(05-24-2023, 12:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]NYC, I think your argument is sound if people are hardwired, but I don't think that's the case. We are an extremely adaptable species, as evidenced by our disparate cultures and histories. We can do terrible things. We can do great things. Societies will largely conform
Let's look at something that is completely outside the pale: Pedophilia.
I believe that many pedophiles are hardwired to like kids. I think they are broken, and they don't have a choice in who they find attractive (to some degree). Let's say that our whole society accepted that narrative as a fact. Does that mean they should be allowed to diddle kids? No. Of course not. Does that mean it should be accepted in such a way that children are encouraged to spend time around them to make them feel more valued as humans? Should we encourage pedophile story hour at our school libraries, even though there's nothing sexual in nature about it? Understanding human dignity does not have to mean that we hold all lifestyles in the same regard. Yet even though we can reasonably conclude this, there is a very small segment of our society that would not have a problem normalizing pedophilia.
If we followed the same track as everything else, we would see a rise in isolated incidents of "normal" people abusing a pedophile. Then we'd be told that we shouldn't treat people differently just because they have a preference. Then we'd be told that we should accept these people for who they are. Then we would see examples of this group being celebrated for their courage in being honest about their preferences. Then we'd get Pedophile story hour in libraries and start calling people who oppose these types of interactions bigots. All the while, there would be a slowly increasing show of support among well-meaning, but naive people who take up the mantle of the pedophile because they elevate the morality of acceptance over morality of protection. These are the same people who would mistakenly believe it's ok for a 9 year old to consent to an adult. Do you genuinely think pedophilia wouldn't increase under these circumstances?
Do you know there's a whole group on the left that already believes children are sexual beings and that we "repress" them in the name of innocence? I said this way back in the day. If sex is wholly good, why shouldn't children do it? If trans is good, why shouldn't children do it? We can take this principle as far as we dare. It's a completely disingenuous tactic that is abused by people who are interested in creating a world that better suits their needs.
Is NAMBLA still actively advocating?
(05-24-2023, 01:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't compare homosexuality to pedophilia. I took a subject that is currently against the pale, pedophilia, and I compared it to the currently debated trans issue, following the same path of acceptance, normalization, and celebration. This wasn't to try to mischaracterize the left, but rather to show how acceptance is different than celebration, and that the latter will inevitably lead to certain behaviors becoming more common.
I didn't make any sweeping generalizations about the left in that post, either. Let me be clear that I am not saying that all people on the left wholly support pedophilia. I don't believe that, and it was never my intent to suggest that. I only mentioned the left because I think it's the only place where the subject of child love can be advocated without outright rejection and disgust. Obviously, the Catholic church has had their problems, but they had to hide it. Nobody on the right (that I know of) is trying to justify why it's ok for priests to sleep with kids. I can speak of many philosophers who have helped shaped the modern progressive movement that are advocates of child sexuality, and I believe this is an underlying and unspoken problem that is pervasive in progressive ideology. Kids are not inherently sexual. The attempt to familiarize them with sexuality comes from adults who improperly elevate their own sexual desires.
OK
Just a few points to clarify:
- You're attributing "the acceptance" of child sexual abuse to the left and attempting to exclude the right and that is silly - these people are twisted, ugly and evil - doesn't matter how you try to pin them down politically - which seems the equivalent of me saying "Jack the Ripper was probably a Republican" - It's silly
- I don't think the normalizing of queer or trans activity deserves a comparison to normalizing these sickos you are comparing that to - apples and oranges
- Quoting philosophers isn't going to get us home here either - we could do that till the cows come home - they provide a myriad of quotes leading all over the place
annnnnyway - Not really interested in going down the rabbit hole of perversion conspiracy since I don't believe we are seeing that happening. You seem to think so and that's perfectly fine.
I think we're merely seeing a wider acceptance of queer and trans lifestyle and we, a society as a whole, are trying to figure out what the boundaries of that are going to be. It's still new to us.
It is likely going to get knocked about and rub some people the wrong way before it possibly settles into a newly accepted framework.
(just a sidebar on that last comment - As a heterosexual liberal, I can often find myself annoyed by the inundation of queer and trans culture stuff coming down the pike from media and entertainment outlets. It's not for me and it's almost ever-present lately. I just move past it and find content I prefer, but I do understand that it feels like we get hit over the head with it at times. And I see why folks who disagree with it morally would feel there is a "movement" in place to normalize this stuff with kids)
It's not just NAMBLA, although I believe they still have a platform. I'm talking about mainstream philosophers that are taught in many institutions of higher learning. It would be one thing if their philosophies we separate from their sexual preferences, but it's baked into the cake. I think this is why there are many on the left that don't question why we should be teaching children about sexuality. It's taken for granted that we should be teaching children about not just reproduction, but all of the different lifestyles that based solely on sexual preference.
(05-24-2023, 11:23 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2023, 10:54 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure who else the target audience of 'Drag Story Hour' at the Children's section of public libraries would be.
I've already touched on that. How many libraries in how many towns are we talking about here?
Is this widespread or is it isolated?
Their website claims more than a dozen cities, but it would appear only the chapters in large metro areas with a liberal majority gained any traction - and several communities have already shut down the practice without any state government involvement.
It does seem a bit creepy and wholly unnecessary though.
I guess this whole thing (like so many debates around the queer community) come back to whether or not you believe someone chooses to be gay or not.
I don't.
I'm not a proponent of anything that may confuse a child as they navigate childhood, adolescence and determine their own feelings about sexual identity. I do think that gay people are going to feel the way they do regardless, and straight folks are also going to be resolute regardless of outside influence. There's just no point in confusing those young folks in the grey area who are having a more difficult time working through their biology, hormones and feelings.
Unfortunately, as much as conservative folks believe this drag and trans stuff is swaying their otherwise straight children to be queer in some way, the gay community feels that conservative-christian establishments are ruining the upbringing of gay adolescents by trying to "fix" them, when there is nothing wrong. They're just gay.
Pretty difficult impasse when either side has adopted opposing scientific views and there is religion involved.
I think we agree about this.
If you thought that absolutely all gay people were born that way and stuck that way, and the same for straight people, you would not have much reason to care about anything that might confuse a child. Confusing a child would be temporary, if everyone is basically born with their sexuality predetermined, each kid ends up in the same place whether an adult confuses them or not.
But I don't think that's your opinion.
I think what you are trying to say is that adults rarely if ever change their sexuality, but lots of kids are malleable. Even if the kids aren't willfully choosing their sexual feelings as they develop, many kids are malleable to outside influences. And because they are malleable, adults should be very cautious about what is presented to kids.
Right?
(05-24-2023, 01:58 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2023, 01:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't compare homosexuality to pedophilia. I took a subject that is currently against the pale, pedophilia, and I compared it to the currently debated trans issue, following the same path of acceptance, normalization, and celebration. This wasn't to try to mischaracterize the left, but rather to show how acceptance is different than celebration, and that the latter will inevitably lead to certain behaviors becoming more common.
I didn't make any sweeping generalizations about the left in that post, either. Let me be clear that I am not saying that all people on the left wholly support pedophilia. I don't believe that, and it was never my intent to suggest that. I only mentioned the left because I think it's the only place where the subject of child love can be advocated without outright rejection and disgust. Obviously, the Catholic church has had their problems, but they had to hide it. Nobody on the right (that I know of) is trying to justify why it's ok for priests to sleep with kids. I can speak of many philosophers who have helped shaped the modern progressive movement that are advocates of child sexuality, and I believe this is an underlying and unspoken problem that is pervasive in progressive ideology. Kids are not inherently sexual. The attempt to familiarize them with sexuality comes from adults who improperly elevate their own sexual desires.
OK
Just a few points to clarify:- 1. You're attributing "the acceptance" of child sexual abuse to the left and attempting to exclude the right and that is silly - these people are twisted, ugly and evil - doesn't matter how you try to pin them down politically - which seems the equivalent of me saying "Jack the Ripper was probably a Republican" - It's silly
- 2. I don't think the normalizing of queer or trans activity deserves a comparison to normalizing these sickos you are comparing that to - apples and oranges
- 3. Quoting philosophers isn't going to get us home here either - we could do that till the cows come home - they provide a myriad of quotes leading all over the place
annnnnyway - Not really interested in going down the rabbit hole of perversion conspiracy since I don't believe we are seeing that happening. You seem to think so and that's perfectly fine.
I think we're merely seeing a wider acceptance of queer and trans lifestyle and we, a society as a whole, are trying to figure out what the boundaries of that are going to be. It's still new to us.
It is likely going to get knocked about and rub some people the wrong way before it possibly settles into a newly accepted framework.
(just a sidebar on that last comment - As a heterosexual liberal, I can often find myself annoyed by the inundation of queer and trans culture stuff coming down the pike from media and entertainment outlets. It's not for me and it's almost ever-present lately. I just move past it and find content I prefer, but I do understand that it feels like we get hit over the head with it at times. And I see why folks who disagree with it morally would feel there is a "movement" in place to normalize this stuff with kids)
1. How would you say this is different than someone's claim that racism is associated with the right? I accept that there are racists among "free speech" right. I don't think the right as a whole supports it, but there is an idea, traditionalism, that at least enables some racists to feel justified in their racism, even though it's not accepted by mainstream conservatives. The same is true with the left and child sexuality.
2. I am not comparing the practice, but comparing how the celebration of any practice will naturally lead to an increase of that behavior. I could have used cannibalism, murder, rape. It doesn't matter. Celebrate it, and it will become more common, because humans have a remarkable capacity for adaptation.
3. It's important to understand why people believe what they believe. I spent years learning the philosophy of the left so I can better understand their arguments. I don't think most people care, but it does affect the dialogue, because people are often quick to repeat talking points without considering the underlying argument. Moral relativism is a very strong component of progressive ideology, and a lot of that gets applied to anything that is considered taboo.
As a whole, I don't think broader America has a problem with what people do as an adult. I think they care about being feeling "forced" to accept lifestyles they don't understand. I mostly agree with your assessment of getting used to something that is different that what you are used to seeing. I think I disagree that we need to automatically accept this new framework. I think there is a difference between acceptance, normalization, and celebration, and we don't have enough of a nuanced conversation about these things. We have no adults in the room, so to speak.
(05-24-2023, 02:29 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2023, 01:58 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]OK
Just a few points to clarify:- 1. You're attributing "the acceptance" of child sexual abuse to the left and attempting to exclude the right and that is silly - these people are twisted, ugly and evil - doesn't matter how you try to pin them down politically - which seems the equivalent of me saying "Jack the Ripper was probably a Republican" - It's silly
- 2. I don't think the normalizing of queer or trans activity deserves a comparison to normalizing these sickos you are comparing that to - apples and oranges
- 3. Quoting philosophers isn't going to get us home here either - we could do that till the cows come home - they provide a myriad of quotes leading all over the place
annnnnyway - Not really interested in going down the rabbit hole of perversion conspiracy since I don't believe we are seeing that happening. You seem to think so and that's perfectly fine.
I think we're merely seeing a wider acceptance of queer and trans lifestyle and we, a society as a whole, are trying to figure out what the boundaries of that are going to be. It's still new to us.
It is likely going to get knocked about and rub some people the wrong way before it possibly settles into a newly accepted framework.
(just a sidebar on that last comment - As a heterosexual liberal, I can often find myself annoyed by the inundation of queer and trans culture stuff coming down the pike from media and entertainment outlets. It's not for me and it's almost ever-present lately. I just move past it and find content I prefer, but I do understand that it feels like we get hit over the head with it at times. And I see why folks who disagree with it morally would feel there is a "movement" in place to normalize this stuff with kids)
1. How would you say this is different than someone's claim that racism is associated with the right? I accept that there are racists among "free speech" right. I don't think the right as a whole supports it, but there is an idea, traditionalism, that at least enables some racists to feel justified in their racism, even though it's not accepted by mainstream conservatives. The same is true with the left and child sexuality.
2. I am not comparing the practice, but comparing how the celebration of any practice will naturally lead to an increase of that behavior. I could have used cannibalism, murder, rape. It doesn't matter. Celebrate it, and it will become more common, because humans have a remarkable capacity for adaptation.
3. It's important to understand why people believe what they believe. I spent years learning the philosophy of the left so I can better understand their arguments. I don't think most people care, but it does affect the dialogue, because people are often quick to repeat talking points without considering the underlying argument. Moral relativism is a very strong component of progressive ideology, and a lot of that gets applied to anything that is considered taboo.
As a whole, I don't think broader America has a problem with what people do as an adult. I think they care about being feeling "forced" to accept lifestyles they don't understand. I mostly agree with your assessment of getting used to something that is different that what you are used to seeing. I think I disagree that we need to automatically accept this new framework. I think there is a difference between acceptance, normalization, and celebration, and we don't have enough of a nuanced conversation about these things. We have no adults in the room, so to speak.
1. I still think you are in an apples to oranges situation with these attempts to compare. Illegal Sexual abuse and legal sexual behavior don't deserve to be compared this way and neither political group deserves to have these things attributed to them.
2. The celebration angle doesn't aid the argument in any way. Anyone celebrating abuse is a sicko, and their politics are far from the real issue. You're reaching hard trying to put adaptation of child abuse and normalization of queer culture in a box together. Keep trying if you wish - but I'm not wasting keystrokes on it.
3.not lost on me
I like your final paragraph. I would say that when I mentioned the "framework" I said nothing about it being accepted - but rather suggested we are in the process of framing it.
Regarding media and queer culture:
we saw it depicted and fed to us in one way through the 50's and 60's. Another slightly modified way in the 70's and 80s. The 90's through early oughts showed a slightly more open presentation, and right now we are seeing the most progressive change in how it is presented and how often it finds its way into various media and art.
So right now, liberals and conservatives, along with their counterparts in media and advertising are figuring out what the "new boundaries" are. What that framework is. I don't think it is automatically adopted or you and I wouldn't be hashing this out.
That's what I see happening anyway.
(05-24-2023, 12:02 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2023, 11:28 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I think we found Mikesez a dance partner..
I've never seen that particular board member post anything that resonates with me at all.
But, OK.
On topic:
Is it correct to assume you believe everyone is born straight biologically and anything else is a perversion?
Other than hermaphrodites, every Homo Sapien is born either a man or woman. I don't think any honest and rational biologist would disagree with that. I also don't think they would disagree with the statement that millions (or even thousands) of years of genetic evolution would have eliminated the 'genetic homosexuality' possibility by now. The number of homosexuals seems to rise and fall over time, which is inconsistent with the evolutionary trend of a population of a species becoming fewer in number if it can't reproduce. So, IMO, homosexuality is always a choice. You may think that there are internal forces and emotions that are driving you to choose the same sex, and you may attribute them to being 'born that way'. But that isn't a result of your biology or of biological evolution. Any perpetuation of genetic homosexuality would require an element of co-opted heterosexuality, i.e., impregnation of a female to carry the 'homosexual' genetics forward.
(05-24-2023, 03:54 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Conservative Bud Light drinkers:
Get over to marketplace or eBay and scoop up some of the vintage good stuff!
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/statu...17283?s=20
Sad. LOL. Just buy a [BLEEP] local breweries sixer or twelve pack for [BLEEP]'s sake. Problem solved!
Or, better yet! Why not be the ultimate American and go full on prohibition days? Make your own hooch at home. If people in prison can figure it out with a steel toilet bowl, surely some Patriots can do it at home.
If I was a betting man. I would say some of this wokeness being pushed is honestly controlled demolition. It's easier to lay off people and consolidate down when your stock begins to tank and the public image and perception changes.
Nothing happens by accident. There's no [BLEEP] way these multi billion dollar making industries are diving into this area for the sake of diving into it. I wonder if Target is majority owned by that asset company, Blackrock. They own the majority of Anheuser-Busch as well.
Makes sense. Follow the money. This is being done deliberately during a bad economy with inflation up and the US dollars future more than likely being digitalized in the very near future.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
The fact that boundaries have to be 'considered' when it comes to any conversation where trans folks and children are concerned.... it's nonnegotiable. It's a nonstarter. Period end of story. There is not a damn thing normal about trans folks and that they are targeting children should be sounding alarm bells across race, sex, and the socioeconomic and political spectrum.
I don't care who you are, if you are not repulsed by any this with every fiber of your being there is something fundamentally wrong with you and you belong on the same road to hell as they are traveling.
Period. End of story. Not debating it.
(05-24-2023, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2023, 11:23 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] I've already touched on that. How many libraries in how many towns are we talking about here?
Is this widespread or is it isolated?
Their website claims more than a dozen cities, but it would appear only the chapters in large metro areas with a liberal majority gained any traction - and several communities have already shut down the practice without any state government involvement.
It does seem a bit creepy and wholly unnecessary though.
I guess this whole thing (like so many debates around the queer community) come back to whether or not you believe someone chooses to be gay or not.
I don't.
I'm not a proponent of anything that may confuse a child as they navigate childhood, adolescence and determine their own feelings about sexual identity. I do think that gay people are going to feel the way they do regardless, and straight folks are also going to be resolute regardless of outside influence. There's just no point in confusing those young folks in the grey area who are having a more difficult time working through their biology, hormones and feelings.
Unfortunately, as much as conservative folks believe this drag and trans stuff is swaying their otherwise straight children to be queer in some way, the gay community feels that conservative-christian establishments are ruining the upbringing of gay adolescents by trying to "fix" them, when there is nothing wrong. They're just gay.
Pretty difficult impasse when either side has adopted opposing scientific views and there is religion involved.
I think we agree about this.
If you thought that absolutely all gay people were born that way and stuck that way, and the same for straight people, you would not have much reason to care about anything that might confuse a child. Confusing a child would be temporary, if everyone is basically born with their sexuality predetermined, each kid ends up in the same place whether an adult confuses them or not.
But I don't think that's your opinion.
I think what you are trying to say is that adults rarely if ever change their sexuality, but lots of kids are malleable. Even if the kids aren't willfully choosing their sexual feelings as they develop, many kids are malleable to outside influences. And because they are malleable, adults should be very cautious about what is presented to kids.
Right?
That's not what I was getting at.
I think it is biological, but not black and white.
I think there is a reason why scientists are still somewhat mystified with the fine line between gender development and the chromosomes - the rapid evolutionary change (weakening) of the Y chromosome - and trying to identify genes that are associated with those individuals who come from the womb with various "compromised" versions of Y chromosomes.
I do believe that the Y chromosome's volatility and the way it does or does not repeat readily in the DNA sequence is a possible/plausible explanation for the wide range of "feminine" qualities and instincts that many humans feel despite their actual physical male gender.
Without getting into a bunch of science journal stuff, we can just say that I believe (and I'm far from alone) that the formation of our DNA will predispose us to a very binary sexual nature more often than not, but that some individuals end up in the "grey area" (which I mentioned in the post you quoted, but you skated past that.)
Those are the folks (kids especially) I think are susceptible to being confused while still trying to figure out their own true nature.
I don't believe those of us that came out of the oven conventionally baked one way or the other have very much wiggle room to be swayed.
Now, an important note on all of this that I'll reiterate, is that young children simply don't need to have sexuality in any form thrown in their face prematurely. And yes, various groups are seeking to do that way too early in their development for different reasons. That [BLEEP] sucks. And it really sucks that it is now hyper-politicized.
Well, AB has found out that not everyone believes the world should bow to the LGBT movement. Personally I do not care what people elect for themselves. I actually have many friends and relatives that have elected it for themselves. It actually makes no difference to them or me. The key is elected for themselves, which surprisingly they agree should not be made till they are mature. I am now no longer doing business with Target because of their stance. See link below.
.
https://nypost.com/2023/05/26/target-gav...m-parents/
![[Image: IMG-7002.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/hmj3TGj/IMG-7002.jpg)