This moron is using neo-nazis physically assaulting gay men for holding each other's hands in public as support for this argument that gays should be legally forced to not display any signs of their sexuality even in innocuous ways except in specific gay-okay zones. He's unironically using a hate crime to argue for legislating sexuality-based segregation to oppress the victims of said hate crime.
I can see why you were universally considered the village retard of the Star Wars forum Legend.
Tbh I don't even see the orientation aspect as a problem, it's wholesale not something that needs to be shown. We never saw puberty on full display in a classroom, would have been shocked as a kid if we had.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Thanks for the insight. These schools should be taken to the task then.
Who will take responsibility?
The link in my post malfunctioned for some reason. This is fishy.
Tory MPs in question (Imran Ahmad Khan and Crispin Blunt) conform to the "Progressive Right." Tory MP Crispin Blunt is an LGBTQ+ advocate as well. These [closet] groomers are found to have something in common with other [closet] groomers that conform to the "Progressive Left" - sexual interest in children.
Political leaning(s) of these [closet] groomers is but a useful smokescreen to advance "sexualization of children" with a different set-of-arguments from either camp:
But it’s also true that since the sexual revolution, there has been a knocking on the door of progressive respectability by individuals with an intense interest in assisting the sexual development of children, and sometimes — as in the case of Foucault — questionable motives for doing so. Such activists invariably come armed with the logic of liberalism: using phrases such as “agency”, “consent” and “education”. The resulting queasy blend of pleasure, freedom, education and adolescence burst into flames this week, with news of a theatre production The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers “relationships and sex education” supposedly suitable for ages five and up.
LGTBQ+ advocacy of these [closet] groomers is another useful smokescreen to advance "sexualization of children" in schools and otherwise:
Cue public outrage, Mumsnet up in arms, and a petition to scrap the show that at the time of writing has more than 30,000 signatures. It’s a homegrown British version of an increasingly ferocious front in the American culture war in which both sides are entrenched, and convinced of their own righteousness. On one side stand those who argue for ever more extensive sex education in the name of LGBTQ youth and sexual emancipation in general. On the other stand those claiming to defend the authority of parents over their children, which they argue represents children’s best protection against inappropriate adult sexual attention.
But numerous parents are perplexed and concerned for good reason.
The pressing question is this: all of the "conservatives" are corrupt and bad?
Let's see.
So far, this war has raged with characteristically American vigour. Recent examples are legion: Texans in uproar_about “pornographic books” in schools; school masterbation lessons for six-year-olds; drag queens on Nickelodeon. American conservatives are now pushing back at this efflorescence of sex chat for children, calling the vanguards of kid-friendly sexual emancipation “groomers”. On a practical front, conservative states have seen a spate of legislation constraining (or seeking to constrain) the nature and extent of sexual content that may legally be delivered to children in schools.
Some of the "conservatives" are pushing back against sexualization of children in schools and otherwise. These would be parents in large part.
This is in line with following statement: "Children are vulnerable to grooming and exploitation by [closet] sexual deviants who can be found in any environment. Parents can decide [when] to make their children aware about sexuality. Education institutes should consult parents in this regard if they want to take responsibility. You will not get this unless you are a parent."
My dissertation takes the child as its focus to understand both liberation politics and social conservative movements in the postwar United States. I reveal that, even as leftist social movements viewed children as possessing "sexuality" and argued for the liberation of children's sexual expression, they simultaneously invoked the child as a vulnerable figure who must be protected from sexual abuse and violence in a dangerous postwar culture. Ultimately, the protectionist rhetoric about children's sexuality proved more powerful and influential than the libratory rhetoric, in large part because it shared features with the burgeoning rhetoric of the religious right, who found political power in a broad call to "save the children."
But those who conform to the "Progressive Left" want you to believe that "conservatives" are a part of the problem.
My first post in this thread is aimed to unmask [closet] LGBTQ+ groomers and sexual deviants with relevant examples. This is a reality that should be acknowledged. How the line is drawn for LGBTQ+ people when they make a move on others who might be caught by surprise in the process like I was? My follow-up responses in this thread are to this end.
OP responded to my questions with his lame attempt at trolling on the other hand. And you came to OP's defense with selective quoting and ad-hominem. You two are fine intellectuals, not.
To address your selective quoting: I posted a link about a "social experiment involving homosexual activities" gone wrong in Public spaces of Kyiv to highlight inherent risks of this approach. This is why I said that it would be better to restrict this "practice" to so-called gay bars where like-minded people can connect.
Are you triggered or something? My blogs are well-received by numerous fans of the lore and you are welcome to check them and produce something at par on any platform. In case you forgot. Resorting to ad-hominem posit a question mark on your intellectualism instead. But I can be a good teacher.
Lesson # 1: Trolling destroys debate.
Start with this.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jan 8th, 2023 at 02:17 PM
Rather than shitposting on this forum, don't you think your time would be better spent acquiring a twelve gauge shotgun so you can put it under your chin and blow your worthless brains on your lawn? Your brains would better serve your lawn as fertilizer than within your skull where they don't appear to be doing much.
He said nothing of the sort, I re-read his post several times. You are projecting what you think he means.
Parents not wanting their children exposed to sexual content is a perfectly reasonable stance. Who are we to force such things on anorher persons children.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
In that case I don't really have an issue, depending on the age of the kids I guess. The parents should have the choice to pull the kids from the class if they don't want their children exposed to that stuff, but I remember sex ed at my high school was fairly "graphic". It showed erect penises and we learned about various sex acts that high school kids are likely to encounter (oral sex, even a bit about anal sex).
If you think this is inappropriate then that's one thing, but as truejedi said earlier in the thread, why call them groomers? It's simply misusing a word, and is exagerating, pretty stupidly, the intent here. Unless you think the teachers are interested in sexually molesting these children after teaching them these things, then it's simply not grooming. It's teaching something that may be controversial for a lot of people, but that is not the same as grooming.
You hear the term all the time now, and it's really dumb. You hear it when those drag story times are being discussed, you hear it in these cases books in schools, and so on. None of this is grooming. It's just stuff that some people object to, and making it seem much more nefarious than it really is by implying the people doing it are predators, which they are not.
BackFire, you're talking to a bad faith clown who thinks it's funny that a talking toy is telling toddlers sex jokes, but has a problem with teenagers being taught Sex Ed.
"grooming" is putting it very delicately in most of those actual cases which were actually committed by (not dreamt up by) degrnerate trumper garbage, but BINGO regardless
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Acting like privilege backgrounds and being homosexual are mutually exclusive. Or that a religious background is the common denominator here.
As long as it's Christianity, no other religion need apply.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Pedo rates explode arround same time as gender affirmations adopted by pd's.
Funny that.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
The Wyoming Republican Party is seeking to kill a bill that would raise the state's legal marriage age to 16, arguing that putting "arbitrary" limits on child marriage interferes with parental rights and religious liberty.
The bill—which already passed the Wyoming House of Representatives on a 36–25 vote late last month—proposes banning state residents from marrying anyone under the age of 16, while requiring anyone under the age of 18 seeking to get married to receive written consent from their parents under the eye of a competent witness.
Currently, Wyoming is one of just eight states in the country—including California, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington, and West Virginia—without a minimum age requirement for marriage.
The chair of the Wyoming GOP is Oath Keeper Frank Eathorne, who was endorsed by Trump for campaigning to unseat Liz Cheney, and who also attended the January 6th capitol riot.
^"Republican Party is seeking to kill a bill that would raise the state's legal marriage age to 16, arguing that putting "arbitrary" limits on child marriage interferes with parental rights and religious liberty." -snip
Republicans and their love of marrying 14yo girls while claiming "religious freedom", I find it deplorable.
yet more confirmation that every accusation from a conservative is actually a confession
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
A bill that would have prohibited minors from getting married in West Virginia was defeated Wednesday night in a legislative committee. The Republican-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill on a 9–8 vote, a week after it passed the House of Delegates.
The bill's opponents have argued that teenage marriages are a part of life in West Virginia.
Kanawha County Republican Senator Mike Stuart, a former federal prosecutor who sided with the majority, said his vote "wasn't a vote against women." He said his mother was married when she was 16, and "six months later, I came along. I'm the luckiest guy in the world."
So even raising the legal marrying age to only 16 was just too much for Republicans. I guess it's their "god damn right' to marrying 13-15 year old girls.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 8th, 2023 09:40 AM
