Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Political Agenda in Our Midst


Recommended Posts

The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore.

True, they are now grounded in reality instead of interplanetary space. The original claims were completely ridiculous, like the curriculum is about values which it clearly is not. I pointed out the curriculum was not even part of the original claim, just the wild rantings of people like McVety. Once we steered to the curriculum the original claims could no longer be supported.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I suggest you read the Criminal Code of Canada. It is a valid defense for your 14 year old daughter to have sex with my 13 year old son if he consented to the act. If she was 16 however it would not be a valid defense.

Nothing is about encouraging kids to have sex, just acknowledging reality.

Like I've said, we're not really talking about sex among peers! This is more about giving the wrong signals to kids - what is there to have consent about if it's a crime for adults to have sex with 13 year olds?

The purpose for that ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT is supposed to prevent sexual abuse!

What's the demographics for pedophiles? 14 year olds?

Will you read and understand my point. If you'll just ignore what I'm saying, I'll just have to ignore you altogether!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder, this thread has gone from the initial claim that Ontario's health curriculum is a conspiracy by pedophiles intended to groom children to have sex, to arguing the semantics of "no means no" vs "enthusiastic consent". The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore.

-k

No, the claim is not gone. We're just getting bogged down by this other issues.

But, if you'll stop and analyze what the implication is - even in these other issues - the question is still there! Which I've asked several times! Here, so you won't fail to see it.

What's sexual consent have to do with children as young as 11-12 (Grade 6)?

Are you saying if the child consents to have sex with her teacher, that's okay?

If there's anyone playing around with semantics, it is the educ ministry that put out this new curriculum!

Enthusiastic Sexual Consent, indeed! Are we grooming grade school kids? An objective, sensible person can't help but wonder....considering there's not much difference between the 2010 curriculum that the pedophile minister had written from this new one!

Why don't they teach these kids how to say no! Why?

Don't they even take into consideration the diverse cultures in this country? Some people from other cultures may not be as forward and blunt as someone who'd assimilated in our culture! A person who's actually willing, and is sincerely giving her consent to sex may be timid to say so in an ENTHUSIASTIC way! How the heck do you actually figure with certainty what's "enthusiastic?"

A shy woman may be willing, but inhibited by her shyness to express her desire to have sex. She might be willing, yet nervous - especially when you're young! My goodness....don't these so-called experts understand the different personalities involved, not to mention the diversity in our society?

I even gave you that youtube video showing college students are confused with sexual consent!

Why do they make it so complicated?

If they want to stress the importance of consent - then it has to be unambiguous! They should focus with the term, NO!

If someone says no, that means there's no consent whatsoever! As simple as that!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you read and understand my point.

Your point was about the school system teaching, ask you call it, Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum. I was trying to focus on the point, not go postal like the Evangelical right wing propaganda squad that somehow translates teaching body parts (head, shoulders, knees, and toes - and yes, what is between the shoulders and knees as well) into encouraging kids to have anal sex with farm animals. Are you not focused on the school curriculum? If not, then I really don't understand your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder, this thread has gone from the initial claim that Ontario's health curriculum is a conspiracy by pedophiles intended to groom children to have sex, to arguing the semantics of "no means no" vs "enthusiastic consent". The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore.

to argue semantics concerning "enthusiastic consent" requires, per this thread OP, to just blindly accept the phrase as written/assigned (to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals), by one of the OP sources referenced - Campaign Life Coalition. Of course that phrase is quite literally used a hundred+ times throughout this thread... often in mind-numbing, large font, bold, red-colour! "Enthusiastic" is just a word after all! Isn't it... no biggee, right?

I read several direct references from legitimate mainstream sources that attach the word "informed" to yield the phrase "informed consent"... and attribute that word, that phrase, to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals. So just where did that "enthusiastic" word enter? Well, unless the OP is prepared to actually yield a direct quote that attributes it to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals... I will "enthusiastically" state Campaign Life Coalition made shyte up and the OP simply ran with it. I "enthusiastically" suggest the word/phrase originates from a petition by two Grade 8 girls from Toronto who lobbied for “consent culture” to be reflected in the new curriculum document:

Informed consent is another area that is missing, but will be included in the new version, due to a recent request by Premier Kathleen Wynne.

She made the announcement Jan. 26, after meeting with two Grade 8 girls from Toronto who have lobbied for “consent culture” to be reflected in the new document.

The curriculum needs to teach what clear, enthusiastic, and affirmative consent is and what it looks and sounds like,” reads an excerpt from the petition by Lia Valente and Tessa Hill. “We want health education that teaches our peers ‘Yes means Yes.’ That shares with our peers that affirmative consent is an enthusiastic ‘Yes Please! between two people. We want education that shows us that there are many ways to say no. That educates young people that silence is not consent and that ‘No means No.’”

Ms. Wynne said the new curriculum is expected to address issues of consent as early as Grade 1, by teaching students how to listen to each other and read facial expressions and body language.

and what's this! Addressing issues of consent with 6-year old Grade 1 students... has no sexual connotation whatsoever... just listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language! What a concept.

Enthusiastic Sexual Consent? From 6 year olds?

Doesn't that ring a bell? Raise dozens of red flags? Doesn't that call for an enthusiastic protests???

just another par-for-the-course example where this MLW member takes extreme liberty with sources/quotes! Clearly... this could have been "nipped in the bud" from the onset... but when the OP is literally a massive, disjointed, rambling verbose mess, the liberties taken get disguised quite well - indeed!

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens to Betsy! Have we forgotten all the court cases of the past?

"I didn't hear her say 'no' or 'stop' at any time yer Honour"

"Well, at fist she said 'no' and was a bit resistant but I thought she was just playing hard to get. After a while she stopped saying anything even when I took her shirt off..."

" I thought she liked a little violence Y'rHonour - thats what her ex told me while we were in the bar, so..."

Irrelevant! You don't know what I was replying to.

We're talking about drugging victims like Cosby and Polanski did their victims!

A pervert who drugs his victims - do you think they do it so they won't hear them say NO? :lol:

Consent is crucial. Saying NO is crucial to even tiny children. Of course your sources deceive you by rephrasing No means No into 'teaching first graders to give enthusiastic consent".

If saying no is crucial, why don't they stress the importance of saying NO?

The phrase "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" is idiotic! Cheesh....this is an example of changing how we say things really mess up what could've been so simple!

Instead, why don't they teach, "EMPHATIC NO?"

What? They don't want to hear the, "No?"

"Your honor, I didn't hear him say no........he was waving his arms around, and he was crying. I mistook that to be an enthusiastic consent - he was so excited that he cried!" :lol:

You know what? This is truly the fingerprint of that pedophile minister! It's smelling that he purposefully geared it up to be a matter of giving consent.....instead of saying, NO!

And the pedophiles (and their supporters), are working on to bring the age of consent to as low as they can.

Liberal-minded society is being duped......... or they don't even care anymore.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" is idiotic! Cheesh....this is an example of changing how we say things really mess up what could've been so simple!

and per my previous post it's a phrase I contend your OP source, "Campaign Life Coalition" made up and falsely attributed to the Premier/Minister. Something that you then exploited a brazillion times throughout this thread. Of course, you could prove me wrong by providing an actual sourced quote when the Premier/Minister use that exact phrase... you could do that, yes?

more pointedly, you kept harping on "6 year old Grade One" students being faced with sexual connotative reference to this very "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" facet. Care to actually cite from the curriculum document (or references to it) that speak directly and explicitly to this facet. As I stated in my prior post I contend that level of "informed consent" is totally benign (not sexually related) and associates with dialogue/listening and interpretations of facial expressions and body language. Care to prove me wrong? Sure you can!

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point was about the school system teaching, ask you call it, Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum. I was trying to focus on the point, not go postal like the Evangelical right wing propaganda squad that somehow translates teaching body parts (head, shoulders, knees, and toes - and yes, what is between the shoulders and knees as well) into encouraging kids to have anal sex with farm animals. Are you not focused on the school curriculum? If not, then I really don't understand your point.

Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum.

Well, it's a radical curriculum! It's new and quite different from the traditional - that's the definition.

So what are you on about that phrase?

And no, don't try to downplay the cause of ire, here. It's not the teaching of body parts. If you think that's the problem....then some thing is amiss with you. You're doing selective reading, Impact.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents are forced by law to provide an education for their children and most parents use public (or private) education to satisfy that obligation. Most administrators understand that there is a minority of parents who are uncomfortable with the new sex part of the curriculum.

As a compromise, they schedule the sex education part at the end of the school day so that the objecting parent may remove their child early from school so that they are not forced to sit through that part of the instruction. I believe that in the end, the parent has the right decide what his/her child is taught as to religious,moral and ethical issues.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's a radical curriculum!

but... per your brazillion posts emphasis throughout this thread... is it an "enthusiastically" radical curriculum? :lol: C'mon, you can hide from my posts, but you can't run! Again, I challenge you two-fold:

- put forward an actual quote that has the Ontario Premier/Minister directly stating the phrase, "enthusiastic consent". Show your source didn't just make it up; show that you didn't just blindly accept your sources made up shyte and proceed to use that phrase a brazillion times throughout this thread!

- in keeping with your emphasis on "radical" and your blatant misuse of that "enthusiastic" labeling in regards to a sexual emphasis towards "6 year old Grade One students", show within the curriculum document (or references to it), that there is a sexual connotation in regards the actual subject of "informed consent" presented in a benign (non-sexual) context emphasizing, "listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language".

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy. Can you provide evidence of where this 'enthusiastic consent' is stated in the curriculum. I can't seem to find it.

Also why is it radical? I'm trying to address your ramblings in this thread but am having a difficult time where to begin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True that, I read the curriculum. I have yet to get anyone pointing out what is wrong with the curriculum, only repeating trash from radical activists.

If we go by the way you understood the 10 Commandments, I say you didn't understand what you've read.

Here's what's written for Grade 6.

A clear “yes” is a signal of consent. A response of ”no”, an uncertain response, or silence needs to be understood as no consent.”

What's consent got to do with 11-12 year olds?

Do they have any choice whether to have sex or not, that they can have the option whether to give their consent?

If college students are finding the affirmative consent to be so confusing and complicated....what more with 6 graders?

If indeed our Premier is looking to protect our children from pedophiles, the emphasis of the teaching would've been to emphasize saying NO!

Never mind the bull about "enthusiastic sexual consent!" No such thing to an 11 year old!

It should be an EMPHATIC NO!

Children should be taught how to say no! Children should be taught that they should not hesitate to say no, even if the predophile is a figure of authority (which in most cases, they are)! Children should be taught the usual lines pedophiles give to get their victims - they should know about those! Children should be taught not to hesitate to report these pedophiles!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

If college students are finding the affirmative consent to be so confusing and complicated

Then perhaps we are not teaching the proper basics. It is a good thing our Health and Physical Education curriculum has been updated to teach these basics.

I know you are enamored with pedophilia and enthusiastic consent, but please lets focus on the curriculum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then perhaps we are not teaching the proper basics. It is a good thing our Health and Physical Education curriculum has been updated to teach these basics.

I know you are enamored with pedophilia and enthusiastic consent, but please lets focus on the curriculum.

You're deflecting.

My argument is solid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're deflecting.

My argument is solid.

Where does it say what you claimed it did in the actual curriculum? Do you see now that your Christian website was full of lies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to the section for Grade 6.

Been there, done that.

make informed decisions that demonstrate respect for themselves and others and help to build healthier relationships, using a variety of living skills

Could you explain where your enthusiasm for pedophiles comes from? Your argument is not solid, it is limp.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect she has only read a source that has already twisted it. Here is the curriculum document if it hasn't been posted already: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health1to8.pdf

I had a chat with a religious family member that had been reading all sorts of nasty things about the new phy-ed and health curriculum. So I sat down with her and went through it. As it turns out her trusted Christian blogs were not at all truthful in their reporting about the content. She assured me that the blogs were likely led astray for understandable reasons. That was more than six months ago and the blogs have not posted any sort of correct or follow up. I really should ask my aunt for her thoughts on that lack of accountability.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...