Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yeah, the important thing here is they are both Tory's. Their behaviour stens from their priveledged schooling and possible treatment therein, also the close tie to the church may affect things. Despite his name Khan went to Silcoates School (A Christian Independent School with a sexually scandalous history https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/07/12/scandal-hit-private-school-has-transformed-beyond-recognition--headmaster/) and Blunt to wellington college (a very priveledged Christian Private school also full of sex scandals https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/07/12/scandal-hit-private-school-has-transformed-beyond-recognition--headmaster/)Just google them, it has nothing to do with homosexuality and all to do with a culture of abuse among highly priveledged schools.
Thanks for the insight. These schools should be taken to the task then.
Who will take responsibility?
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Rather than being products of "progressives", as Star Wars forum kid would have us believe, they are products of the most conservative Right Wing Values and Systems.
The link in my post malfunctioned for some reason. This is fishy. mmm
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.
Does progress have to mean the sexual liberation of children? Michel Foucault thought so, as did many of the now high-ranking Labour Party members who once supported the Paedophile Information Exchange.
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 [I]The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers “relationships and sex education” supposedly suitable for ages five and up.[/I]
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."
Check following thesis for further insight:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/97848
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.
Originally posted by NemeBro
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.
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.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I can see why you were universally considered the village retard of the Star Wars forum Legend.
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.