Western Isles council rejects official sex ed in favour of Catholic teaching

[bluehillside Retd.]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/28/western-isles-council-rejects-official-sex-ed-in-favour-of-catholic-teaching

Depressing.

[Roses]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/28/western-isles-council-rejects-official-sex-ed-in-favour-of-catholic-teaching

Depressing.

That is shocking, religion should NEVER interfere with council business. Sex education is an import subject and be part of all children's curriculum just like maths, for instance.

[SteveH]

What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?

[Roses]

What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?

I have NO respect for a religion, which disapproves of children having sex education.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?

You can respect the rights of other people to have religion and culture without respecting the application of the religion and culture itself. Taliban-era Afghanistan used to behead people in football stadia - did you respect their religion and culture about that? Why not? (And no, I'm not of course comparing that with replacing secular, evidence-based teaching with religious superstitionism but the principle is the same - if you think religions and cultures should be immune from criticism because they are religions and cultures, then you can't close that door only when it happens to suit you).     

[jeremyp]

What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?

When you respect religion you end up with stupidity like not teaching teenagers about contraception.

I'm not going to comment about the rightness or wrongness of this particular instance because I don't know what the official curriculum is and it may have been influenced by ideology (just not religious ideology) as much as the Catholic one.

[SteveH]

Nye,

You can respect the rights of other people to have religion and culture without respecting the application of the religion and culture itself. Taliban-era Afghanistan used to behead people in football stadia - did you respect their religion and culture about that? Why not? (And no, I'm not of course comparing that with replacing secular, evidence-based teaching with religious superstitionism but the principle is the same - if you think religions and cultures should be immune from criticism because they are religions and cultures, then you can't close that door only when it happens to suit you).     

"Logical-conclusion" arguments like that are only used by people who've run out of real arguments. I believe in respecting beliefs I don't agree with up to a point, but not beyond it. That is a perfectly logical position.

[Roses]

It isn't logical to respect a belief, which can cause harm to others!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

"Logical-conclusion" arguments like that are only used by people who've run out of real arguments.

What on earth is that even meant to mean? “Logical-conclusion” is what sound arguments are supposed to entail. What other sort did you have in mind that would be more productive?

I believe in respecting beliefs I don't agree with up to a point, but not beyond it. That is a perfectly logical position.

No it isn’t. You asked “…how about respecting other people's religion and culture?”. That’s a binary question – either religion and culture should be respected because they are religion and culture or they shouldn’t. Why on earth though should religion and culture (as opposed to the right to have them) be respected ipso facto rather than evaluated on their merits?   

[Nearly Sane]

When you respect religion you end up with stupidity like not teaching teenagers about contraception.

I'm not going to comment about the rightness or wrongness of this particular instance because I don't know what the official curriculum is and it may have been influenced by ideology (just not religious ideology) as much as the Catholic one.

Link to the curriculum

https://rshp.scot/about-the-resource/#viewsonrshp

[SteveH]

Nye,

What on earth is that even meant to mean? “Logical-conclusion” is what sound arguments are supposed to entail. What other sort did you have in mind that would be more productive?

No it isn’t. You asked “…how about respecting other people's religion and culture?”. That’s a binary question – religion and culture should be respected because they are religion and culture or they shouldn’t. Why on earth though should religion and culture (as opposed to the right to have them) be respected ipso facto rather than evaluated on their merits?

Pseudo-intellectual word-salad. You know perfectly well what I mean by "logical-conclusion" arguments: "If you're a socialist, the logical conclusion is that you approve of Stalin's mass murders", or "If you're a conservative, you must support the abolition of the welfare state, and letting the unemployed starve, because that's the logical conclusion". I mean the phrase as used by idiots as a pseudo-counter-argument. It's related to, or perhaps a particular case of, the slippery slope fallacy.

[Nearly Sane]

What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?

Just to point out that a number of the Islands  are very largely RCC

[SteveH]

Just to point out that a number of the Islands  are very largely RCC

Fair enough. I don't think much of the RCC either, but its views should be respected up to a point (an idea that former azure slope seems unable to understand). Rosie is committing the equivocation fallacy: I was not using the word "respect" with the emotional luggage she gives it.

[Roses]

Stevie boy is in WUM mode.


Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

Pseudo-intellectual word-salad. You know perfectly well what I mean by "logical-conclusion" arguments: "If you're a socialist, the logical conclusion is that you approve of Stalin's mass murders", or "If you're a conservative, you must support the abolition of the welfare state, and letting the unemployed starve, because that's the logical conclusion". I mean the phrase as used by idiots as a pseudo-counter-argument. It's related to, or perhaps a particular case of, the slippery slope fallacy.

Actually I had no idea what you meant by it, and it’s not the slippery slope fallacy either. The slippery slope fallacy is the argument that a relatively uncontroversial position would be a first step towards a much worse one. In this case, to be a slippery slope I would have had to have said something like, “if you accept the Western Isles decision that’s the first step toward executing people in football stadia”. That’s not what I said at all though – what I actually said was that, if you think culture and religion should be respected just because they are culture and religion, then that’s an all or nothing position to take. If what you really intended though was something like, “I think the merits of the Western Isles arguments justify the position they’ve taken” I’d have disagreed with you about that but that would have been a different argument to the one you actually attempted.         

[SteveH]

Stevie boy is in WUM mode.


Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities.

I've no idea what WUM mode is, but please note definition 1b of the verb, here. "to refrain from interfering with"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

Fair enough. I don't think much of the RCC either, but its views should be respected up to a point (an idea that former azure slope seems unable to understand).

I understood it better than you did, and you didn't mention the "up to a point" part at all in your first reply. QED.
 

Rosie is committing the equivocation fallacy: I was not using the word "respect" with the emotional luggage she gives it.

How was anyone to know how you intended it absent qualification?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

I've no idea what WUM mode is, but please note definition 1b of the verb, here. "to refrain from interfering with"

That’s not what you actually said though. What you said was, “What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?”

Criticising isn’t “interfering with” anything, it’s just fair comment. 

[SteveH]

Nye,

Actually I had no idea what you meant by it, and it’s not the slippery slope fallacy either. The slippery slope fallacy is the argument that a relatively uncontroversial position would be a first step towards a much worse one. In this case, to be a slippery slope I would have had to have said something like, “if you accept the Western Isles decision that’s the first step toward executing people in football stadia”. That’s not what I said at all though – what I actually said was that, if you think culture and religion should be respected just because they are culture and religion, then that’s an all or nothing position to take. If what you really intended though was something like, “I think the merits of the Western Isles arguments justify the position they’ve taken” I’d have disagreed with you about that but that would have been a different argument to the one you actually attempted.         

It is, as I said, "related to, or perhaps a particular case of," the slippery-slope fallacy, not that it was. I did not state an all-or-nothing position either: I suggested that religion and culture should be respected, but did not suggest that that had no limits. Obviously, we can't tolerate people being beheaded for believing the wrong things, or practices such as fgm. Nor should we allow the Western Isles to make homosexual acts illegal, if they tried to. Adopting a conservative-Christian school curriculum is another matter, though.

[SteveH]

Nye,
 

That’s not what you actually said though. What you said was, “What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?”

Criticising isn’t “interfering with” anything, it’s just fair comment.

I was referring to LR's use of the equivocation fallacy, by using the word "respect" in a different sense from that which I employed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

It is, as I said, "related to, or perhaps a particular case of," the slippery-slope fallacy, not that it was.

It’s neither, for the reasons I explained.

I did not state an all-or-nothing position either: I suggested that religion and culture should be respected, but did not suggest that that had no limits.

Yes you did. Again: “What predictable responses from two members. Harris and Lewis, and no doubt other Western Isles, are strictly Presbyterian, sabbatarianism included. I disagree, but how about respecting other people's religion and culture?” There’s no mention there of limits – just the implication that “other people's religion and culture” should be “respected” because they are “other people's religion and culture”.

Obviously, we can't tolerate people being beheaded for believing the wrong things, or practices such as fgm. Nor should we allow the Western Isles to make homosexual acts illegal, if they tried to. Adopting a conservative-Christian school curriculum is another matter, though.

Now you are moving to an argument of degree rather than kind. Why would you say that “adopting a conservative-Christian school curriculum” is fine though – because of its merits, or because it happens to be the religion and culture of the people enacting it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

I was referring to LR's use of the equivocation fallacy, by using the word "respect" in a different sense from that which I employed.

1. So do you now accept that no-one was "interfering" with anything given your silence on the matter?

2. There was no equivocation fallacy. An equivocation fallacy would be something like, "Laws imply law makers. There are laws in nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic law maker." What you did was to use the unqualified term "respect", and then complain that someone had taken it to mean something you hadn't intended but were silent about.   

[SteveH]

Bollocks. I'm not rising to your logic-chopping, fallacy-hunting, hair-splitting bait again, like I did on my "Omnipotence" thread a year or so ago, which you deliberately and systematically sabotaged, for which I got suspended for some weeks - and yes, it does still rankle, and no, I am not admitting that you're right.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

Bollocks. I'm not rising to your logic-chopping, fallacy-hunting, hair-splitting bait again,...

I have done none of those things.

...like I did on my "Omnipotence" thread a year or so ago, which you deliberately and systematically sabotaged, for which I got suspended for some weeks - and yes, it does still rankle, and no, I am not admitting that you're right.

I have never sabotaged anything. If you were suspended then it would have been for your behaviour here, not mine.   

[SteveH]

There was no equivocation fallacy. An equivocation fallacy would be something like, "Laws imply law makers. There are laws in nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic law maker." What you did was to use the unqualified term "respect", and then complain that someone had taken it to mean something you hadn't intended but were silent about.   

It should be bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain and who isn't determined to misunderstand that I didn't mean "respect" in the value-added sense.