The disney insanity continues

[n_huffhines]

That’s a satire site, lulz. Flagg Eagleton-Patriot at USA Tater out here breaking CEO quotes no one else got.

Beat me to it and did it with funner energy

 

[RockyTop85]

TALKING ABOUT SEX WITH A FOUR YEAR OLD IS F***ING DISGUSTING AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON A GROWN ADULT WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT SEX WITH A FOUR YEAR OLD! IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE SO I KNOW WHERE TO NOT SEND MY KIDS FOR HALLOWEEN CANDY.

If accidentally enrolling your kids at a private school or preschool where they’ll be talked to about sex is of such great concern that you need the state to step in to make sure you can’t, then maybe the place where you should send your kids is a foster home.

Maybe some randos will care enough and be competent enough to avoid that without government assistance.

 

[SamRebel35]

If accidentally enrolling your kids at a private school or preschool where they’ll be talked to about sex is of such great concern that you need the state to step in to make sure you can’t, then maybe the place where you should send your kids is a foster home.

Maybe some randos will care enough and be competent enough to avoid that without government assistance.

You act as if it is just totally normal behavior for grown adults to want to talk to four year old children about sex. It isn't normal, and isn't acceptable under any circumstances. It is exactly what grooming looks like. To me, you might as well be saying "Hey, if you didn't want your kids playing with loaded guns at their pre-school, you should have chosen a different school. Don't mandate the government step in just because you're scared of your kid playing with firearms."

It is mental. I really don't know how to make it more clear. Talking to a four year old about sex is predatory behavior. That should not be allowed. Ever. Period.

 

[ButchPlz]

You act as if it is just totally normal behavior for grown adults to want to talk to four year old children about sex. It isn't normal, and isn't acceptable under any circumstances. It is exactly what grooming looks like. To me, you might as well be saying "Hey, if you didn't want your kids playing with loaded guns at their pre-school, you should have chosen a different school. Don't mandate the government step in just because you're scared of your kid playing with firearms."

It is mental. I really don't know how to make it more clear. Talking to a four year old about sex is predatory behavior. That should not be allowed. Ever. Period.

It's really not that hard to get.

 

[RockyTop85]

You act as if it is just totally normal behavior for grown adults to want to talk to four year old children about sex. It isn't normal, and isn't acceptable under any circumstances. It is exactly what grooming looks like. To me, you might as well be saying "Hey, if you didn't want your kids playing with loaded guns at their pre-school, you should have chosen a different school. Don't mandate the government step in just because you're scared of your kid playing with firearms."

It is mental. I really don't know how to make it more clear. Talking to a four year old about sex is predatory behavior. That should not be allowed. Ever. Period.

Lol. “Anything I don’t like is grooming” what an illiterate joke. Go fornicate with the family donkey again, Qanon.

If you’re such a ****ing moron that you keep your guns in a place that your kids might shoot themselves, no, it is not the government’s place to say nobody can have kids or guns. Gtfoh what better example could you possibly give for me?

 

[OrangeTsar]

I haven't heard if Universal Studios is pulling this stunt but if not there are several other places besides Disney I've thought about visiting. Magic Kingdom is overrated anyway. It's more of the allure. You just didn't expect Disney where innocence has been central to all they've done to fall victim to the twisted.

Legoland is a bit out of Orlando but it is fun. Busch Gardens in Tampa is just over an hour away too

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You act as if it is just totally normal behavior for grown adults to want to talk to four year old children about sex. It isn't normal, and isn't acceptable under any circumstances. It is exactly what grooming looks like. To me, you might as well be saying "Hey, if you didn't want your kids playing with loaded guns at their pre-school, you should have chosen a different school. Don't mandate the government step in just because you're scared of your kid playing with firearms."

It is mental. I really don't know how to make it more clear. Talking to a four year old about sex is predatory behavior. That should not be allowed. Ever. Period.

Nobody is giving 4 year old sex lessons. You guys are chasing ghosts and solving imaginary problems.

 

[SamRebel35]

Lol. “Anything I don’t like is grooming” what an illiterate joke. Go fornicate with the family donkey again, Qanon.

No. There are a great many things I don't like that are NOT grooming. Talking to non-sexual beings who are four years old about sex IS grooming.

A list of things most four year old children can't do:

tie shoes
count to 100
spell their name
wipe their own a$$
open lunchable packages
stay awake on 30 minute car rides

What in God's name could you possibly have to gain by talking to a four year old regarding sex? How many four year olds have you talked to about sex? Asking for a friend... in the FBI.

 

[VolStrom]

Nobody is giving 4 year old sex lessons. You guys are chasing ghosts and solving imaginary problems.

So banning something that isn't happening shouldn't be a problem then, should it?

 

[SamRebel35]

Nobody is giving 4 year old sex lessons. You guys are chasing ghosts and solving imaginary problems.

You aren't following our conversation. He literally mentioned four year olds being taught sex at a preschool as an example of "who cares what a private company does with four year olds". I'm specifically attacking that particularly idiotic line of reasoning.

 

[Grand Vol]

So banning something that isn't happening shouldn't be a problem then, should it?

That's the question nobody wants to answer...

 

[ButchPlz]

That's the question nobody wants to answer...

What he's saying is that all of those homosexuals and pedophiles (but I repeat myself) were up in arms for no reason?

 

[RockyTop85]

No. There are a great many things I don't like that are NOT grooming. Talking to non-sexual beings who are four years old about sex IS grooming.

A list of things most four year old children can't do:

tie shoes
count to 100
spell their name
wipe their own a$$
open lunchable packages
stay awake on 30 minute car rides

What in God's name could you possibly have to gain by talking to a four year old regarding sex? How many four year olds have you talked to about sex? Asking for a friend... in the FBI.

Apparently it is, because nobody was even talking about intercourse or grooming in this conversation until you decided to make some **** up because you disagreed with me, donkeylust.

If somebody wants their kids taught in a school where they are exposed to alternative lifestyles from an early age, that’s none of my damn business and it’s none of yours you nosey, statist ****. It doesn’t mean the whole community should have to put up with it, which is why removing it from public schools seems fine, to me.

 

[SamRebel35]

f you’re such a ****ing moron that you keep your guns in a place that your kids might shoot themselves, no, it is not the government’s place to say nobody can have kids or guns. Gtfoh what better example could you possibly give for me?

Are you mentally handicapped?

In my intentionally absurd example, I drop my kids off at the private pre-school, not knowing that there are loaded guns on the premises for the kids to be playing with when the parents all leave. It isn't as though I would've thought to ask that particular question in the interview process. But hey, it's a private pre-school. They can do what they want with my kids as long as they're enrolled.

 

[SamRebel35]

Apparently it is, because nobody was even talking about intercourse or grooming in this conversation until you decided to make some **** up because you disagreed with me, donkeylust.

If somebody wants their kids taught in a school where they are exposed to alternative lifestyles from an early age, that’s none of my damn business and it’s none of yours you nosey, statist ****. It doesn’t mean the whole community should have to put up with it, which is why removing it from public schools seems fine, to me.

Alternate lifestyles pertaining to what? How do you talk about Polyamory (your example) without talking about sex? How do you talk about any SEXUAL PREFERENCES without talking about sex? Talking to a four year old about who you prefer touching your genitals is grooming. The sexual part of the conversation is baked into the topic.

 

[OrangeTsar]

So banning something that isn't happening shouldn't be a problem then, should it?

Then the Libs will say “then the government shouldn’t be wasting time on a non existent problem“. Meanwhile Congress has plenty of time to pass legislation protecting certain hair styles from alleged discrimination. You can’t make this stuff up
House passes the CROWN Act, a bill banning race-based hair discrimination

 

[RockyTop85]

How do you talk about PANSEXUALITY (your example) without talking about sex? How do you talk about any SEXUAL PREFERENCES without talking about sex? The sexual part is baked into the topic.

How do you talk about relationships with a child without describing physical intercourse? Are you ****ing serious, right now?

It wasn’t pansexuality, it wasn’t my example, and it can absolutely be discussed without talking about ****ing.

And if it can’t, I really dgaf. If enough parents want their kids exposed to that stuff to create a market for it, fine. If not, it’ll sort itself out. Anybody who accidentally sends their kids to one of those schools then thats on them.

 

[RockyTop85]

That's the question nobody wants to answer...

Does the law even address this? It seems we’ve reached a whole new level of Q brain on this one.

 

[Vol8188]

Given we are now at the point of the White House openly supporting hormone therapy for kids and threatening states that don’t comply….

How much more slippery does this slope need to become before you realize what’s happening?

Not convinced hormone therapy for kids is the same as the Disney but okay

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Then the Libs will say “then the government shouldn’t be wasting time on a non existent problem“. Meanwhile Congress has plenty of time to pass legislation protecting certain hair styles from alleged discrimination. You can’t make this stuff up
House passes the CROWN Act, a bill banning race-based hair discrimination

The bill is broader than the non-existent problem. It's funny that republicans who supposedly want less laws now support a law that is horribly written and will do nothing but encourage litigation.

 

[SamRebel35]

How do you talk about relationships with a child without describing physical intercourse? Are you ****ing serious, right now?

No. More obscurantism. Sexual preference are specifically about sex. You can't discuss sexual preferences without talking about sex. It doesn't have to be a description of the physical intercourse.

I never once said anything about disallowing conversations about relationships. But talking about sexual attraction and sexual preferences with a child is sick. You're a creep if you think that's normal.

 

[RockyTop85]

No. More obscurantism. Sexual preference are specifically about sex. You can't discuss sexual preferences without talking about sex. It doesn't have to be a description of the physical intercourse.

I never once said anything about disallowing conversations about relationships. But talking about sexual attraction and sexual preferences with a child is sick. You're a creep if you think that's normal.

Motte: “Talking to kids about sex is grooming!! You can’t talk about relationships without talking about sex. You must be a pedophile, asking for the FBI.”
Bailey: “I never said it had to be a description of the physical intercourse. I never said anything about not discussing relationships.”

You’re an idiot or you’re trolling. But either way, I appreciate you making this post look like prophecy after some others acted like it was totally random:

If you guys are going to start advocating for the nanny state to mandate that ****** parents can’t (intentionally or unintentionally) send their kids to preschools that teach about gender fluidity or polyamorism, then can we at least dispense with the parental rights ******** and admit that this is just a different type of forced indoctrination?

 

[SamRebel35]

Motte: “Talking to kids about sex is grooming!! You can’t talk about relationships without talking about sex. You must be a pedophile, asking for the FBI.”
Bailey: “I never said it had to be a description of the physical intercourse. I never said anything about not discussing relationships.”

You’re an idiot or you’re arguing in bad faith. But either way, I appreciate you making this post look like prophecy after some others acted like it was totally random:

Nice edit. You didn't one time mention "relationships" until you realized just how creepy all your ridiculous sexual preference talks with four year olds made you sound. It is a nice way to try to obscure the fact that you literally were advocating for talking to four year old children about sex, or at least advocating for the government's non-intervention.

 

[SamRebel35]

Motte: “Talking to kids about sex is grooming!! You can’t talk about relationships without talking about sex. You must be a pedophile, asking for the FBI.”
Bailey: “I never said it had to be a description of the physical intercourse. I never said anything about not discussing relationships.”

You’re an idiot or you’re trolling. But either way, I appreciate you making this post look like prophecy after some others acted like it was totally random:

Why didnt' you quote this one?

Ok.

I agree except that, in my opinion, the bill only makes sense in the case of compulsory/tax funded public school where choice is restricted. Then, whether or not controversial subjects are taught should be a matter of majority rule. This maximizes the number of constituents who will benefit from the service.

When it comes to private schools or preschools, then parents have a choice of what service they want to pay for. If they choose to have their 4 year old exposed to polyamorism, that’s up to them. And if there is a market for that, then so be it.

 

[RockyTop85]

Nice edit. Originally, you specifically mentioned a four year old and no mention of gender fluidity. You didn't one time mention "relationships" until you realized just how creepy all your ridiculous sexual preference talks with four year olds made you sound. It is a nice way to try to obscure the fact that you literally were advocating for talking to four year old children about sex, or at least advocating for the government's non-intervention.

I’m literally not advocating for Talking to anyone about anything, donkeylust. So, I’m pretty sure there was nothing creepy for me to realize.

I’m actually advocating for parents being able to choose how their kids are educated. You know, parental rights in education. That’s all I’ve been saying this whole time, but your psychotic Q brain went into overdrive and called me a pedo groomer and saying I should be referred to the FBI because you apparently think anybody who thinks differently from you should be outlawed.

Because this isn’t really about parental rights, it’s about government enforced culture. Super conservative.

And I don’t know what post you’re saying I edited but you’re wrong or lying. The original story that started this conversation was about a preschool teacher discussing polyamorism and genderfluidity. If parents want their kids exposed to that or whatever else at a young age, that’s none of my business or any of yours you nosey goathaver.