School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 278
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Between this and your IQ topic, I don't think you are anything more than a troll. Have fun trolling around.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge.

No point in blocking me if you can't ignore me.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Undoubtedly.

Though irrespective of legal consent, non-consent is an assumption.

How many children below a legal age of consent partake in consensual sex, with either each other or with adults?...Children and adults being those below and above a legal age of consent...17and 19 in the USA for example....15 and 17 in the UK....10 and 12 in Nigeria....20 and 22in Bahrain.

Trouble is when one discusses the P word, there is a tendency for the more highly strung, to instantly conjure up images of dirty old men and little prepubescent children..... Which in itself is something of a perverse state of mind.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
If you are under age you can't consent. And being attracted to post pubescent teens isn't technically pedophilia that is specifically pre pubescent children. Which is why people get upset. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch


What I stated was that non-consent was an assumption...(Determined only by relevant law).

So if two pre-consent, post pubescent teens have a sexual relationship...Who falls foul of the blame game?.....(The one who's parents can afford the best lawyers I would imagine)

And  your definition is not wholly correct.....P is attraction to children and children is variously defined.


Nonetheless, none of this is directly relevant to the OP.....This is only relevant to the Weakerone getting hung up on P.

I merely questioned Q, and referred to P as a possible candidate for Q.....Especially within the context of precedents relative to LGBT.

Maybe Q is just a tad too indefinite to be foisted upon non-consenting post pubescent (stupid) children....After all, if such children are considered too immature to comprehend sexuality, then how can they be expected to comprehend Q....Or even LGBT?...And GOD forbid heterosexuality!...Aaaagh.


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Does that include paedophilia then?
LGBT folks have always been really hardcore anti-pedo. The reason that association exists is partly because pedo's have tried to sneak their behavior into the movement, which none of the non-pedo's have ever been okay with. Over time that false association has just caused the LGBT's to hate pedofags more and more.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yep...I understand the Emotion, and also the modern liberal need for LGBT justification.

But the contention was with Q separate to LGBT......What actually does Q represent?

Queer or questioning are ambiguous cans of worms....And as such I see no reason why P isn't Q.

So for the sake of LGBT justification, (within the context of schools and education) wouldn't it be best to remove Q from the equation?....Especially considering the past synonymity of G and Q.

And it's interesting how terminology get's recycled..... "Fags" for example.

Definitively a "pedofag" would therefore be a paedophilic gay man....Something of a faux pas me thinks, especially for the exclusive LGBT club.

Me....I'm happy with my H club membership.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And as such I see no reason why P isn't Q.
They are different letters
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Q is for queer or questioning as in questioning their sexual identity regarding gender

You have literally no idea what you're talking about
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think I understand his confusion. p and q look similar when both are lowercase, just flipped around. Common mistake.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Perhaps I would buy that with another user, but I have absolutely zero confidence in Zed.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is possible that he is looking at his computer screen through a mirror and got mixed up.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Possible, yes, I'm not disputing that it's perfectly possible that Zed does believe these things genuinely; however, there is a higher preponderance of evidence that, at the very least, Zed does not want a frank exchange of ideas. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
He may have simply gotten confused because his alphabet soup he had for dinner last night didn't have any Q's in it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Theweakerone

So "Q" is for questioning and queer.

So what or who is queer?

According to the dictionary G is Q......Strange, odd...A gay man.

So we therefore teach kids that gay men are strange and odd...Rather than teach kids that paedophiles are strange and odd....Got it.




Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
strange or gay - the word means two different things. 

You are being a deliberate troll
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakerone.

Attempting to discuss contentious issues, and yet, you can't even read a dictionary.

And anyway, you've blocked me...So why are you still bothering to communicate?....Looks very much like trolling to me.


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Spite. I am 17 years old remember? Anyways, the fact that you have yet to rebuke a single contention of mine is secure enough in my belief of your troll-ness. (i.e - whenever a word in the dictionary have two meanings they aren't connected - that's a simple fact you learn waaay back.)
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Vader
I really don't care. Legal age of consent in America is 18 (17 in some states, but not mine)
This isn't necessarily true. The majority of states in the United States have a legal age of consent at 16 years-old.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pedophilia is a consent issue same as rape. 
Yes it is.

If you are under age you can't consent.
If one is "underage," one cannot "legally" consent, the qualification informed by an arbitrary, statutory division.

And being attracted to post pubescent teens isn't technically pedophilia that is specifically pre pubescent children. Which is why people get upset. 
I believe 10 and under is pedophilia, 11-14 is hebephilia, and 15-19 ephebophilia.

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Indeed, those are all generally accurate. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So "Q" is for questioning and queer.

So what or who is queer?

According to the dictionary G is Q......Strange, odd...A gay man.
Look at you--puling off your best "Athias" impresssion. Jokes aside, your arguments are on point. Well argued, zedvictor.


Opening Argument:

The two premises on which I base my arguments are as follows:

  • Age of consent policies are logically inconsistent.
  • Age of consent policies are immoral.
As denoted in the description, age of consent (legal) is the age at which one is legally competent to give consent to marriage or sexual intercourse. However, for the purposes of this debate, particularly as far as it concerns my argument, I will adopt the definition of consent I provided above. Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.

It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.

The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--anundeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currentlyoperating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine inher book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutoryrape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sexshe did want but which adults believe she only thought she wantedbecause she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?

Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education
Sex education yes.  Meaning, if you want to have gay sex, make sure you or your partner doesn't have an STI or an STD, and you will be good to go.  If you or your partner has an STI, get it treated before any sex happens.

But given that gay marriage only got legalized 5 years ago, it's too early to put gay marriage in our history.  I'd say 50 years in the future seems like a good time for that.  Then, people will see it similar to how people see MLK today.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe that to not teach people how to have sex or to never consider such a thing will only increase the rates of STDs, I don't see how waiting is going to help
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
As ever, extremely well stated.

@ Theweakeredge....Read the above and weep.





zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge.

Nonetheless you were the OP, and I was the contention, concerning the inclusion of Q....Suggesting that P was Q and should therefore be discussed in an educational "system".

Your overly emotive pleas in response to the P word were not constructive in respect of this contention, as I wasn't challenging the social illegitimacy of P.

But the discussion progressed and I adequately responded to your pleas, with logical references to relevant contradictions in thinking...(See Athias above for a more conclusive report).



Finally with regard to the dictionary:

Queer.... Strange or odd...A Gay Man.

It is foolish to try and suggest that there is no intended connection between the two definitions. (Irrespective of modern political correctness.)

Therefore similarly,  and within an established social context P can also be regarded as Q...And should be included  (emotion aside) in "school systems".


Presumably, most or all P's once attended a "school system".
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Homonyms - "words that have the same spelling and usually sound alike, but have different meanings"
Ex: Bark

I felt the rough tree bark through my shirt
The dog's bark was loud enough to hurt my ears

Tree Bark and a Dog's bark have nothing to do with one another

Queer is a homonym. Please learn basic English skills
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge

Nope incorrect.

There is no relationship between your two examples of Bark so therefore they are homonymic, and as such are listed separately as two different words.

Whereas queer is a singly listed word, with two or more related definitions.

Please look at your dictionary when you read it.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Please just stop. Your trolling is getting annoying. Bark is one word with multiple meanings, just like a lot of words, just like Queer, look up the word: homonym.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge

Nope...Bark and Bark are two completely separate words...Homonyms as you correctly pointed out.

Whereas...Queer is a single word with various related definitions....Which you incorrectly referred to as homonymic.

And if you don't want to reply (considering that you've blocked me).....Then just ignore.

I merely state my case.

You choose to respond.

So I respond in response with a legitimate response.....This is not trolling.