The disney insanity continues

#701
#701
SamRebel35 said:
Why didnt' you quote this one?
Click to expand...
What about it? It says the exact same thing I just said, above. The post is about parental choice in schooling. If there’s a sufficient market for private schools where those subjects are taught or at least not censored then parents should have that option.


Your inability to conceive of this as anything but graphic descriptions of men lustily pounding each other in the ass reflects more about you than it does reality and examples of arguably age-appropriate ways in which it might come up in a school setting have already been discussed.
 
#702
#702
ClearwaterVol said:
Nobody is giving 4 year old sex lessons. You guys are chasing ghosts and solving imaginary problems.
Click to expand...
NOBODY? thanks @Franklin Pierce

'Polyamorous, Gender-Fluid, Witch' Crows About Teaching Four-Year-Olds About 'Crazy'


ce78a122-ac62-451d-b0d5-aaa58df4e56f-860x475.jpg



As the left-wing media continues to insist that untold numbers of teachers across America don’t “teach” young children about gender identity, sexuality, and other such things they have zero right to drop on our kids, “educators” who do exactly all of the above continue to come forward and admit they do.

Except preschool teacher “Lois Schwartz” doesn’t just admit it, he/she brags about doing so, including in a recent TikTok video posted to Twitter by Libs of TikTok, which scours the internet for left-wing craziness, as reported by The Post Millennial.

Man, y’all thought me teaching the children about me being poly was crazy! But, not only that, but they also know that I’m gender-fluid!

At one point last year, I had explained to them that I was not Miss Lois or Mr. Lois. It’s just Lois because I’m not a boy or girl. And this was all well and good until October, when I also explained to them that I’m pagan, so I am also a witch.
Nice touch busting out the pagan witch thing, presumably right before Halloween, don’t you think? And no way would any of this “crazy” confuse the hell out of a “normal” four-year-old growing up in a “normal” family with traditional beliefs.

Lois also bragged about how “woke” his/her students are. No kidding? A captive group of young kids being told by a teacher they presumably like that everything they’ve learned about boys and girls and moms and dads is wrong?

'Polyamorous, Gender-Fluid, Witch' Crows About Teaching Four-Year-Olds About 'Crazy'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and dovervolz
#703
#703
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I said "pansexuality" when I meant "polyamory" (not much difference from what I can tell. I don't think it helps your case). You can try to call it a discussion about "relationships" if you want, but polyamorism is a specific type of sexual relationship with multiple partners. A grown adult shouldn't be talking about that with a four year old. No matter what. At best it is a creepy conversation where nobody benefits, and at worst it is an adult predator beginning to groom a child.
 
#704
#704
RockyTop85 said:
What about it? It says the exact same thing I just said, above. The post is about parental choice in schooling. If there’s a sufficient market for private schools where those subjects are taught or at least not censored then parents should have that option.


Your inability to conceive of this as anything but graphic descriptions of men lustily pounding each other in the ass reflects more about you than it does reality and examples of arguably age-appropriate ways in which it might come up in a school setting have already been discussed.
Click to expand...

You got a link where I said the bold? I think you're projecting.

But a gender fluid pagan witch bragging about teaching his students about his experiences with polyamory??? Doesn't give me the "they were just discussing loving relationships with no mention of sexual preferences or sexual attraction" vibes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and Rickyvol77
#705
#705
RockyTop85 said:
Does the law even address this? It seems we’ve reached a whole new level of Q brain on this one.
Click to expand...

More of the "if it isn't happening, why such a huge uproar?" kind of question...

I mean, again, when it goes into effect, it'll be no different than any other useless law on the book. But the simple fact that too many people have made it a big deal does make one suspicious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, Rickyvol77, VolStrom and 1 other person
#706
#706
SamRebel35 said:
I said "pansexuality" when I meant "polyamory" (not much difference from what I can tell. I don't think it helps your case). You can try to call it a discussion about "relationships" if you want, but polyamorism is a specific type of sexual relationship with multiple partners. A grown adult shouldn't be talking about that with a four year old. No matter what. At best it is a creepy conversation where nobody benefits, and at worst it is an adult predator beginning to groom a child.
Click to expand...
We’re in a thread about Disney FFS are you really gonna go with the “I can’t possibly conceive of an child-appropriate amorous relationship because they’re all inherently sexual?”

Ariel & Eric fell in love so kids shouldn’t see that until they’re 18 because no discussion of sexual preference can be had without discussions of boning.

I guess Moms and dads should all give their kids over to robots because their relationship involves sexual preference.

You can’t be serious.
 
#707
#707
RockyTop85 said:
We’re in a thread about Disney FFS are you really gonna go with the “I can’t possibly conceive of an child-appropriate amorous relationship because they’re all inherently sexual?”

Ariel & Eric fell in love so kids shouldn’t see that until they’re 18 because no discussion of sexual preference can be had without discussions of boning.

I guess Moms and dads should all give their kids over to robots because their relationship involves sexual preference.

You can’t be serious.
Click to expand...

This is you:

"Strawman fallacy about the Little Mermaid!!!"

"You can't be serious!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#708
#708
SamRebel35 said:
I said "pansexuality" when I meant "polyamory" (not much difference from what I can tell. I don't think it helps your case). You can try to call it a discussion about "relationships" if you want, but polyamorism is a specific type of sexual relationship with multiple partners. A grown adult shouldn't be talking about that with a four year old. No matter what. At best it is a creepy conversation where nobody benefits, and at worst it is an adult predator beginning to groom a child.
Click to expand...

You can explain polyamorism without any reference to sex. The Bible explains polyamorism...Godly men had concubines. Is it creepy that the Bible explained that?

BTW, pansexuality and polyamorism are very different. So maybe we're not understanding what you mean to say.
 
#709
#709
Grand Vol said:
More of the "if it isn't happening, why such a huge uproar?" kind of question...

I mean, again, when it goes into effect, it'll be no different than any other useless law on the book. But the simple fact that too many people have made it a big deal does make one suspicious.
Click to expand...

Have you read the bill?
 
#710
#710
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn’t an education system deciding to teach 1st graders about transgenderism “government enforced culture”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#711
#711
n_huffhines said:
You can explain polyamorism without any reference to sex. The Bible explains polyamorism...Godly men had concubines. Is it creepy that the Bible explained that?

BTW, pansexuality and polyamorism are very different. So maybe we're not understanding what you mean to say.
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything in the Bible to be appropriate for government to teach 6 year olds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#713
#713
SamRebel35 said:
This is you:

"Strawman fallacy about the Little Mermaid!!!"

"You can't be serious!!!"
Click to expand...
It’s wild that you think that’s a strawman instead of just realizing how absolutely asinine you made yourself look by going straight to the “everything is about sex and grooming” nonsense.

The little mermaid involved sexual orientation. Hell that’s cross-species sexual orientation. Arguably you could sue a school in Florida for showing the little mermaid.

She didn’t even have human genitals at the start of the story. Somehow they managed to make a love story for kids even though they weren’t even physically capable of ****ing.

Do you think it would be less appropriate for kids if Ariel were a merman instead of a mermaid, with no other changes? Is that more inherently sexual? What if the merman loves a human and a mermaid with no other changes? That makes it inappropriate for kids?

You’re the one saying relationships can’t be discussed without sex. That’s not a strawman, it’s the logical terminus of your dipshittery.
 
Last edited:
#725
#725
n_huffhines said:
Did I say that I believe that or did I ask if it's creepy? I don't teach the Bible at all to my children.
Click to expand...

It only seems to be valid to bring up if you believe others will tell you that a 5 year old should be taught about everything within the bible. If not, it doesn't feel relevant. Just like saying "they teach about ____ in med school!" wouldn't be a valid argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top