Josepha Madigan wants parents to talk to children about sex education

HorrorScope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Telling people that those kind of people exist is pandering?
Would you not what your kids warned either?

I don’t want my kids learning about nonsense so religion and gender ideology is out. There are 2 genders, the story ends there.

James Brown

HorrorScope wrote: »

I don’t want my kids learning about nonsense so religion and gender ideology is out. There are 2 genders, the story ends there.

They might be two spirited and you wouldn't know.
Sure you can tell them they aren't. That'll end it

Odhinn

HorrorScope wrote: »

I don’t want my kids learning about nonsense so religion and gender ideology is out. There are 2 genders, the story ends there.

So how do you explain hermaphrodites ?

James Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

So how do you explain hermaphrodites ?

Liberal media.

bo0li5eumx12kp

BarryD2 wrote: »

You are perhaps familiar with our constitution, specifically Article 42?

"1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children."

You can't get clearer than that. The Family (parents) are the primary and natural educator of their children.

Take some responsibility and stop spouting rubbish

You can't possibly be serious - can you?

Do you believe everything the bible says also?

The whole point of this thread is to call out and challenge the incompetency of "higher" authority.

HorrorScope

Odhinn wrote: »

So how do you explain hermaphrodites ?

An anomaly...but self identifying as a female when you have a set of balls and a dick or vice versa? You can **** right off

bo0li5eumx12kp

Gynoid wrote: »

Man, that is a lame remark.

You really believe men of age that believe in strict "family values" don't ever entertain fantasies of that nature??

TheValeyard

Odhinn wrote: »

So how do you explain hermaphrodites ?

Greedy!

Odhinn

HorrorScope wrote: »

An anomaly...but self identifying as a female when you have a set of balls and a dick? You can **** right off

But you can be born with both sets of organs. Seeing as thats the case, its logical to assume that there are the possibilities for a mixed gender mind/brain. In fact the old practice of removing a set of organs soon after birth has caused nothing but harm, as many identified as a different gender to the one created by surgery.

Odhinn

TheValeyard wrote: »

Greedy!

..would play for Rangers and Celtic....

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This Josepha Madigan?


Madigan is a qualified solicitor, who practised family law for 20 years, prior to her election to Dáil Éireann. She is also certified as a mediator by the Mediators’ Institute of Ireland and is a previous Council member of the MII. She is a former Specialist Liaison Officer for Family Mediation in the MII.


She’s far from incompetent, and given her profession and her experience as a solicitor practicing family law, she has the experience and the knowledge to be able to state her opinion with an authority that to the best of my knowledge, you don’t have anything even close. Who’s the incompetent here exactly?

She’s absolutely right btw, it’s not the job of educators to talk to children about sexual well being. It absolutely is the responsibility of parents. By your standards that might be a 15th century idea, but that’s just showing how even more incompetent you are to be able to provide anything of any value which anyone else should consider worth listening to.

You’re the person talking nonsense, basically.

Exactly - a solicitor.

No scientific background.

No understanding of the emotional implications of sexuality (or at least strong desire to repress the issue) and no position to comment as to how education on the matter should proceed.

She promotes old school Irish heritage which keeps future generations in the past.
Her opinion on this matter is archaic and almost unquestionably born out of personal sentiment, with no validated scientific basis what so ever.

Someone needs to tell her to stick to family law.
Cultural executive of a nation is clearly not her forte.

There's a way forward for society - but people like Madigan will always live to repress that, certainly as it pertains to sexuality - which is ultimately the heartbeat of a culture (as much as historical Irish culture and all its advocates live in denial of that fact).

Gynoid

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtkeCfmovmAhW7WxUIHU12D74QFjADegQICBAE&usg=AOvVaw3i9H-md6bz9oF49kf2FEUH

I hope that link works? It is the WHO guidelines issued re standardised sex ed in Europe. After page 37 on the PDF one comes to the "Matrix" which outlines the sex ed objectives for different age groups starting 0-4, 4-8, etc. From the starting gun each ages Matrix, including at kindergarten 0 - 4, includes teaching about childhood masturbation.
Personally I have always been open with my children about sex ed and etc but Im fcuked if I will row in behind a WHO Manifesto that encourages who the hell knows what person in pre school day care or early years in primary to teach any child about masturbation. In fact all the way up to secondary leave sex ed to the parents for the most part and just do a bit of basic biology and safe keeping knowledge for children about their right to privacy and personal space. Leave them alone otherwise.

One eyed Jack

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

Exactly - a solicitor.

No scientific background.

No understanding of the emotional implications of sexuality (or at least strong desire to repress the issue) and no position to comment as to how education on the matter should proceed.

She promotes old school Irish heritage which keeps future generations in the past.
Her opinion on this matter is archaic and almost unquestionably born out of personal sentiment, with no validated scientific basis what so ever.

Someone needs to tell her to stick to family law.
Cultural executive of a nation is clearly not her forte.

There's a way forward for society - but people like Madigan will always live to repress that, certainly as it pertains to sexuality - which is ultimately the heartbeat of a culture (as much as historical Irish culture and all its advocates live in denial of that fact).

What sort of unfortunate shìte are you talking about?

Genuinely I’m perplexed by your responses in this thread which have so far amounted to “ur gay lol”, “do u believe everything in the bible?”, and other immature epithets.

The issue of who has the authority to take responsibility for children’s education in relation to their sexual well being isn’t a question of science, it’s a question of law!

There is of course a way forward for society, and that way forward is determined by parents imparting their values on their children. Families are the fundamental unit of society, and societies are comprised of families with all sorts of different cultural identities, values and beliefs, which they impart to the next generation.

Fcukall to do with science.

James Brown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What sort of unfortunate shìte are you talking about?

Genuinely I’m perplexed by your responses in this thread which have so far amounted to “ur gay lol”, “do u believe everything in the bible?”, and other immature epithets.

The issue of who has the authority to take responsibility for children’s education in relation to their sexual well being isn’t a question of science, it’s a question of law!

There is of course a way forward for society, and that way forward is determined by parents imparting their values on their children. Families are the fundamental unit of society, and societies are comprised of families with all sorts of different cultural identities, values and beliefs, which they impart to the next generation.

Fcukall to do with science.

More than gender does to family law probably.

One eyed Jack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More than gender does to family law probably.

Sorry Matt, I don’t understand that sentence.

It’s very like something Yoda would say

No but seriously, do you want to try again?

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What sort of unfortunate shìte are you talking about?

Genuinely I’m perplexed by your responses in this thread which have so far amounted to “ur gay lol”, “do u believe everything in the bible?”, and other immature epithets.

The issue of who has the authority to take responsibility for children’s education in relation to their sexual well being isn’t a question of science, it’s a question of law!

There is of course a way forward for society, and that way forward is determined by parents imparting their values on their children. Families are the fundamental unit of society, and societies are comprised of families with all sorts of different cultural identities, values and beliefs, which they impart to the next generation.

Fcukall to do with science.

Wow - were you "institutionalized" at some point?

I can tell your ideas are too rigid to question, and this is clearly a sensitive topic.

I guess the only thing to do now is....

HorrorScope

Odhinn wrote: »

But you can be born with both sets of organs. Seeing as thats the case, its logical to assume that there are the possibilities for a mixed gender mind/brain. In fact the old practice of removing a set of organs soon after birth has caused nothing but harm, as many identified as a different gender to the one created by surgery.

Physical is different from mental so no it’s not logical to assume what you do. A physical trait can’t be helped, but this gender blending bull**** is mental illness manifesting itself in some new age nonsense.

One eyed Jack

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

Wow - were you "institutionalized" at some point?

I can tell your ideas are too rigid to question, and this is clearly a sensitive topic.

I guess the only thing to do now is....

Probably for the best mate at this stage.

Odhinn

HorrorScope wrote: »

Physical is different from mental so no it’s not logical to assume what you do.

The brain is a physical thing, which in turn influences the mind

HorrorScope wrote: »

A physical trait can’t be helped, but this gender blending bull**** is mental illness manifesting itself in some new age nonsense.

You want to say that cross gender organs are ok but can't see how that would imply the possibility of a cross gender identity......

Loafing Oaf

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

She promotes old school Irish heritage which keeps future generations in the past.

There's a way forward for society - but people like Madigan will always live to repress that, certainly as it pertains to sexuality

In fairness, she directed Fine Gael's campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment so your characterization of her is not entirely accurate

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness, she directed Fine Gael's campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment so your characterization of her is not entirely accurate

And she led the drive for reducing the waiting period for divorce.

‘Not entirely accurate’ is being kind to the OP.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness, she directed Fine Gael's campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment so your characterization of her is not entirely accurate

Yeah - that is true.

However, there was so much evidence and heavily weighted opinion that was the correct course of action as to that vote - it was probably a little more obvious to her what the right decision was.

So - I'd applaud that.

But it doesn't negate the fact that, as to this issue - she's pretty much in the dark, yet touting her opinion heavily despite having really no basis for it (or if she does have a basis, it's terribly ill-informed).

Gynoid

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

....as to this issue - she's pretty much in the dark, yet touting her opinion heavily despite having really no basis for it (or if she does have a basis, it's terribly ill-informed).

I think you and Jo may be a match made in Heaven

One eyed Jack

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

But it doesn't negate the fact that, as to this issue - she's pretty much in the dark, yet touting her opinion heavily despite having really no basis for it (or if she does have a basis, it's terribly ill-informed).

The basis for it, as has been explained to you already, is in law, not in science.

I’ve also already demonstrated that she has the experience in this particular area of law where her experience is absolutely relevant, and where she is a hell of a lot more clued in than you’ve shown yourself to be so far.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And she led the drive for reducing the waiting period for divorce.

‘Not entirely accurate’ is being kind to the OP.

Lawyers deal directly with divorce proceedings, thus I'd imagine she had good insights there also and made the good call.

Sex education and most specifically, resultant emotional implication is however - pretty evidently, totally lost on her.

And that's what this thread is about - sex education.

Not divorce, not abortion.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Gynoid wrote: »

I think you and Jo may be a match made in Heaven

I have precisely refined basis for my opinion.

Pfff - the logic I outlined in the OP alone should be explanation enough.

One eyed Jack

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

Lawyers deal directly with divorce proceedings, thus I'd imagine she had good insights there also and made the good call.

Sex education and most specifically, resultant emotional implication is however - pretty evidently, totally lost on her.

And that's what this thread is about - sex education.

Not divorce, not abortion.

And Ms. Madigan was giving her opinion in relation to who has responsibility for children’s sexual well being. She correctly identified the children’s parents as having ultimate responsibility for their children’s sexual well being. She also correctly identified that even though educators are regarded as acting in loco parentis of those children in their care and have a responsibility and duty of care towards the children, and are acting in authority over them, educators are not ultimately responsible for children’s sexual well being, nor should they be. That’s entirely the parents responsibility, as their children’s parents.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The basis for it, as has been explained to you already, is in law, not in science.

I’ve also already demonstrated that she has the experience in this particular area of law where her experience is absolutely relevant, and where she is a hell of a lot more clued in than you’ve shown yourself to be so far.

Your "law" vs "science" argument is bullshinanigans.

Science is elucidation as to the (often counter intuitive) intrinsic paradigms of the universe itself.

Law is some societal agreed upon set of values - maybe it's worth something, maybe nothing.
In Iran it's law that a woman can be stoned to death for adultery - that don't make it right.

"Law" (that fabricated by man and agreed upon by society) - in the eyes of science, and more specifically as pertaining to this highly sensitive and long overlooked topic - is essentially irrelevant.

bo0li5eumx12kp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And Ms. Madigan was giving her opinion in relation to who has responsibility for children’s sexual well being. She correctly identified the children’s parents as having ultimate responsibility for their children’s sexual well being. She also correctly identified that even though educators are regarded as acting in loco parentis of those children in their care and have a responsibility and duty of care towards the children, and are acting in authority over them, educators are not ultimately responsible for children’s sexual well being, nor should they be. That’s entirely the parents responsibility, as their children’s parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5cV1NXR1Ek

One eyed Jack

Lila Tight Mathematician wrote: »

Your "law" vs "science" argument is bullshinanigans.

Science is elucidation as to the (often counter intuitive) intrinsic paradigms of the universe itself.

Law is some societal agreed upon set of values - maybe it's worth something, maybe nothing.
In Iran it's law that a woman can be stoned to death for adultery.

"Law" (that fabricated by man and agreed upon by society) - in the eyes of science, and more specifically as pertaining to this highly sensitive and long overlooked topic - is essentially irrelevant.

The law is essentially irrelevant?

It’s our laws that determine who has ultimate authority and therefore ultimate responsibility over children’s sexual well being. I think you’ve taken Ms. Madigan up completely arseways on this one tbh and assailed her character according to your own ignorance.

I’ve heard she also does a good mass