The disney insanity continues

[RikidyBones]

Definitely getting legit pedo vibes from one poster in particular in here. Arguing perversion and corruption of children with such gusto and hostility means somebody is hitting too close to home advocating against that disgusting stuff.

Millstones, millstones, where are the millstones?

Yeah. It's a little creepy.

 

[RockyTop85]

Trumpkins in this thread: “We support this law because it is about parental rights in education.”
Also Trumpkins in this thread: “being in favor of parental rights in education is creepy and pedophilia.”

You’ve now turned your own pretext into pedophilia. I think that’s a first.

 

[ButchPlz]

Trumpkins in this thread: “We support this law because it is about parental rights in education.”
Also Trumpkins in this thread: “being in favor of parental rights in education is creepy and pedophilia.”

You’ve now turned your own pretext into pedophilia. I think that’s a first.

Sure thing, creep.

 

[RockyTop85]

I'm not sure what the statements of other posters have to do with your conduct. You personally attack everyone who disagrees with you, regardless.

And yes, this is still a weird hypothetical which is why you hide behind the word "if" when I called you out for it rather than attempting to argue the absurd claim.

It wasn’t weird, it was predictable that most supporters of this law weren’t the least bit interested in parental rights. It’s why almost nobody on the right cares that the law is extremely broad. It’s meant to foster the motte and bailey fallacy that was used by Donkeylust.

That parental rights was just a pretext hadn’t been stated overtly at the time of my post, but once somebody started crying about non-compulsory schools, it was pretty obvious that that’s where this was headed. That’s why I used the word “if.” That’s not “hiding,” that’s a precise and correct use of the English language to describe a thought about likely events.*

Since then, it has been overtly stated that advocating for parental rights is tantamount to pedophilia if those “rights” are used to make the choices that supporters of this law disapprove of. So why in the hell are you still going on about my correct usage of the word “if?”

And no, I do not typically attack people simply for disagreeing with me. I attack people who deserve it. One way you can come to deserve it is by saying things that are too stupid to take seriously. One example would be saying that I’m advocating for teachers talking to children about sex. That’s not a reasonable reading of my posts. Either the reader is a complete ****ing moron, or they’re trolling. It doesn’t matter to me which it is, either is equally amusing to lavish with scorn. Moron.

*- The problem is that you (plural) have to try to force right wing media’s simplistic left/right dichotomy on everyone in the world. Your mind perceives people to be either left or right and you’re compelled to agree with right and disagree with left with few exceptions. Being seen to agree and disagree with the correct people is more important than any underlying principles. In the event that any perceived left poster says something that doesn’t fit within your left/right dichotomy (e.g. that a parental rights bill protecting a majority from unwanted instruction on transgenderism is fine but that it needs to allow the minority view the freedom to still send their kids to a school where homosexuality is normalized the same way that heterosexuality is normalized in the majority regime) you have to twist it into something you know how to respond to (advocating talking to children about sex) and that leads to your inability to understand the things that you’re reading. It’s tragic, really, but it also makes you look incredibly stupid and, in my opinion, it’s important to frequently remind you of that, even if it never sinks in.

 

[SamRebel35]

It wasn’t weird, it was predictable that most supporters of this law weren’t the least bit interested in parental rights. It’s why almost nobody on the right cares that the law is extremely broad. It’s meant to foster the motte and bailey fallacy that was used by Donkeylust.

That parental rights was just a pretext hadn’t been stated overtly at the time of my post, but once somebody started crying about non-compulsory schools, it was pretty obvious that that’s where this was headed. That’s why I used the word “if.” That’s not “hiding,” that’s a precise and correct use of the English language to describe a thought about likely events.*

Since then, it has been overtly stated that advocating for parental rights is tantamount to pedophilia if those “rights” are used to make the choices that supporters of this law disapprove of. So why in the hell are you still going on about my correct usage of the word “if?”

And no, I do not typically attack people simply for disagreeing with me. I attack people who deserve it. One way you can come to deserve it is by saying things that are too stupid to take seriously. One example would be saying that I’m advocating for teachers talking to children about sex. That’s not a reasonable reading of my posts. Either the reader is a complete ****ing moron, or they’re trolling. It doesn’t matter to me which it is, either is equally amusing to lavish with scorn. Moron.

*- The problem is that you (plural) have to try to force right wing media’s simplistic left/right dichotomy on everyone in the world. Your mind perceives people to be either left or right and you’re compelled to agree with right and disagree with left with few exceptions. Being seen to agree and disagree with the correct people is more important than any underlying principles. In the event that any perceived left poster says something that doesn’t fit within your left/right dichotomy (e.g. that a parental rights bill protecting a majority from unwanted instruction on transgenderism is fine but that it needs to allow the minority view the freedom to still send their kids to a school where homosexuality is normalized the same way that heterosexuality is normalized in the majority regime) you have to twist it into something you know how to respond to (advocating talking to children about sex) and that leads to your inability to understand the things that you’re reading. It’s tragic, really, but it also makes you look incredibly stupid and, in my opinion, it’s important to frequently remind you of that, even if it never sinks in.

I was specifically calling you out about one particularly weird and creepy premise that you floated: It should be a parent's right to send their four year old to a pre-school where their teacher talks to them about their sex life (you can try to obscure it by calling it "relationships" if you would like to sugar coat it and make it sound less creepy, but that's not what it is). I took your original quote and used the specific details of that quote to point out that it is weird and creepy. Four years old. That's the age you quoted. Polyamory. That's the word you used. The debate about your one specific statement hinges on the idea that the teacher talking to his four year old pre-school students about his polyamorous lifestyle in no way constitutes grooming. That is what I specifically and vehemently disagree with.

A more charitable interpretation of my stance would be : Parents have the right to send their kids to any pre-school they want, but no pre-school should exist where grooming four year old students is permitted. Therefore, parents, while having the right to choose the school, would be choosing from a pool in which none of the schools participate in grooming.

 

[RockyTop85]

I was specifically calling you out about one particularly weird and creepy premise that you floated: It should be a parent's right to send their four year old to a pre-school where their teacher talks to them about their sex life (you can try to obscure it by calling it "relationships" if you would like to sugar coat it and make it sound less creepy, but that's not what it is). I took your original quote and used the specific details of that quote to point out that it is weird and creepy. Four years old. That's the age you quoted. Polyamory. That's the word you used. The debate about your one specific statement hinges on the idea that the teacher talking to his four year old pre-school students about his polyamorous lifestyle in no way constitutes grooming. That is what I specifically and vehemently disagree with.

A more charitable interpretation of my stance would be : Parents have the right to send their kids to any pre-school they want, but no pre-school should exist where grooming four year old students is permitted. Therefore, parents, while having the right to choose the school, would be choosing from a pool in which none of the schools participate in grooming.

********. What I’ve said throughout this conversation is that parents should determine what is age-appropriate for their own children and, by extension, that the free market should determine whether their decisions are unsustainably marginal.

Apparently, that too meets your definition of pedophilia. Which isn’t surprising as you’ve already admitted that your use of the word “sex” did not include only discussions of intercourse. Although not really defined, to you “sex” apparently includes any discussion of sexual orientation and any discussion of “sex” is pedophilic grooming.

What is surprising is that you’ve only managed to attempt deflection when confronted with one of myriad classic children’s stories that involve heterosexual orientation by calling that a strawman. You haven’t even tried to reconcile the fact that children are already exposed to countless stories that are replete with subtext that implicates sexual orientation. (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, the Princess and the Frog… I could go on). None of these stories involve anything close to grooming or sex. None are widely seen as inappropriate for young audiences. None are considered sexual or pedophilic grooming. You probably showed them to your own children, at some point, so does that make you a pedophile? By your own definition, yes, but no sane person would accept that as evidence of anything other than that cleary these topics can be placed in front of children in a manner that is not criminal.

 

[SamRebel35]

********. What I’ve said throughout this conversation is that parents should determine what is age-appropriate for their own children and, by extension, that the free market should determine whether their decisions are unsustainably marginal.

Apparently, that too meets your definition of pedophilia. Which isn’t surprising as you’ve already admitted that your use of the word “sex” did not include only discussions of intercourse. Although not really defined, to you “sex” apparently includes any discussion of sexual orientation and any discussion of “sex” is pedophilic grooming.

What is surprising is that you’ve only managed to attempt deflection when confronted with one of myriad classic children’s stories that involve heterosexual orientation by calling that a strawman. You haven’t even tried to reconcile the fact that children are already exposed to countless stories that are replete with subtext that implicates sexual orientation. (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, the Princess and the Frog… I could go on). None of these stories involve anything close to grooming or sex. None are widely seen as inappropriate for young audiences. None are considered sexual or pedophilic grooming. You probably showed them to your own children, at some point, so does that make you a pedophile? By your own definition, yes, but no sane person would accept that as evidence of anything other than that cleary these topics can be placed in front of children in a manner that is not criminal.

We all know that letting kids watch the Little Mermaid is an exact equivalent to having a gender fluid pagan witch talk about his polyamorous lifestyle to your kids. 1:1

 

[n_huffhines]

In case you didn't know, the right is a complete fkn joke

 

[Vol8188]

It wasn’t weird, it was predictable that most supporters of this law weren’t the least bit interested in parental rights. It’s why almost nobody on the right cares that the law is extremely broad. It’s meant to foster the motte and bailey fallacy that was used by Donkeylust.

That parental rights was just a pretext hadn’t been stated overtly at the time of my post, but once somebody started crying about non-compulsory schools, it was pretty obvious that that’s where this was headed. That’s why I used the word “if.” That’s not “hiding,” that’s a precise and correct use of the English language to describe a thought about likely events.*

Since then, it has been overtly stated that advocating for parental rights is tantamount to pedophilia if those “rights” are used to make the choices that supporters of this law disapprove of. So why in the hell are you still going on about my correct usage of the word “if?”

And no, I do not typically attack people simply for disagreeing with me. I attack people who deserve it. One way you can come to deserve it is by saying things that are too stupid to take seriously. One example would be saying that I’m advocating for teachers talking to children about sex. That’s not a reasonable reading of my posts. Either the reader is a complete ****ing moron, or they’re trolling. It doesn’t matter to me which it is, either is equally amusing to lavish with scorn. Moron.

*- The problem is that you (plural) have to try to force right wing media’s simplistic left/right dichotomy on everyone in the world. Your mind perceives people to be either left or right and you’re compelled to agree with right and disagree with left with few exceptions. Being seen to agree and disagree with the correct people is more important than any underlying principles. In the event that any perceived left poster says something that doesn’t fit within your left/right dichotomy (e.g. that a parental rights bill protecting a majority from unwanted instruction on transgenderism is fine but that it needs to allow the minority view the freedom to still send their kids to a school where homosexuality is normalized the same way that heterosexuality is normalized in the majority regime) you have to twist it into something you know how to respond to (advocating talking to children about sex) and that leads to your inability to understand the things that you’re reading. It’s tragic, really, but it also makes you look incredibly stupid and, in my opinion, it’s important to frequently remind you of that, even if it never sinks in.

Who has argued against parental rights here? You seem to have built your entire argument around this notion, without ever providing examples of who or how this is occurring?

Am I arguing against parental rights? If so, how?

And yes, I continue to mock you for your use of "if" for 2 reasons:
1. You never directly responded to the poster who was upset by the teaching of pre-school to ask if he opposed parents sending there kids to a school teaching such things nor do we know if the parents knew, you just jumped to this insanity
2. You went on to proclaim that you do not even know if the school was public/private or if private schools are included in the bill. So you are cursing and freaking out over something that you seem to have no real understanding of.

This entire thread is you freaking out without ever questioning why?

SO who is arguing against parental rights? Can you provide an example of them doing so? If not, you're fighting wind mills.
Do you really believe the parents of those preschoolers knew what was being taught? If not, this isn't about parental rights.
You do not know if this bill limits private schools (you directly stated such) yet you're claiming this limits parental right or that supporters are in favor of such? Seems like a 100% baseless claim.

 

[RockyTop85]

We all know that letting kids watch the Little Mermaid is an exact equivalent to having a gender fluid pagan witch talk about his polyamorous lifestyle to your kids. 1:1

I’m not sure how to say it more plainly: it’s an example of content involving sexual orientation that is age appropriate for young children.

At this point, your avoidance of my requests to reconcile that with “no discussion of sexual orientation is appropriate for young children” seems like tacit surrender.

 

[SamRebel35]

I’m not sure how to say it more plainly: it’s an example of content involving sexual orientation that is age appropriate for young children.

At this point, your avoidance of my requests to reconcile that with “no discussion of sexual orientation is appropriate for young children” seems like tacit surrender.

The Little Mermaid, which is not directly about, but displays a normal male/female relationship, is not the same as one single creep sitting down in front of your kids and talking about his love life to them. You're relying on false equivalencies and attempting to blur the boundaries between the two scenarios to try to bring legitimacy to your perspective.

Your avoidance at acknowledging any subtle differences between viewing the Little Mermaid and a total weirdo talking to your kids about his love life could be construed as surrender as well.

 

[RockyTop85]

The Little Mermaid, which is not directly about, but displays a normal male/female relationship, is not the same as one single creep sitting down in front of your kids and talking about his love life to them. You're relying on false equivalencies and attempting to blur the boundaries between the two scenarios to try to bring legitimacy to your perspective.

Your avoidance at acknowledging any subtle differences between viewing the Little Mermaid and a total weirdo talking to your kids about his love life could be construed as surrender as well.

It’s not a false equivalence, it doesn’t blur anything. I don’t understand how this is hard to understand:

A “normal male/female relationship” is still sexual orientation and you have no problem with it. Therefore, either you’re a pedo/groomer or not every discussion involving sexual orientation is nasty and disgusting and inappropriate for kids.

I’ve made it as simple as possible for you. Please elect between one of these two choices. Did you groom your own children or were you simply incorrect when you said “Sexual preference are specifically about sex. You can't discuss sexual preferences without talking about sex?”

I’m sure I’ll get a cogent, relevant response. Thanks in advance.

 

[SamRebel35]

It’s not a false equivalence, it doesn’t blur anything. I don’t understand how this is hard to understand:

A “normal male/female relationship” is still sexual orientation and you have no problem with it. Therefore, either you’re a pedo/groomer or not every discussion involving sexual orientation is nasty and disgusting and inappropriate for kids.

I’ve made it as simple as possible for you. Please elect between one of these two choices. Did you groom your own children or were you simply incorrect when you said “Sexual preference are specifically about sex. You can't discuss sexual preferences without talking about sex?”

I’m sure I’ll get a cogent, relevant response. Thanks in advance.

One single person talking about, specifically, his personal love life involving multiple partners (and with no other adults present), in your opinion, is no different than an animated movie where a male/female relationship (one that kids see modeled for them every day if they have parents) is depicted as a plot point? Ok then. If this is the frame from which you view the world, we're bound to remain at loggerheads.

Everything is the same. Grooming doesn't exist because kids have seen straight people before. Polyamory (Google definition: the practice of engaging in multiple romantic and typically sexual relationships, with the consent of all the people involved) is totally normal and should be taught to all four year old children with no other adults present as long as all their parents say it is ok.

 

[NCFisher]

********. What I’ve said throughout this conversation is that parents should determine what is age-appropriate for their own children and, by extension, that the free market should determine whether their decisions are unsustainably marginal.

Apparently, that too meets your definition of pedophilia. Which isn’t surprising as you’ve already admitted that your use of the word “sex” did not include only discussions of intercourse. Although not really defined, to you “sex” apparently includes any discussion of sexual orientation and any discussion of “sex” is pedophilic grooming.

What is surprising is that you’ve only managed to attempt deflection when confronted with one of myriad classic children’s stories that involve heterosexual orientation by calling that a strawman. You haven’t even tried to reconcile the fact that children are already exposed to countless stories that are replete with subtext that implicates sexual orientation. (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, the Princess and the Frog… I could go on). None of these stories involve anything close to grooming or sex. None are widely seen as inappropriate for young audiences. None are considered sexual or pedophilic grooming. You probably showed them to your own children, at some point, so does that make you a pedophile? By your own definition, yes, but no sane person would accept that as evidence of anything other than that cleary these topics can be placed in front of children in a manner that is not criminal.

'Cinderella' is analogy to 'Queer Baby' or 'Lawn Boy'? Clinically, doesn't one depict normative biological and psychological characteristics while the other(s) do not? Even aside from the disproportionately high incidence of dysphoria/dysfunction among alt-sex/gender people, don't boys and girls predominantly - innately - get that? Hetero is simply the normal, genetic state of things and leftist attempt to normalize sex/gender fluidity doesn't change that.

I think alt-sex/gender people know they are a deviation from bio/psycho normalcy and that is the source of their discontent. I can sympathize with their personal struggles without conceding that children or the nuclear family are a necessary price to pay for their emotional well-being. And that is what is at issue, an outsized and outlandish advocacy that equates to pull-advertising and advocacy in education, and children's media such as Disney.

We don't draw the line of child abuse at free market participation of parents, willful or ignorant, private or public school. I don't care that the FL law is imperfect; laws inherently are and can be remedied. The educational debate exploded because parents in lockdown with remote learning children, peered into the classroom with them and are justifiably incensed. I've seen numerous videos of teachers and administrators nationally saying it doesn't matter what laws are, we'll close the door and do it anyway. And it isn't simply random, radical activist teachers but local and national school boards and associations vowing to defy parental oversight and law.

Fine, but now you can do it under penalty of law.​

Schools are not an experimental thought playground for dysphoric adults to splay themselves for appreciation, acceptance, or whatever disorder of the day afflicts them. Mind-***** children results in long-term, mind-fked people. It is not the place of education to circumvent navigation of childhood questions and insecurities - by the child and parents - with an A-Z sexuality checklist cluttering that navigation. They should get to be kids, not a repository of leftist identity politics.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

 

[CagleMtnVol]

It’s not a false equivalence, it doesn’t blur anything. I don’t understand how this is hard to understand:

A “normal male/female relationship” is still sexual orientation and you have no problem with it.

Key word "Normal"!

 

[RockyTop85]

'Cinderella' is analogy to 'Queer Baby' or 'Lawn Boy'? Clinically, doesn't one depict normative biological and psychological characteristics while the other(s) do not? Even aside from the disproportionately high incidence of dysphoria/dysfunction among alt-sex/gender people, don't boys and girls predominantly - innately - get that? Hetero is simply the normal, genetic state of things and leftist attempt to normalize sex/gender fluidity doesn't change that.

I think alt-sex/gender people know they are a deviation from bio/psycho normalcy and that is the source of their discontent. I can sympathize with their personal struggles without conceding that children or the nuclear family are a necessary price to pay for their emotional well-being. And that is what is at issue, an outsized and outlandish advocacy that equates to pull-advertising and advocacy in education, and children's media such as Disney.

We don't draw the line of child abuse at free market participation of parents, willful or ignorant, private or public school. I don't care that the FL law is imperfect; laws inherently are and can be remedied. The educational debate exploded because parents in lockdown with remote learning children, peered into the classroom with them and are justifiably incensed. I've seen numerous videos of teachers and administrators nationally saying it doesn't matter what laws are, we'll close the door and do it anyway. And it isn't simply random, radical activist teachers but local and national school boards and associations vowing to defy parental oversight and law.

Fine, but now you can do it under penalty of law.​

Schools are not an experimental thought playground for dysphoric adults to splay themselves for appreciation, acceptance, or whatever disorder of the day afflicts them. Mind-***** children results in long-term, mind-fked people. It is not the place of education to circumvent navigation of childhood questions and insecurities - by the child and parents - with an A-Z sexuality checklist cluttering that navigation. They should get to be kids, not a repository of leftist identity politics.

Can you direct me to the part of this post that is consistent with my numerous very clear statements that what I’m saying is contingent upon parental preference and approval. Thanks in advance.

 

[Vol8188]

Can you direct me to the part of this post that is consistent with my numerous very clear statements that what I’m saying is contingent upon parental preference and approval. Thanks in advance.

I can direct you to my post where I asked what these windmills are you’re still fighting

 

[RockyTop85]

One single person talking about, specifically, his personal love life involving multiple partners (and with no other adults present), in your opinion, is no different than an animated movie where a male/female relationship (one that kids see modeled for them every day if they have parents) is depicted as a plot point? Ok then. If this is the frame from which you view the world, we're bound to remain at loggerheads.

Everything is the same. Grooming doesn't exist because kids have seen straight people before. Polyamory (Google definition: the practice of engaging in multiple romantic and typically sexual relationships, with the consent of all the people involved) is totally normal and should be taught to all four year old children with no other adults present as long as all their parents say it is ok.

“Should be taught to all four year old children?” Where did I say that? Can you quote it for me?

Of course, I did not say it. I’ve repeatedly and explicitly said that I have no interest in foisting anyone’s preferred culture on anybody. Why is it so hard for you to make one single response without fabricating things like this?

So when you say “Grooming doesn't exist because kids have seen straight people before,” are you walking back your prior statement that “Sexual preference are specifically about sex. You can't discuss sexual preferences without talking about sex?”

 

[VolStrom]

Can you direct me to the part of this post that is consistent with my numerous very clear statements that what I’m saying is contingent upon parental preference and approval. Thanks in advance.

Just two questions. Are you married to a woman and do you have kids?

 

[RockyTop85]

Who has argued against parental rights here?

Nope. This is as far as I got. Too much remedial discussion needed to catch you up on the conversation. I asked you to try to do better. Even gave you a chance. You blew it.

 

[Vol8188]

Nope. This is as far as I got. Too much remedial discussion needed to catch you up on the conversation. I asked you to try to do better. Even gave you a chance. You blew it.

I wouldn’t answer that question either. But if you want me to recap the conversation. I went back about 4 pages and you were the only one to use the word parent or parental.

So who is arguing against parental rights as you claim?

Or are you simply fighting wind mills?

 

[RockyTop85]

I wouldn’t answer that question either. But if you want me to recap the conversation. I went back about 4 pages and you were the only one to use the word parent or parental.

So who is arguing against parental rights as you claim?

Or are you simply fighting wind mills?

I’m glad that we agree that your questions are too dumb to answer. I hope your new insight will bear fruit.

 

[Vol8188]

I’m glad that we agree that your questions are too dumb to answer. I hope your new insight will bear fruit.

“Who’s opposing parental rights” is too dumb to answer? Or you don’t want to answer because no one is

 

[Sandman 423]

In case you didn't know, the right is a complete fkn joke

View attachment 448855

I thought Mickey divorced Minnie because she was F-ing Goofey.