, just not through censorship of drawings.

I don't believe you when you say me jerking off to lolis is contributing to child rape. However, that doesn't mean I'm apathetic or that I don't think it's a big deal. And nor am I condemning you for finding lolicon to be immoral. Morality is subjective, so I won't hypocritically condemn your personal views... But don't confuse me with somebody who doesn't care about chidlren. Even though I hate kids as strongly as I do, I still care about them. More than you may think...

I once started a petition to allow a young boy to bring his MLP lunchbox to school. I spoke with the boys mother and I recommended trying it out and the petition got rather popular, since bronies are a force to be reckoned with. We got a shit ton of signatures... The reason I did it was because 1. the school didn't have a policy against him bringing that back pack, they did it to remedy his bullying, which I think is victim blaming. I also did it because it's a public school, and I think only private schools should be allowed to do something like that since they're private and all. So I'm not some heartless asshole who doesn't care.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I never said you were a bad person.
I never said you were a bigot.
I never said you were a heartless asshole.

I don't believe you when you say me jerking off to lolis is contributing to child rape. However, that doesn't mean I'm apathetic or that I don't think it's a big deal.

Most people will disagree with you on that, I think you'll find.

don't confuse me with somebody who doesn't care about chidlren. Even though I hate kids as strongly as I do, I still care about them. More than you may think...

I never said you don't care about kids.

I just simply don't believe you when you say that lolicon is causing and contributing to it, and I believe more heavilly in the first amendment than you do.

What's more important?
Let's say, for argument's sake, that it is contributing.
Is it - then - exercising your freedom of speech still the priority?
Seems pretty selfish to insist upon free speech if it is (potentially) contributing towards child sex offences.

Selling child-pornography is not a first amendment issue.
And neither is selling weapons on the black market.

Americans are so obsessed with their personal rights.
(Sometimes, it seems, your country is really childish.)

I believe in fixing the problems your talking about, just not through censorship of drawings.

In other words, you believe in fixing the problem, you're just not going to do anything about it.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

In other words, you believe in fixing the problem, you're just not going to do anything about it.

No, I just disagree that lolicon is the problem. That's where we differ. I think child molestation is a problem, but I don't think lolicon is the problem. Maybe it is contributing but... Well, I just don't think it is. It's that simple.

 

[swilow]

I can't keep up with this topic, but I like talking about 16 year old girls. When I was 13, I really liked other 13 year olds. I really loved Anna Chlumsky, the girl in My Girl; when I was 12, I wrote love letters to her- in my heart. I look at her now and just see a kid.

But I can definitely see some teenage girls as being pretty and attractive. I think females start to become sexually 'attractive' around age 14 (physically), but its amorphous and shallow and, psychologically, girls of that age are still 'children' and for most people, this nullifies the physical side. (Boys of that age are still toddlers). Really, young people are often beautiful because of their youth; that is an aesthetic assesment. For me, I think women become sex goddesses around age 22 when they have gained confidence and experience. :D Males are pretty much always sexually 'wiser' then females, in that we have probably (not certainly) spent more time playing with our dicks then they have with themselves, so pleasure and whatnot is not a shock or frightening in its intensity (I can recall some of my first semen-less orgasms- I guess I was 10 or 11- I truly thought something dangerous was happening, the feeling was so fucking powerful). Its always controversial, talking about childrens sexuality, but I can remember my own. I don't think I was an anomaly at all.

The thing with children's sexuality is that it is a completely personal and private thing, at that stage. Its totally different to adult sexuality; for children, pleasure is a function of their body, nothing more. It is not about giving and receiving mutual pleasure, but solely individual sensory pleasure, without context. It is devoid of the maturity and refinement that happens to our sexuality as we age. That's why it is exploitative, for an adult places a value on sex that a child doesn't; and the value the adult places is much more then a child can understand and can truly consent to. We are violating natural law if we exploit the sexuality of children. It doesn't benefit the species and deeply harms the individual.

I'm going to go jerk off to pictures of adults.

Inspirational

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Why shouldn't we teach our children to be tolerant of others?
And, isn't that a big part of Christianity anyway?

I think we should, just not forcibly, especially if the parent disagrees with it. YOU should teach YOUR kids to be tolerant.

 

[ForEverAfter]

So, what, should parents design the entire curriculum?
Like, why should we teach anything "forcibly"?
What is it - in particular - about homosexuality that needs to be decided by the parents?
Doesn't it overlap with bullying?

We teach our children to be tolerant of others.
But, what, you're saying we should do that selectively?
Or not do it all? I don't understand.

And teaching, by nature, is not forceful.
It baffles me why people think certain things should not be taught.
Nobody is holding a gun to the child's head. It's just information.
And the child has a right to that information, IMO, even if the parents don't think so.
Just as a child has the right to medical attention, even if the parents are anti-medicine.

What about the child of a neo-Nazi couple?
Should public schools conform to their agenda?
Because what they want taught might be different to what you want taught.
And what you want taught might be different to what I want taught.

In the end, I think you're suggesting that the church control schools?

I think child molestation is a problem, but I don't think lolicon is the problem. Maybe it is contributing but... Well, I just don't think it is.

If it may be contributing, then you may be contributing to child-abuse.
You might not be contributing to it. But the potential is there.
How can you live with that?

 

[psychedelicsoul]

So, what, should parents design the entire curriculum?
Like, why should we teach anything "forcibly"?
What is it - in particular - about homosexuality that needs to be decided by the parents?
Doesn't it overlap with bullying?

We teach our children to be tolerant of others.
But, what, you're saying we should do that selectively?
Or not do it all? I don't understand.

And teaching, by nature, is not forceful.
It baffles me why people think certain things should not be taught.
Nobody is holding a gun to the child's head. It's just information.
And the child has a right to that information, IMO, even if the parents don't think so.
Just as a child has the right to medical attention, even if the parents are anti-medicine

But we don't NEED to change a childs ideology. Things like Math, Science, and Technology are nessasary. People can still believe homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean they're gonna be cruel to them. But I have a feeling that a class on LGBT tolerance would encourage kids to abandon the views they're raised in and I don't think that's right... IT's one thing to do that with anti-medicine people, but there's no need to do that with a childs since of right and wrong.

Homosexuality is wrong subjectively. I don't think it's up to schools to enforce some form of morality, but rather to simply learn and follow the rules.

 

[ForEverAfter]

But what is right and wrong is taught to children throughout the educational system.
Again, you're saying we should go by what the church wants to teach children.

What about the neo-Nazi parents? Should we not read Anne Frank in school?
Should we be taught about the holocaust in history class, from the perspective of the Nazis?

I have a feeling that a class on LGBT tolerance would encourage kids to abandon the views they're raised in and I don't think that's right.

I don't see - realistically - how public schooling can cater to everyone.
If the views they are raised with are wrong, it is good to abandon them.
Why should I stand back and allow horrible parents to destroy their children in their image?
I care more about the children, then I respect a parent's right to raise their child any way they like.

In our society, if you raise your children inappropriately, they are taken away from you.
It's not all about absolute personal freedom.

If you name your son Adolf and teach him to hate the Jews, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have children?
Or, what, should schools not teach tolerance towards Jewish people?
What about women? Let's disallow that, too.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

But what is right and wrong is taught to children throughout the educational system.
Again, you're saying we should go by what the church wants to teach children.

What about the neo-Nazi parents? Should we not read Anne Frank in school?
Should we be taught about the holocaust in history class, from the perspective of the Nazis?



I don't see - realistically - how public schooling can cater to everyone.
If the views they are raised with are wrong, it is good to abandon them.
Why should I stand back and allow horrible parents to destroy their children in their image?
I care more about the children, then I respect a parent's right to raise their child any way they like.

In our society, if you raise your children inappropriately, they are taken away from you.
It's not all about absolute personal freedom.

If you name your son Adolf and teach him to hate the Jews, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have children?
Or, what, should schools not teach tolerance towards Jewish people?
What about women? Let's disallow that, too.

It's not a big deal though... Nazism is different than christianity. The bible condemns homosexuality, and parents should be free to teach that uninterupted by the government. If a child starts talking about killing gays in class... I understand. But I think the view that homosexuality is a sin isn't something that's so bad the government needs to challenge it.
Not believing in homosexuality isn't a big deal.

And personally, I don't think we should teach tolerance to ANYONE. I believe the school should enforce the rules strictly to prevent bullying. But if a child is racist, sexist or homophobic, it's not the schools job to try and change him. That goes for KKK and neo-nazi kids.
However,
I do believe that if a child spouts offensive speech he should be punished for violating the rules, but not discouraged from believing in his ideology.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You're a fundamentalist.