╌>

The Tyranny of the Minority

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  10 months ago  •  424 comments

The Tyranny of the Minority
“I don’t have a negative view of same-sex couples, but I do have a negative view of a tyranny of the minority,” he said. “So I think that in the name of protecting against the tyranny of the majority, and there are times in this country’s history where we have had a tyranny of the majority, we have now in the name of protecting against tyranny of the majority created a new tyranny of the minority.

Link to Quote: Vivek Ramaswamy: LGBTQ+ People Created 'Tyranny of the Minority' (yahoo.com)


Republican Presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy struck a chord with primary voters a few days ago when he gave an opinion that I think many Republicans share. While at the Iowa State Fair, what some might describe as a LGBTQ+ (they have put a lot of letters into that) activist approached him.

The female activist described herself as, get this: "pansexual."   Does that mean she sleeps with pans?  Or maybe she is addicted to food?  At any rate she asked him what he thought about same-sex couples.

Ramaswamy:

“I don’t have a negative view of same-sex couples, but I do have a negative view of a tyranny of the minority,” he said. “So I think that in the name of protecting against the tyranny of the majority, and there are times in this country’s history where we have had a tyranny of the majority, we have now in the name of protecting against tyranny of the majority created a new tyranny of the minority.

“And I think that that’s wrong. I don’t think that somebody who’s religious should be forced to officiate a wedding that they disagree with. I don’t think somebody who is a woman who's worked really hard for her achievements should be forced to compete against a biological man in a swim competition. I don’t think that somebody who’s a woman that respects her bodily autonomy and dignity should be forced to change clothes in a locker room with a man. That’s not freedom. That's oppression.”

“And so I believe that we live in a country where free adults should be free to dress how they want, behave how they want and that’s fine, but you don’t oppress, you don’t become oppressive by foisting that on others, and that especially includes kids because kids aren’t the same as adults,” he continued, appearing to play into the idea that children are somehow being “indoctrinated” simply by being taught that LGBTQ+ people exist. “And so I think adults are free to make whatever choices they want, but do not foist that ideology onto children before children are in a position as adults to make decisions for themselves.

“And so, I think a lot of the frustration in the country, and if I’m being really honest that I also share, comes from that new culture of oppression where saying those things can actually get somebody punished. And in my case, it’s part of why it’s my responsibility to say them, and I respect that you have a different opinion. And that’s OK. Part of what makes our country great is that you and I can be civil and have this conversation and that we live in a country that still gives us, each of us, the right to speak to a presidential candidate and back and still say that we pledge allegiance to the same nation. So, I think that’s the beauty of our country. And that’s my honest opinion.”

Vivek Ramaswamy: LGBTQ+ People Created 'Tyranny of the Minority' (yahoo.com)


Both the questioner and the candidate were respectful to one another and Ramaswamy has found himself with a significant rise in the polls:

e554ed09-POLL1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Fox News Poll: Ramaswamy rising, as DeSantis loses ground in GOP primary | Fox News



"TRUTH," Ramaswamy said in all-caps, starting the post on X.

His list followed:

1. God is real.
2. There are two genders.
3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.
4. Reverse racism is racism.
5. An open border is no border.
6. Parents determine the education of their children.
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.
8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.
9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.


Vivek Ramaswamy shares 10 commandments of 2024 campaign, starts with 'God is real,' 'There are two genders' | Fox News


There is no doubt about the truth in the message and Vivek Ramaswamy found a way to express what is killing America.

 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

The Ramaswamy campaign has begun.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

it's over as soon as one of the other candidates starts enlightening the public of his recent past...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

Pretty sure that far right wing fascists are in the minority.

They may be loud but their numbers are dwindling as geriatrics die off.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.1  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @1.2    10 months ago
Pretty sure that far right wing fascists are in the minority.

They are because most of them you think exist are figments of your imagination

"their numbers are dwindling as geriatrics die off."

You can say the same of geriatric communists/socialists that flooded colleges in the 60s and are infecting those same colleges today in the form of "professors".

Same with those geriatric communists/socialists that spit on our soldiers when they returned from Vietnam

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.2    10 months ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    10 months ago

Ramaswamy doesnt have a prayer. 

His potential voting base is right wing extremists and the two people above him in the polls are better at it than he is. 

I would put his chances of actually becoming president between zero and one half of one percent. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago
Ramaswamy doesnt have a prayer. 

I think he was actually running for VP or a cabinet level position. Somehow, he found the simple phrase that resonates with every decent middle class American and stole DeSantis thunder. Maybe DeSantis thought a white male candidate couldn't say it. I suppose many leftists would characterize Ramaswamy as non-white simply because he is the son of Indian immigrants. The rest of us see that he is white yet gets a little political cover on nailing what we all know is true.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    10 months ago
I suppose many leftists would characterize Ramaswamy as non-white simply because he is the son of Indian immigrants. The rest of us see that he is white

You are going to put your foot in your mouth again. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    10 months ago

You must know how the media operates. There is a huge difference between Ramaswamy declaring a tyranny of the minority and DeSantis saying it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    10 months ago

Vic, you just said that Ramaswamy is white.  Both his parents are from India and neither of them have a drop of "white" blood in them. 

If you had said he is an American you would have had some solid ground. But you said he's white. Is that because he says things that you think a white person might say but non-whites would probably not? That seems to be your position on this. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    10 months ago
Vic, you just said that Ramaswamy is white.  Both his parents are from India and neither of them have a drop of "white" blood in them.

Are you saying that Indians cannot be white?  What a leftist thing to say.


But you said he's white. Is that because he says things that you think a white person might say but non-whites would probably not? 

Just the opposite. Ramaswamy got to say things that DeSantis would be much more careful about because of the left's persistence that Ramaswamy is part of the group/groups that democrats claim as theirs. You know John, "the Obama coalition." Remember how they tried to divide us?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    10 months ago
I suppose many leftists would characterize Ramaswamy as non-white simply because he is the son of Indian immigrants.

And there it is...........

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.1.4    10 months ago
he's almost as white as the 2 spaghetti americans in the race ...

Not long ago they weren't considered white either.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.6    10 months ago

The Obama coalition!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    10 months ago

Funny. I remember George Zimmerman being classified as white hispanic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    10 months ago
Are you saying that Indians cannot be white?  What a leftist thing to say.

They cant be white if both their parents dont have a drop of white blood in them. The difference between you and me is that I dont care whether or not someone is white. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    10 months ago
The difference between you and me is that I dont care whether or not someone is white. 

You are proving otherwise.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    10 months ago
Are you saying that Indians cannot be white?  What a leftist thing to say.

Not leftist at all, The SCOUS declared in 1923 that Indians (from India) are not white in its decision in the case of U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @2.1.12    10 months ago

Ramaswamy is an honorary white guy. Thats it. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    10 months ago
I think he was actually running for VP

he's a shoe in for the trump ticket, since he's already declared he'll pardon traitors...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    10 months ago

Eureka! Your biases are on 'blast'! 

Somehow, he found the simple phrase that resonates with every decent middle class American and stole DeSantis thunder.

Who the "F" are you calling indecent: Liberals?  People not conservative? Secularists?  All of the above? Who?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.16  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    10 months ago
The difference between you and me is that I dont care whether or not someone is white. 

Hilarious coming from someone who brings up race in many, many comments.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @2.1.12    10 months ago

The SCOTUS also declared, in 1857, that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States.  

The SCOTUS also declared, in 1973, that there was a secret clause somewhere in the Constitution which gave a federal right to a woman having an abortion.

They were wrong then and they are wrong to define racial identity.

As any leftist knows we all get to define our identity. The rest of us get to trust our own eyes.


So much for googling!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.15    10 months ago

The radical left, specifically.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.19  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    10 months ago

And yet it is some conservatives who can't be 'satiated' even when their politics are reasonably met! Some conservatives got their guns, got their religious expressions, got their limited abortions, got their women "in check," got their conservative courts, so forth and so on and still bitch and moan about what the 'Left' has on its plate they would like to take away. That's political gluttony!

 Nobody is going to let some conservatives get away with stuffing themselves again as it was in the past! At least, I am hoping and counting on people not to permit it to happen again!

Keep demonizing liberals. Conservatives are not this country's Superman! And liberals are not its Lex Luther!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    10 months ago

So there is a difference between fascists declaring and saying?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.6    10 months ago

There what is?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago
"His potential voting base is right wing extremists and the two people above him in the polls are better at it than he is." 

Actually, his potential base is about half of the likely voters. The upcoming debate should be lively and hopefully concentrate on whipping Biden instead of going after each other, or Trump.

His views are main line America, not a bit extremist..
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    10 months ago
His views are main line America,

Exactly what most leftists hate.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    10 months ago

To some people, anybody that does not mark the D box on a ballot is automatically a right wing extremist, there is no middle ground. Right now my preference is Tim Scott first and then Vivek Ramaswamy. If either one gets the nod, I will happily vote for them over Joe Biden in a heartbeat. If it comes to Trump and Biden, God forbid, I will vote third party like I have in the last three elections. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
2.3  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago
Ramaswamy doesnt have a prayer. 

I recall you say the same thing when Trump ran in 2016. In your opinion no Republican has a prayer of being elected president, I'm shocked S/ 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago
His potential voting base is right wing extremists

Wait.... you say that about Trump.  And De Santis.  And Pence.  And pretty much everybody who isn't a liberal Democrat.

Hmmmmmm.......

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4.1  cjcold  replied to  Jack_TX @2.4    10 months ago

Yep. None of those far right wing losers stands a chance.

There are actually more sane folk than there are insane fascists. 

VOTE FOLKS!!!!!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.2  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @2.4.1    10 months ago
There are actually more sane folk than there are insane fascists. 

True..

Also, there are more sane folks than insane socialists/communists (democrats)

VOTE OUT THE INSANITY!!!!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @2.4.1    10 months ago

Yeah, that's right. Only far left losers stand any chance? They are the only sane people right?

Big reason why I will vote to remove the current party in the WH out of office!!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.3    10 months ago
Big reason why I will vote to remove the current party in the WH out of office!!!

Ed, quite seriously, how will you accomplish this if Trump is the nominee?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.4    10 months ago

As I have said before, I will vote third party if needed as I have in the past.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.5    10 months ago

The only way a third party vote will help is if the third party would split the D votes.   Since you would vote R normally, even if you vote D third party you will not make a difference.

The only realistic option that I see is to prevent Trump from being the nominee (and then promote a nominee who could win).

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.6    10 months ago

Maybe it would not make a difference, but I would have the satisfaction that in my own small way I tried. As the saying goes, "Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.8  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.7    10 months ago

I understand.   I could easily wind up voting third party protest as well.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.9  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.8    10 months ago

TiG, you can vote as you want and you know this without my affirmation. However, conservatives value secularists as less as they value homosexuals and blacks who stand for something other than affirming their conservatism. Case in point: Conservatives are politically working to put every suppressed minority back in the box.  And, I am reading a book by Miles Taylor, 'Anonymous" in the former Trump administration, "Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from the Next Trump" where he explicitly indicates that anybody coming out of the republican party will be as bad or worse than Trump, because they will have the "blueprint" to where to shut down and remove government officials that stall their biased, homophobic, and racist conservative agenda. 

I will be posting quotes from the book from someone who knows of what he speaks some time forward.

The conservative ideology of freedom may or may not include your ideas of freedom. But then, I do accept that it is may be easier for you to live in a conservative environment that it is for me!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.10  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.4.9    10 months ago

The secularist factor is a very low priority for me.   My inclination towards the Rs is based on fiscal discipline (a pipe dream nowadays), realistic border management, etc.   My inclination towards the Ds is based on social factors (e.g. abortion), renewable energy, etc.

As it stands now, the Rs have no viable candidate for me to consider.   If someone like Chris Christie becomes viable, I could (in lieu of a better choice) vote for him.  (At this point, amazingly, I would even consider Pence.)  The Ds have failed to convince Biden to NOT run so they have a truly terrible candidate for 2024 (would be 82 on inauguration) backed up by a very unimpressive V.P.   Under normal circumstances, the Rs could easily offer a younger, inspirational leader (e.g. Chris Sununu) and win against Biden/Harris.   But that is almost certainly not going to happen.

Politics in the USA truly sucks nowadays.  The parties are a mess (especially the GOP) and the partisans (especially on the R side) seem to me to be detached from reality.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.11  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.10    10 months ago

Thank you for sharing that. I will share something other with you later this evening about this, but I am literally out of time and running this morning.  (HINT: Secularism is better than Christianity/religions running amok!)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.12  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.10    10 months ago

I don't agree with everything the liberals/democrats are 'firing' up on a regular basis and yes even the homosexual community goes too far off the deep end when it comes to upselling debauchery for its own sake.  Yes, the internecine political wars are destructive to the national saving plan of the country. And straight answers about how much national debt is proper and safe to 'carry' is hard to come by on both sides. And yes, there still remains a heavy dose of "fraud, waste, and abuse"  heavy on the abuse portion especially since Washington, D.C. has decided it must double-check its every proceedings with additional proceeding by its separate and duplicate cadres of inspectors.  

VP Kamala Harris, for all we know could turn out to be a 'stealth' president in waiting; in a similar fashion, LBJ came to the foreground after the loss of JFK and he left a commanding legacy that was largely effective until the 2000s. 

President Joe Biden is old, yes he is. However, this is a continuation of the freedom to run, be elected, and serve as president at any age. Of course, we want him to be personally safe and not overstressed by age-related workloads, but in any case since it appears to be about to happen as a candidate nomination for four more years-we can see if a man of a certain age can actually functionally run a nation of 360M persons effectively. It will be an experiment to conclude once and for all if age is a presidential deterrence, hindrance, or weirdly wisdom asset.

In addition, any president that follows the rules can only do so much of his/her agenda in a world that is constantly and dynamically moving what we call life around:

1. Covid-19 is surging around the country again.

2. Masks make become fashionable again and the enjoining controversies of wearing mask will reignite if it does.

3. Fires in Hawaii and other parts of the country call for the 'unpopular' climate control debates to reignite.

4. Police are shooting and beating black men yet again and people are asking for criminal justice for the victims (again).

5. Etceteras.


As promised earlier, I am presently in the process of reading as many books about atheism and secularism as I can find to invest time in researching the past and present of stances and positions. 

This "opening" arrived because I see the Church (not all of it, but a sizable chunk) squandering their time in the political arena and on network church television (i.e. TBN) proclaiming that "Jesus is coming soon!" based on all the cultural liberties and freedoms people like me (black and homosexual or black or homosexual) are getting a taste of receiving and secularists who are winning through critical thinking, logic, and science. Yes, the pastors, preachers, and teachers on TBN are literally telling their congregations through their sermons and on-air teaching ministries that, "the end time is near" based on the liberties that historically suppressed people in our country are receiving, approving, and further gaining. 

As a believer, I can not stand for the Church-at-Large to misrepresent and demonize suppressed people and secularists by twisting and casting such people coming out from under church domination as the 'monsters' which will bring about the ruin of the church and this nation as conservatives know it!

Thus, in my opinion, these pastors, teachers, and preachers are deluded to believe that me and you (secularists are attacked right beside every other minority groups they rail against in their sermons on TBN -watch it sometimes when you can) are the cause of what they label the "downfall" of the nation, and if it is not delusion they are suffering from then it is outright manipulation of the many innocent, open, and honest people who have not clue how mass media manipulation works when a 'shepherd' is lying to his or her flock/s! The manipulation manifests as 'fear' of the 'Other.' 

Secularists and every other held-down minority is coming for conservative liberty and rights and even. . .the relived trope: "The Other are coming for your kids!"

What is interesting to me when I read written accounts from secularists writers about the faith of which I have been steadily apart of so long, I can only acknowledge this: 

If/when I look at the 'scheming" Church today, pointedly the Christian Right, what I actually discern is those writers have the Church dead to rights!  It is undeniable in many statements and conclusions these secular intellectuals put down. 

I can not and will not support a LYING church or its UNJUST doctrines and deliveries. 

The Christian Right is wrong to try to bring this nation back under its control through manipulation of outcomes and unfairly and lying to people whether it believes its lies are the way to heaven or not! Those who lie, cheat, and steal to keep other people 'captive' to their message or political whims don't deserve my respect, support, and definitely not my witness!

(This is a 'complicated' message for me to get across in a hurry. I am distracted by the need to write this now and a desire to get ready to see the republican debate. I hope my haste doe not dampen its message too much.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.13  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.4.12    10 months ago

I am getting ready to watch the debate too, but a key takeaway of your post is that you are as much a believer as ever but you recognize that organized religion is very human and not as spiritual as you would expect.    And that the unwise mix of politics+organized religion is bad for the nation ... yet it is proclaiming its (collective) views (and bigotry) as the way to make the nation 'right' again.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.14  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.13    10 months ago

I will acknowledge that the revelation that churches can be political and vulgar at it; agreeing to the loss of freedoms and inequality for those they see as less than themselves in their hierarchial society structure was 'life-changing' and still has me reeling if I am honest.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago

I don’t know why anyone would take this guy seriously.  He first voted for POTUS in 2004, with a throwaway vote because he didn’t like either mainstream candidate.  Then he didn’t vote again until 2020, but thinks he’s a reasonable choice to run the country now.  What an ass.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.5.1  devangelical  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.5    10 months ago

the GOP knows they can't run a racist autocrat in the prime spot on the ticket without some kind of token presence in the #2 spot.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.5.2  George  replied to  devangelical @2.5.1    10 months ago

You just described the democrat ticket without realizing it. LOL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

Then there is this from the left of center publication known as "Politico : "

T wo new polls of Republican primary voters released on Thursday showed former President Donald Trump in first place by a wide margin. But what was startling was who came in second.

The first shows Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his usual spot far behind Trump. The other shows 38-year-old first-time political candidate Vivek Ramaswamy edging out DeSantis for second place.

Ramaswamy's early rise represents the most significant movement in the still-nascent race for the GOP presidential nomination. Or does it?

There’s no question that Ramaswamy has come out of nowhere to become a surprisingly interesting candidate to the GOP electorate. But there are some methodological curiosities that raise questions about just where Ramaswamy fits within the tiers of Republican hopefuls below the dominant frontrunner.

Ascertaining Ramaswamy's true standing isn't just an academic exercise. The Republican National Committee says it will use polling to determine podium order at its first sanctioned debate later this month, so Ramaswamy will likely be at or near the center of the stage if Trump chooses not to participate.

Overall, polling averages put him in third place. In  RealClearPolitics' average , Ramaswamy is at 6.1 percent, behind only Trump (54.2 percent) and DeSantis (15.1 percent), but ahead of Mike Pence (5.2 percent), Nikki Haley (3.4 percent),  Tim Scott  (2.8 percent) and Chris Christie (2.6 percent).  FiveThirtyEight's polling average  shows Ramaswamy even higher, at 7.5 percent, 2 points clear of Pence for third.

The mystery of Vivek Ramaswamy’s rapid rise in the polls (msn.com)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

"August 23 Fox News Debate Candidates. President Trump has not confirmed he will participate."

F3rsalkawAAXVqX?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    10 months ago

the former 'president' will not participate much like the press conference where he would exonerate himself regarding Georgia

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    10 months ago

The article is about Vivek Ramaswamy and the simple truths he listed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    10 months ago

... unamerican truths.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    10 months ago

Bingo!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @4.1.2    10 months ago

Maybe South American 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     10 months ago

In Ramaswamy number 2 he states that there are only two genders, he is Hindu and the Hindus believe that there are three genders and the history of this goes back over 2,000 years, and are known as Hijars.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1  bugsy  replied to  Kavika @5    10 months ago
Hindus believe that there are three genders and the history of this goes back over 2,000 years, and are known as Hijars.

Maybe he believes in science and not religion.

You leftists should love him simply for that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @5.1    10 months ago
Maybe he believes in science and not religion.

That is his case!  Well said.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    10 months ago

Except his number 1 tenant is belief in god, which clearly means he believes.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    10 months ago

I'm thinking his has 8 arms...

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.4  Thomas  replied to  bugsy @5.1    10 months ago
Maybe he believes in science and not religion.

No, he doesn't believe in science. If he did, he would realize that most matters cannot be reduced to one line on a list.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.5  Thomas  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    10 months ago
Except his number 1 tenant is belief in god, which clearly means he believes.

Not to sound too jaded and cynical, but it probably just means that he realizes that the people he wants to vote for him think that. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.6  CB  replied to  Thomas @5.1.5    10 months ago

Vivek Ramaswany is using conservative think-tank 'tested words and phrases' and playing the political game that butts him up next to Donald Trump as far as he can rise. It's talking points theater and of course that's just what some conservatives are looking for in an actor portrayal. Thus, Ramaswamy is 'hitting all the right notes' as long as he sings from the MAGA playbook.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    10 months ago

Sure hope I will always think over believe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    10 months ago

Good point!

Can we say he put science first?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.9  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    10 months ago

That would be a definite "no".

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6  Greg Jones    10 months ago

Most normal people pretty much agree that there are only two genders. So I don't think his being a Hindu is relevant.

He's also a vegetarian

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @6    10 months ago
Most normal people pretty much agree that there are only two genders. So I don't think his being a Hindu is relevant.

So you're saying that the Hindus and many other peoples aren't normal because they believe that there are more than two genders? LMAO too funny. They might say the same about you not being normal..

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @6.1    10 months ago
So you're saying that the Hindus and many other peoples aren't normal because they believe that there are more than two genders?

And you think there are???????? Speaking of LMAO too funny.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.1    10 months ago

What a morainic comment, there are over a billion Hindus in the world so they are all in your opinion not normal...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @6.1    10 months ago
So you're saying that the Hindus and many other peoples aren't normal because they believe that there are more than two genders?

No, I think he is saying what Ramaswamy is saying. There are only two genders.


Google that!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    10 months ago
No, I think he is saying what Ramaswamy is saying. There are only two genders.

Hopefully, he can speak for himself and he did make a smart-ass comment about believing in three genders and Ramaswamy did say, as I stated that there are two genders but he is Hindu and they believe that there are three and there is a 2,000 history to it so someone is full of shit.

Goggle that!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @6.1    10 months ago
"So you're saying that the Hindus and many other peoples aren't normal because they believe that there are more than two genders? LMAO too funny. They might say the same about you not being normal.."

Nope, you're saying that, not me. And what proof do you have about what Hindus think about gender? Do you believe they all think alike?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.5    10 months ago
Do you believe they all think alike?

sedition supporting trumpsters sure seem to...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @6.1    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @6.1.4    10 months ago

You googled that he is Hindu, but the question remains: Is he a devout Hindu?

How many Catholics are in favor of abortion?



 so someone is full of shit.


Um-hum!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.12    10 months ago
How many Catholics are in favor of abortion?

all of those that have gotten one, will need to get one, or want the option to get one in the future. they know that all they have to do is confess and repent in their last breath, and poof, they're off the religious hook...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.14  CB  replied to  devangelical @6.1.13    10 months ago

Kinda shows the 'fraud' factor in it right on the 'packaging,' doesn't it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    10 months ago
what some might describe as a LGBTQ+ (they have put a lot of letters into that) activist approached him.

The female activist described herself as, get this: "pansexual."   Does that mean she sleeps with pans?  Or maybe she is addicted to food?

I fear there is no reasoning with people who go out of their way to be this ignorant and disrespectful.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @7    10 months ago
I fear there is no reasoning with people who go out of their way to be this ignorant and disrespectful.

there hasn't been for over 4+ decades, ever since they lost racism as a wedge issue 5+ decades ago...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @7.1    10 months ago

You mean when the left introduced race as the wedge issue?  That's when the Marxist realized that class warfare would never work in the US, better to divide the country with race.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @7    10 months ago
I fear there is no reasoning with people

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2    10 months ago
I fear there is no reasoning with people who let themselves get brainwashed.

Yeah, I’ve been brainwashed into being kind and respectful to people, even if they are strange to me. You know who taught me that? Jesus. What distresses me is that some of the angriest, meanest people in our society claim to be Christians. There’s no justification for the mocking I quoted except to be mean to someone who is different.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8  Nerm_L    10 months ago
1. God is real.
2. There are two genders.
3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.
4. Reverse racism is racism.
5. An open border is no border.
6. Parents determine the education of their children.
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.
8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.
9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.

Doesn't that sound like a list of MAGA priorities?  Including opposition to globalization and the neoliberal world order would pretty much complete the MAGA platform.

Why isn't this the beginning of a Republican party platform?  Why are the Republican elite so opposed to such a list?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nerm_L @8    10 months ago

1. God is real.

As real as leprechauns are, anyways.

2. There are two genders.

Hermaphrodites take note.

3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.

Human flourishing required fossil fuels to get where we are, not to get where we need to go without bringing about our own extinction.

4. Reverse racism is racism.

State and federal governments are awash with minority designations that allow women and minority owned firms a leg up on infrastructure contracts, thus allowing them to exist.  By all means though, run on a platform to wipe them off the map.

5. An open border is no border.

So a solid wall then?  Was a big hit in Germany.

6. Parents determine the education of their children.

When did parents lose the option to home school?

7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.

So says hopelessly dysfunctional families everywhere.

8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.

And relies on the fact that some people must lose for others to win, thus making social programs an absolute necessity.  Two things can be true at the same time, even when one of those truths is routinely suppressed.

9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.

And yet special interests lobbying is an overt path to accomplishing anything in government.

10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.

It is also treated as a hopelessly immutable document in an ever changing country that routinely becomes victim to technologies nobody could have ever anticipated when it was written.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1    10 months ago

Yes, the list won't appeal to liberals; particularly social liberal Democrats.  A Republican platform that incorporates such a list would be in stark contrast to the Democrat platform and would provide voters a viable real choice.  Of course Democrats would disparage that Republican platform because allowing voters any choice is unthinkable for modern permissive, feel-good, no-responsibility liberals.

1. God is real.

Atheism is not an excuse to avoid morality regardless of liberal belief. 

2. There are two genders.

Deviant sexual behavior and sexual perversion is not natural, normal, or healthy. 

3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.

Human activity is responsible for climate change; scapegoating oil companies won't change human activity. 

4. Reverse racism is racism.

Social liberals intentionally dividing society into small groups of arbitrary, contrived minority status does not justify bigotry.  Social liberals use minority status to divide and take power from people; it's a divide and conquer strategy.  

5. An open border is no border.

If the United States has no border then the United States must be policeman for the entire world since our borders extend everywhere.  An open border policy requires large military expenditures and never ending war.

6. Parents determine the education of their children. 
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.

Social liberals scapegoating children to avoid accountability for their own irresponsible and immoral behavior only weakens society.  Children are not responsible for the choices made by adults and the deviant behavior of adults.  Attempting to groom and indoctrinate children to avoid confronting irresponsible, immoral, and unacceptable choices made by social liberals will only give rise to a degenerate society.

8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.

Equal opportunity allows people more freedom than does equal outcome.  

9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four. 
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.

Replacing the Constitution with a capricious system of legal precedent will not provide any sort of national sense of purpose and will open the door for grift, graft, and corruption in government.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    10 months ago
Atheism is not an excuse to avoid morality regardless of liberal belief. 

Nice straw man.  Nobody said it was.  However, the party that purports to support morality via religious belief surely has no excuse for avoiding morality, but often does.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.2    10 months ago
Nice straw man.  Nobody said it was.  However, the party that purports to support morality via religious belief surely has no excuse for avoiding morality, but often does.

No one said anything about leprechauns, either.  

A common argument made by atheists is that Christians do not adhere to their own morality so atheists should not be bound by morality; it's an argument to refute morality in general.  Atheists, in part, utilize their disbelief in God as an excuse to be liberated from moral responsibilities and consequences.  Atheists do tend to blame societal problems on others for failing to adhere to their morality; it's not the fault of atheists.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.3    10 months ago

What a laughable bunch of horse shit.  Non-belief does not equate to immorality, by any stretch of the imagination.  Non-belief is the only thing all atheists have in common.  If religious belief how you define morality then society should rightfully be far more concerned about you than atheists.  Having a plank of your candidacy being “God is real” is no more supportable than “leprechauns are real”.  If God were real I’d be smited a thousand times over by now, not succeeding at life and living in a mansion while running my mouth about what kind of impotent and worthless figment of weak imaginations God is.  The rest of your refutations are equally myopic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.3    10 months ago
No one said anything about leprechauns, either.

That was a comparison, not a straw man.

A common argument made by atheists is that Christians do not adhere to their own morality so atheists should not be bound by morality;

Really?  Do you have any actual citations, or is this comment just displaying religious bigotry toward nonbelievers?

Imprisoned criminals are much less likely to be atheist than religious.  How are atheists less moral, again?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.5    10 months ago

Norm seems to think non-belief is an unequivocal insult to religious beliefs, and somehow doesn’t get that equating atheism with immorality is the textbook definition of bigotry.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.7  MonsterMash  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.4    10 months ago
If God were real I’d be smited a thousand times over by now, not succeeding at life and living in a mansion while running my mouth about what kind of impotent and worthless figment of weak imaginations God is.
For what good will it do a person if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.6    10 months ago

I don't know if he goes quite so far as to equate non-belief with an insult to his beliefs, but it seems he does take issue with nonbelievers expecting believers to walk the walk, or thinks they should just keep silent if they notice that some believers only talk the talk, but want to mandate the walk on others.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @8.1.7    10 months ago

You have proof of the existence of this "soul", and that it's forfeited by nonbelief?

Please present it for our persusal.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.10  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MonsterMash @8.1.7    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.8    10 months ago

Maybe, but I don’t know how else to interpret this:

A common argument made by atheists is that Christians do not adhere to their own morality so atheists should not be bound by morality; it's an argument to refute morality in general.

Regardless of the Christians are not moral part, he is implying that the common atheist is seeking an excuse to be immoral.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.11    10 months ago
he is implying that the common atheist is seeking an excuse to be immoral.

We are absolutely agreed on this point - this is blatant religious bigotry.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.13  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.10    10 months ago

As far as God goes, it is not so easy to doom a soul as that. Remember, God forgives murders even. Words/rhetoric is not the be-all that ends all (or many would be lost to God before they leave the official 'starting point' of their lives!

To be clear, atheists are correct in declaring that proof of the soul's existence is absent. The soul is a matter of faith/belief.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @8.1.13    10 months ago
To be clear, atheists are correct in declaring that proof of the soul's existence is absent.


Is this not proof enough of soul’s existence:

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.4    10 months ago
What a laughable bunch of horse shit.  Non-belief does not equate to immorality, by any stretch of the imagination.  Non-belief is the only thing all atheists have in common.  If religious belief how you define morality then society should rightfully be far more concerned about you than atheists.  Having a plank of your candidacy being “God is real” is no more supportable than “leprechauns are real”.  If God were real I’d be smited a thousand times over by now, not succeeding at life and living in a mansion while running my mouth about what kind of impotent and worthless figment of weak imaginations God is.  The rest of your refutations are equally myopic.

Your argument is that God is unreal.  Does that mean God's morality is unreal?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.15    10 months ago

The argument is that there is no evidence for your god, or any other.  Your god's morality allows for slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, and physical assault.  One need not believe in such a god to be moral. 

Stating that nonbelief in such a god equates to immorality is religious bigotry, and ironic in the extreme.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.5    10 months ago
That was a comparison, not a straw man.

And mine was a conclusion, not a straw man.

Really?  Do you have any actual citations, or is this comment just displaying religious bigotry toward nonbelievers? Imprisoned criminals are much less likely to be atheist than religious.  How are atheists less moral, again?

If God is not real then is God's morality real or unreal?  

The claim is that God created everything.  But refuting God as creator of the universe does not refute the reality of the stars, the sun, the earth, or humans.  How can refuting God as source of morality also refute the reality of that morality?

Use care citing criminals as an example since social liberals are attempting to transform criminals into victims.  Social liberals appear to be advocating a rather subjective morality that turns traditional universal morality on its head.  And social liberals are definitely not citing God as justification for ignoring criminal behavior.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.18  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.15    10 months ago

There are so many insanely stupid actions that the Bible defines as immoral that even you would no doubt be damned to eternity in hell.  As it turns out, your god really screwed the pooch when he inspired ancient goat herders to write down his immutable commands of humanity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.19  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.14    10 months ago

How could I not SUPPORT the 'soul' of the legendary "my man" Marvin Gaye. I so miss him.  My goodness, I am getting chills listening to this. My people. My people. My people!  We've gone through so much. 

Now I offer you the 'rebirth of Marvin':

October London - Make Me Wanna (Official Visualizer)

Add to your "Gaye" collectibles. The new 'guy' has come and we are going to love him too. Soul Singer—hey!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.17    10 months ago
And mine was a conclusion, not a straw man.

Bullshit, Nerm.  It was every bit as excellent an example of the dishonest straw man fallacy as your remarks about nonbelievers are of religious bigotry.  Congratulations on the consistency within your comments.  They are remarkable in their consistently negative qualities.

If God is not real then is God's morality real or unreal?  

Already answered @8.1.16.

Use care citing criminals as an example since social liberals are attempting to transform criminals into victims.

When social liberals start rewarding murderers instead of incarcerating them, you'll have a point.  For now, that is just another dishonest statement made to excuse the religious bigotry rampant in your comments, and also has nothing to do with the statistics regarding atheism and criminality.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.21  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @8.1.13    10 months ago

To be clear, atheists are correct in declaring that proof of the soul's existence is absent. The soul is a matter of faith/belief.

The existence of leprechauns is an equal matter of belief.  Actually, it’s even less problematic to want to believe in leprechauns, since one would not believe in leprechauns solely to receive something in return.  Belief in god is not only equally nonsensical, it is entirely self serving.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.16    10 months ago
Stating that nonbelief in such a god equates to immorality is religious bigotry, and ironic in the extreme.

What I said is atheists, in part, use disbelief as an excuse to avoid moral responsibilities and consequences.  I did not state that nonbelief equates to immorality; that's a false allegation by you.

Slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, and physical assault are very real with or without God.  Condemning God does not alter that reality, either.  Scapegoating God and believers does not provide a moral remedy for slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, and physical assault.  God and believers are simply being used to claim some sort of false moral superiority while avoiding moral responsibilities and consequences.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.23  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.21    10 months ago

So if the soul a matter of faith/belief or not? You can detach your answer from any farther bombast (if you want to. Do you want to)?  If not, then 'do you'!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.21    10 months ago

So do you think [deleted] was just pretending to get votes?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.22    10 months ago
What I said is atheists, in part, use disbelief as an excuse to avoid moral responsibilities and consequences.  I did not state that nonbelief equates to immorality;

A distinction without a difference.  It falsely assumes that atheists want to avoid moral responsibilities and consequences.  

Slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, and physical assault are very real with or without God.  Condemning God does not alter that reality, either.  Scapegoating God

Nerm, we don't actually believe your exists.  YOU are the one promoting his supposed morality, which not only allows, but condones all of those things.  That's not scapegoating your god; it's reading what you claim is his word.

And nobody is "scapegoating" believers, either, so there's another straw man.  The vast majority of Christians I know oppose all of those things.  They don't actually follow "god's morality".  They exceed it, as do most atheists, even without being scared into doing so.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.26  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.25    10 months ago

While I hesitate to fully accept that last paragraph of your 8.1.25, it does give one pause for strong consideration. Especially in light of the present political climate where Vivek is lying through his teeth when he tries to spin his dislike of homosexuals and it's "community" into something more platably labeled: "tyranny of the minority."

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.28  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @8.1.23    10 months ago

The concept of a soul need not have anything to do with religion whatsoever.  Just because organized religions have co-opted the concept does not mean that it could be a reality in its own right having nothing to do with some creator.  For all you know there are a zillion souls in the afterlife all still wondering why the hell they exist, because a god is as eternally absent in the afterlife as it is in this one.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.29  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.24    10 months ago

Obama is a Christian and I don’t care if anyone is a Christian.  Internally, being religious does not benefit anyone outside of the religionist themself.  Nobody benefits if Obama (or anyone else) is a Christian, the only perceived benefit is in relation to judgement of one’s self after death.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.30  GregTx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.29    10 months ago
Internally, being religious does not benefit anyone outside of the religionist themself.

Hmmmm?...

the only perceived benefit is in relation to judgement of one’s self after death.

So religious charities only benefit the donors after death in your opinion?.....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  GregTx @8.1.30    10 months ago

Exactly, it’s all the atheistic charities taking care of the migrants and operating food closets and homeless shelters.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.32  GregTx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.31    10 months ago

No doubt...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.29    10 months ago
Obama is a Christian and I don’t care if anyone is a Christian.

No, you just find him nonsensical and self-serving 8.2.1

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.29    10 months ago
lf.  Nobody benefits if Obama (or anyone else) is a Christian,

Yep, all those slaves freed by the movement  started by Christians like William Wilberforce sure didn't benefit.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.35  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  GregTx @8.1.30    10 months ago

Stop being obtuse.  I was not referencing organizations or pandering, I’m speaking of the most base reason why any individual would choose to believe in a god.  Your belief in god benefits nobody but you.  The reason you choose to believe has nothing to do with your morality, it is solely because of the baseless promises religion makes for those who believe, which is eternal salvation.  You can easily be just as moral of a person here on earth whether to believe in god or not.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.36  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.34    10 months ago

Pathetic.  That is a manmade condition, otherwise known as coercion.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.37  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.33    10 months ago

No, you just find him nonsensical and self-serving 8.2.1

I don’t hate the players, I hate the game.  My whole extended family are Christians.  Do you really think I find them (and every other religionist) all to be generally nonsensical and self serving?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.38  GregTx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.35    10 months ago
You can easily be just as moral of a person here on earth whether to believe in god or not.

I agree completely....

Your belief in god benefits nobody but you.  The reason you choose to believe has nothing to do with your morality, it is solely because of the baseless promises religion makes for those who believe, which is eternal salvation.

I disagree completely...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.39  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  GregTx @8.1.38    10 months ago

If I wake up tomorrow and claim to have seen the light and now believe in god, who could possibly benefit from that and how?  Before I moved to a different state I used to help my mother bag up groceries for the poor at her church, as an atheist.  Actually believing in god benefits nobody outside of yourself.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.40  GregTx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.39    10 months ago

So those poor people that received the groceries didn't benefit from that belief?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @8.1.40    10 months ago

Do you seriously think only believers practice charity?

The benefit is from the act of giving, not its motivation.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.42  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  GregTx @8.1.40    10 months ago

Those people weren’t required to believe in god to receive the charity.  My parents church was in the inner city and they were the only white people in the congregation.  The needy in that neighborhood were not exactly the height of morality.  The food goods themselves came from a secular food bank.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.43  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.41    10 months ago
Do you seriously think only believers practice charity?

No, not at all. Why do you ask that?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.44  GregTx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.42    10 months ago
Those people weren’t required to believe in god to receive the charity. 

Why should they be?

My parents church was in the inner city and they were the only white people in the congregation. The needy in that neighborhood were not exactly the height of morality

What does that mean?....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.37    10 months ago

I don’t know how to reconcile your different comments.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.46  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  GregTx @8.1.44    10 months ago

I’m still trying to figure out how you are connecting belief in god to benefits for anyone other than the believer.  Anyone can hand out food to the needy.  Religion doesn’t get to make this exclusive claim just because their adherents do it too.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @8.1.43    10 months ago
No, not at all. Why do you ask that?

Because you're not differentiating between belief and action.

Those groceries weren't any less beneficial because an atheist was bagging them, were they?  The benefit came from the action, not the belief.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.48  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.28    10 months ago

Is the soul a matter of faith/belief or not? (Yes or No?)

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.49  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.47    10 months ago

Did the Atheist or the Christian fuel the bagging up and distribution of groceries?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.50  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @8.1.49    10 months ago

Well, as Hal was there helping, both did.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.51  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.50    10 months ago

No doubt 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.52  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @8.1.48    10 months ago

Is the soul a matter of faith/belief or not? (Yes or No?)

Faith/belief in what?  God?  I already answered that and the answer is not necessarily.  You are trying to force religiosity to connect to the possibility of a soul.  The two are independent of one another.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.53  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.41    10 months ago
o you seriously think only believers practice charity?

Religious people give more to charity.

he benefit is from the act of giving, not its motivation

If religion is what motivated a person to give to charity, or do anything  beneficial for their fellow man, than  the person who received the charity benefited from someone's else belief. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.54  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  GregTx @8.1.51    10 months ago

Churches don’t come up with the food by themselves, they assist the food bank in distributing their supplies.  Any organization can assist.  This isn’t rocket science.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.54    10 months ago
 Any organization can assist.

But they don't. Churches do. And many people's belief is what inspires them to donate.

This isn't hard.  The problem is absolutist positions like "no one else benefits from someone's Christian's beliefs is its so easy to disprove. " 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.56  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.36    10 months ago
hat is a manmade condition, otherwise known as coercion.

Sure is.  It's effectively the natural state of mankind, which any study of the world's history will demonstrate.   And a lot of people were inspired by their Christian beliefs to put an end to it. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.57  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.55    10 months ago

The food bank is a secular organization.  The food comes from the food bank.  Without the food bank the church would useless to the needy.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.58  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.57    10 months ago

Some churches run their own.

Again, the idea that no one has benefited from charity inspired by religion is silly. It's just preposterous absolutism that is motivated by dogma rather than reality.  

Religion motivates some people's charity. I have no idea how this is even debatable. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.59  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.57    10 months ago

Most of the food banks in the very blue Fairfax County, VA are church run.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.53    10 months ago
Religious people give more to charity.

I'm sure every bit of giving done by atheists is reported, yes?

Actually, I'm quite sure it's not.  I, an atheist, frequently give through faith-based organizations.  Programs for homeless families, backpacks of food for kids to take home from school to make up for the fact that they don't have access to free school lunches on weekends or vacations.  I go grocery shopping for church food banks.  I volunteer several hours of my time each week to a secular charitable organization.  That giving that I do that passes through church hands gets reported by the church.  The fact that there's an atheist giving the supplies?  Not so much.  The time I donate doesn't get reported at all.

The fact of the  matter is that, since there aren't really many atheist organizations, but are many religious ones, you don't really know who's doing the giving.  It's reported by churches in their accounting.  The IRS might know if an individual gives, but won't have any idea of that person's religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Also, a lot of religious "charitable giving" goes to the church.  It's paying for new pews, not food for the needy.

It may not even be religious belief that inspires charity, even among believers.

Rather than religious beliefs, we found that the “secret ingredient” for charitable giving among religious Americans is the social networks formed within religious congregations. The more friends someone has within a religious congregation, the more likely that person is to give time, money, or both, to charitable causes. In fact, even non-religious people who have friends within a religious congregation (typically, because their spouse is a believer) are highly charitable—more so than strong believers who have few social ties within a congregation.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.55    10 months ago
But they don't.

That's just not true.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.56    10 months ago
And a lot of people were inspired by their Christian beliefs to put an end to it. 

Similarly, many used their Christian beliefs to justify it.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.63  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.60    10 months ago
Actually, I'm quite sure it's not. I, an atheist, frequently give through faith-based organizations. Programs for homeless families, backpacks of food for kids to take home from school to make up for the fact that they don't have access to free school lunches on weekends or vacations. I go grocery shopping for church food banks. I volunteer several hours of my time each week to a secular charitable organization. That giving that I do that passes through church hands gets reported by the church. The fact that there's an atheists giving the supplies? Not so much. The time I donate doesn't get reported at all.

You're a good person Sandy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @8.1.63    10 months ago

Thank you, but I wasn't fishing for compliments.  I'm illustrating that a lot of giving by atheists goes unreported and unacknowledged.  Hal's mom's church will take credit for donating to the food bank, but nobody will ever know Hal was helping with that.  Locally, one of those charities helping homeless families will take credit for giving that help, while one of the pastors organizing it will insult nonbelievers in his local newspaper column on a fairly regular basis, never knowing that his charity is receiving funds and supplies from atheists who practice his religion better than he does by turning the other cheek when he insults them.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
8.1.65  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.64    10 months ago

Yes, I know. I'm responding to the claim that only the individual with faith benefits from that belief. Ridiculous, right?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.66  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.52    10 months ago

The soul is a matter of faith/belief.  Hal, it was not a trick question, nor was it anything designed to support or promote religiosity to a soul, anybody on NT, or you. 

8.1.13  CB To be clear, atheists are correct in declaring that proof of the soul's existence is absent. The soul is a matter of faith/belief.

The statement was an agreement  or enhancement with what you wrote at 8.1.10. That is all I felt and meant by it. 

I think that because you know me to be a confessing Christian, you can't see me as not being religiously biased against your perspective. Well, I can be open and honest about a great many things the way I see them. I am not beholden to anybody on the planet or in the Heavens. I am especially these days: Just me and by beliefs which stand with what is right and against what is wrong.  Whatever/wherever that may be. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @8.1.65    10 months ago

I agree with Hal on that.  The recipients of charity benefit from the charity, not the belief.  Motivation to charitable acts does not require religion.  It requires decency, and decent people are decent people, whether or not they believe in some deity.

Faith without works is dead.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.68  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.54    10 months ago

Emphatically.

Churches get food donations from corporations as well. Some which are non-religious, and want to do right/good by people (and churches) when asked for their overstock/supplies.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.69  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.67    10 months ago

Well said. 

This is quite interesting and I am one to 'talk' about it.  As I frequent a set of food banks run by the county and by local area churches as of recently. Mind you, I don't need the food stuff (a lot of if is duplicated), but a female neighbor of mine got me interested in going to them when she asked me to take her to several of them and then started to ask me to go on her behalf when she could not due to disability. 

For my part, I go one week, miss one or two, go again. Or, go to different ones: Drive thru or in-house storages.  

Here's what my 'exercises' show me, for I am still formulating an opinion of what they do and how (far) they will let me go with it:

1. The government allows the county to run food banks. 

2. Churches give food out and one of the ones I frequent has a list of CORPORATE SPONSORS on its wall for all to see.

3. The Churches give out the food in their parking lots or adjacent building APART from any meeting, prayers, or other religious activity/opportunity.

4. No one has offered me any tract or overly religious statement for several visits now. It's just an issue of boxes or food and other amenities. 

Overall, I am experimenting with these offerings, because I want to see what the 'angle' is. So far, I can safely say that I have not uncovered any guile in the religious organizations distribution practices. In fact, like the county distribution - the churches just give the food and ask nothing other than:

How many are in the family?

In fact, the churches  (two of them) don't even ask or know that I am a Christian/believer. I have not volunteered the information. (One kind lady who routinely hands out meat/s at one church told me she likes my 'eye' smile-as I still wear a mask indoors.)  

I am beginning to notice the pattern in the foodstuffs that is handed out so I don't go too much; my 'probe' of the system is waning a bit. 

It's good clean food!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.70  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.37    10 months ago

I find religionists to be foolish at best

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.71  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @8.1.70    10 months ago

low hanging fruit...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.72  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.11    10 months ago

This atheist has always tried to do good for the sake of doing good.

I've never been in some sort of competition with believers.

It does seem, though, that some pious folk are majorly evil SOBs.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.73  CB  replied to  cjcold @8.1.72    10 months ago

Sadly, (some) Christians can be jerks to the nth degree. I see it and experience it even while living in the 'space.' 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.1.74  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.16    10 months ago

Seems what may be missing here is maybe that the God of Christianity and other creeds if one accepts the existence of such,  allows for freedom of choice to make mistakes and do terrible deeds with the expectation that those people that do will ultimately pay the price for it one way or the other now or on judgement day. Just food for thought.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.75  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1.74    10 months ago

So, God commands rape, genocide, etc., but will punish those who engage in such acts?  Read your Bible, Ed.  Such acts weren't bugs in the OT. They were features.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.76  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.75    10 months ago

I'm sure that you know your Bible better than an atheist like me, but where is rape commanded?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.1.77  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.75    10 months ago

Where did I ever say the things you said I did? I did not. All I did was offer a alternative viewpoint. I also never said I agree or accept it. Not my problem if you do not like it so, with all respect, please do not attribute to me things I did not say. Have a good evening.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.78  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1.77    10 months ago

Let's recap, shall we?  I said:

Your god's morality allows for slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, and physical assault.

You responded:

Seems what may be missing here is maybe that the God of Christianity and other creeds if one accepts the existence of such,  allows for freedom of choice to make mistakes and do terrible deeds with the expectation that those people that do will ultimately pay the price for it one way or the other now or on judgement day.

Slavery, genocide, etc., are all terrible deeds, wouldn't you agree?  I hope you would.

They are all, at some time or other, either condoned or outright commanded in the Bible.  You're suggesting perhaps God allows them to happen, but will punish the perpetrators.  The thing is, will God punish one for doing terrible deeds at God's own request?

Tricky, tricky.

It's almost like warlike people made up a God who liked all the things they liked when they liked them (Hebrews owning slaves, for instance), and disliked all the things they disliked when they disliked them (Hebrews being slaves in Egypt).

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.79  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.78    10 months ago
They are all, at some time or other, either condoned or outright commanded in the Bible.  You're suggesting perhaps God allows them to happen, but will punish the perpetrators.  The thing is, will God punish one for doing terrible deeds at God's own request?

Why do you think condoned or commanded?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.80  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @8.1.72    10 months ago

I call them phonier than thou small c christians

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
9  Wishful_thinkin    10 months ago

It's just tyranny of the minority in your minds because they won't go back in the closet to make you people comfortable.  LGBTQ people exist, are citizens and pay taxes so get the fuck over your persecution complex.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @9    10 months ago

Read the article and stop pretending that anyone is being persecuted. Stop telling the rest of us what to do.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    10 months ago

that's rich...

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
9.1.2  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    10 months ago

This coming from someone who wants LGBTQ people to go back in the closet.  On behalf of all of us in the community, NO! You can stop trying to tell us what to do, and you can all stop calling our community groomers and pedophiles. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.3  CB  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @9.1.2    10 months ago

Well said!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @9.1.2    10 months ago
This coming from someone who wants LGBTQ people to go back in the closet

Show us where he said that.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
9.1.6  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  bugsy @9.1.4    10 months ago

First who do you mean by "he" since there are multiple he's here. Second, conservatives have proven over and over again by their word and actions  that they wish LGBTQ people would go back in the closet. I'm telling you that it's not going to happen, ever. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @9.1.6    10 months ago
First who do you mean by "he"

Um.....the person you responded to and made accusations against.

Did you forget you did that?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @9.1.7    10 months ago
For all I know your parents might just be very nice people.

For all you know covers a lot of ground, cj.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @9.1.6    10 months ago

Some folks just live to defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
9.1.11  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  bugsy @9.1.8    10 months ago

Um...the article is about a "he" and the person I was replying to is a "he" so maybe you should have clarified who "he" meant in the first place. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
9.1.12  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    10 months ago
Stop telling the rest of us what to do.

Please, Richard. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    10 months ago

I know there's a good reason I keep some people on ignore.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB    10 months ago
Republican Presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy struck a chord with primary voters a few days ago when he gave an opinion that I think many Republicans share. While at the Iowa State Fair, what some might describe as a LGBTQ+ (they have put a lot of letters into that) activist approached him.

The female activist described herself as, get this:"pansexual."  Does that mean she sleeps with pans?  Or maybe she is addicted to food?  At any rate she asked him what he thought about same-sex couples.

What kind of dumb question is this? Does the writer make a shallow attempt at a joke or just is too lazy to research what pansexuality is? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11  CB    10 months ago
I don’t have a negative view of same-sex couples, but I do have a negative view of a tyranny of the minority,” he said. “So I think that in the name of protecting against the tyranny of the majority, and there are times in this country’s history where we have had a tyranny of the majority, we have now in the name of protecting against tyranny of the majority created a new tyranny of the minority.

Vivek is lying, plain and simple. Using tested political speak to deny citizen's of this country their positive rights and privileges is deceptive and obviously wrong! "Tyranny of the minority" - what a joke coming from this 'fool.'  I, we, won't be playing this game with him. Vivek Ramaswammy- because you're willing to play games with the lives and rights of other citizens, you're trash in my book!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.1  cjcold  replied to  CB @11    10 months ago
same-sex couples

Have known same sex couples who were toxic. 

They hated everything about each other.

They hated that that was all they had.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.1  CB  replied to  cjcold @11.1    10 months ago

Yes, same-sex couples can have toxic relationships too; it's human to have some relationships teeter or fail. I guess that is what you mean. :)

They hated that that was all they had. 

Please elaborate, if appropriate. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.1.2  cjcold  replied to  CB @11.1.1    10 months ago

Limited choice in a small pool of candidates. Only one thing in common.

Have known folk in a small gay community and those are their words.

Am far from an expert but do seem to notice promiscuity in gay relationships.

Probably why AIDS and STDs spread so fast in the gay community.

I'm not a homophobic but as a paramedic, do notice medical trends.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.3  CB  replied to  cjcold @11.1.2    10 months ago

Cjcold, I am glad you broached this subset to a comment about the tyranny of a minority. Why? Because I am sure it is in the back of the minds of many conservatives, especially MAGA, and ordinary heterosexual people too. 

The fact is homosexuals as a group (exceptions break the rule of course) had nothing in this world for so long under law but hostility, alienation, terror, and governmental oversight—OK, oppression. We had nothing that open society wanted us to have, but sex. And the only reason we had sex to ourselves is because well, heterosexuals did not value what we 'do' with each other.  Thus, we had our sex all to ourselves and no guides or 'advanced' books to tell us how to be properly intimate between each other in a heterosexual pervasive and built up country—world.

As a result, men driven into each others arms out into the 'wilderness' (bushes) of this nation did what came natural to them between themselves as a form of acceptance-we formed a subculture. Why? Because we wanted to live in some form or fashion and what you see and experience as homosexual culture- Ok, "gay" culture is what evolved between men on men locked out of society. 

At this point, I would ask you to consider who caused this subculture of men on men who could have no other way to express love except as promiscuous to come to be? 

It was the church, the temple, the mosque, and world religions' pervasive touch and control over the minds of men 'everywhere.'  Teaching that the proper way to live sexuality is heterosexual and denying us entry into mainstream society.

Same sex marriage came into being in 2015 in this country. Up to that time, I grew up in a world where I as REJECTED for who I was, until and unless I found a "gay community" to immerse myself in-a subculture-where raw sexual experiences were the 'calling card' - hell, it was all you could be about! As everything else was taken from us as a group.

So what am I saying? As a black homosexual man, much about the history of the homosexual experience in the United States, reminds me of what has happened to black people as a group in the United States. In that, some who have always had the right and privilege to have centuries old 'holy matrimony,' look at Black Americans and wonder why today the black family can't hold itself together as a nuclear family. It has to do with all the unfortunate history of Blacks and learning to live outside of the nuclear family. (It will take "generations" to evolve to where the greater number of Blacks will live as do other groups, for that reason). 

Similar to the above with Blacks, homosexuals in order to survive/exist of the periphery of life, learned some strange 'rules of the sexual road' such that when in 2015 heterosexuals CONSENTED to let us marry each other, mind you, heterosexuals had to put their stamp on our marriages after centuries of rejecting it. . . . (same sex marriage is not even 10 years old yet at-known a single generation 'removed' and some conservatives are attempting to end it/suppress us already) we did not all rush out to do so. . . .

. . .the old ways and the old problems will be way of life in this life and we will just have to hope and trust that the younger folks in the community can do better in their generation/s and in furtherance of the community. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.1.4  cjcold  replied to  CB @11.1.3    10 months ago

Grew up in a small red-neck town as a long-haired hippy musician.

In the 60s I was the closest thing they had to call a fuckin fag.

Was strictly hetero but that didn't matter to the local fascists.

Had to study the martial arts and get famous before they stopped.

By my late teens was dating beautiful ladies and making millions. 

Now every country star and football player has hair like I did back then.

Hope the worm has turned for you as well my friend.

P.S.  My hair is now longer than it ever was back in the day.

         The CSNY song 'Almost Cut My Hair' runs through my head                                   every time I think about whacking it off these days.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.5  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @11.1.4    10 months ago

I remember when flying the freak flag actually meant something...

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
11.2  Thomas  replied to  CB @11    10 months ago

It's like the shell game, only using words.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.2.1  CB  replied to  Thomas @11.2    10 months ago

MAGA conservative think-tanks pride themselves on how innocuously well their purveyors can 'bake' racist, sexist, homophobic, and gender-negative rhetoric into demeaning and damaging policy statements.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @11.2.1    10 months ago

funny stuff!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    10 months ago
“And so, I think a lot of the frustration in the country, and if I’m being really honest that I also share, comes from that new culture of oppression where saying those things can actually get somebody punished. And in my case, it’s part of why it’s my responsibility to say them, and I respect that you have a different opinion. And that’s OK. Part of what makes our country great is that you and I can be civil and have this conversation and that we live in a country that still gives us, each of us, the right to speak to a presidential candidate and back and still say that we pledge allegiance to the same nation. So, I think that’s the beauty of our country. And that’s my honest opinion.”

Mealy-mouthed comment. Vivek Ramaswammy can have his rights and privileges without 'bothering' or 'knocking' those who have an interest in a different set of rights and privileges, yet he is using this phrasing: "New culture of oppression" to signify that somehow "minorities" will be oppressing conservatives and heterosexuals, thus he can not tolerate or 'afford' them to have freedoms and liberties such as are equal to his own.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @12    10 months ago
thus he can not tolerate or 'afford' them to have freedoms and liberties such as are equal to his own.

Not quite accurate.

Thomas Sowell may have said it best:

F4DtnbAWAAAN_UE?format=jpg&name=900x900

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.1  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1    10 months ago

Thomas Sowell, actually I don't know much about. But that you choose to quote him speaks volumes about why I should question anything concise and tightly posted by him!  As fellow conservatives, he and you, I am pretty sure he has crossed the most 'distance' to get your 'approval.' You, from reading your positions, I don't feel moved in his direction at all.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @12.1.1    10 months ago
Thomas Sowell, actually I don't know much about.

He is a true intellectual.


As fellow conservatives, he and you, I am pretty sure he has crossed the most 'distance' to get your 'approval.' You, from reading your positions, I don't feel moved in his direction at all.

I can't believe anyone hasn't heard of him.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.2    10 months ago
He is a true intellectual.

Yes, he is.

I just watched one of his interviews being critiqued by young black men.  I found Sowell's interview very interesting, and really enjoyed the young men's discussion about today's black culture and the impact of white liberals.

 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
12.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.2    10 months ago

Sowell is a conservative-libertarian. A Koch at heart.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.5  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.2    10 months ago

I didn't suggest he was not an intellectual. Nor did I imply that I have not heard of him. I stated I don't know much about him.  Oh, by the way, there are plenty of conservative intellectuals that I read and disagree with-including Clarence Thomas, a supreme court justice, Tavis Smiley, and Alan Keyes to start (not finish) the list. I bet you have quite a listing of Black liberal intellectual you feel similarly towards conversely!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.6  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.3    10 months ago

I watched the video, and I am curious. . .as they explored a great many issues. . .what is your #1 takeaway and perhaps (depending on if it can be accepted as on topic here) we can address that area of interest/ with 'talk.'  BTW, I mean it for real. One caveat: this is not the topic of this article. It would be good to have as an article, however. I won't make it an article as my article's don't get frequented as well as I would like. 

My #1 takeaway would be to try to understand why Sowell (his part in the video) and the interviewer thought to cast aspersion by using the term: "race hustler." It's, the phrase, signified their political persuasion more often than not in the inter-video segment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.3    10 months ago

Thank you for that.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.8  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.6    10 months ago
.what is your #1 takeaway

People have differing opinions depending on so many different factors that it is best to ask them directly the factors that shaped their opinions.

So in that context, I don't know how my life experiences could even allow me to make an educated guess on Sowell's viewpoints.

When I talk about religion & the societies I have lived in, I try to give enough information about the negatives and positives that have shaped my views.

If you want to understand Sowell's viewpoints then read his books and watch his interviews.  If you still have questions, then I don't know anyone to recommend that is an authority on Sowell.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.9  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.7    10 months ago
Thank you for that.

You are welcome.

A few years ago, I had watched some Sowell interviews, but had forgotten about them.  So I searched youtube and was pleasantly surprised to discover young men watching his videos and discussing them and thought it appropriate to share here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.10  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.8    10 months ago

Well,. . . thank you anyway.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.9    10 months ago

One of my favorites and still relevant to this very day:

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.12  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.11    10 months ago

In the farming community, where I grew up, the only people who had a college degree were bankers, doctors, dentists and schoolteachers.  

These days, thanks to the Wal-Mart headquarters, the farming community has been replaced with sub-divisions filled with college educated people.  Very few people without college degrees can afford to live there.  The Bentonville School District is proposing to buy land and build housing for teachers because without a large salary increase even teachers cannot afford to live in the Bentonville Arkansas School District.

Education and prosperity are wonderful, but NW Arkansas needs people without college degrees to do menial, low-paying jobs also.  As does every other city in the US.  

So while I agree that everyone should have opportunities to fulfill their potential, but our nation really needs those dock workers, truck drivers, and floor sweepers.  Those workers cannot be expected to live in poverty, can they?  On the other hand, will our economy bear a $25 minimum wage?

Bentonville, other school districts ponder housing issue for teachers, staff (arkansasonline.com)

BENTONVILLE -- The Bentonville School District is floating the idea of donating some of its land to build affordable housing for school employees and possibly others in the community.

The matter is on the agenda for discussion at the School Board's meeting Monday. The board won't vote on the proposal.

"What we've accepted is that thinking about housing for staff traditionally hasn't been a responsibility of the district," Superintendent Debbie Jones said. "Maybe it's not. But it's something that we're forced to think about now because the one thing we do have to be responsible for is supplying the highest quality staff we can. You can't hire people -- and get people to live here -- if they don't have a space to live. We're taking a greater interest in that."

Northwest Arkansas' robust economy created a vibrant housing market.

And it's been too expensive for some district hires who had to reverse course after seeing the cost, Jones said.

"We personally started experiencing this when hiring for the '22 school year," Jones said. "We had people accept jobs within the district, and then they turned around and started looking for housing and realized that they couldn't afford to live here. And they resigned from that position. So, we now make it a practice, as we're interviewing and hiring for positions, that we say, 'Have you looked at the housing here? Do you know where you want to live? Do you have a plan?'"

Bentonville isn't alone.

The Springdale School Board voted earlier this month to purchase a house for $200,000 on the edge of Springdale High School's campus. The couple living there is moving out, Springdale Superintendent Jared Cleveland said at the time, and the district will provide an opportunity for a staff member searching for a home to live there.

"We are trying to find a solution for a difficult problem," Cleveland said.

Every superintendent -- especially those of the region's four largest districts, Bentonville, Fayetteville, Rogers and Springdale -- has discussed not being able to help provide appropriate housing, especially for younger people, he said.

"Hiring people from the university, typically, they already have housing," Cleveland said. "But attracting people from outside of the region is a real challenge. When you add those kinds of stresses to incoming employees, that's also a burden on the district because we feel for them. We care about them. They're part of our family."

A thriving community with a good quality of life helps school districts, Rogers Superintendent Jeff Perry said, noting that prosperity brings more students and a solid tax base. But there are growing pains, he said.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.12    10 months ago

$25 an hour may not be too far off.

Someone needs to pay off those college loans!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.14  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.13    10 months ago

I don't know the national real estate market, but I am thinking it may take $25 an hour minimum to pay rent, utilities and buy groceries or risk creating more slums and homelessness.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.14    10 months ago

Well, right now very few non-rich people can afford to buy homes in much of the country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.12    10 months ago

Education and prosperity are wonderful, but NW Arkansas needs people without college degrees to do menial, low-paying jobs also.  As does every other city in the US.  

I think you know what the Biden plan is to fill those jobs is, right?

Here in MA some brag about punishing those without a degree.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.17  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.16    10 months ago
I think you know what the Biden plan is to fill those jobs is, right?

Open borders and legal right to work.  Same thing that has been going on for decades so most of the border crossers have a "sponsor" waiting for them somewhere in the US.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.18  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.6    10 months ago

Below is a video that was released today about how the programming of victimhood is dangerous and detrimental to the children/adults who fall into that mentality.

We are a product of nature and nuture.  

I don't believe anyone has the last word on this topic, but you also mentioned the societal programming done by conservatives - this topic is addressed in this video also.

I am hoping that this video answers at least some of your questions even if it raises other ones (as I feel it should as the more I learn the more I have questions).  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.19  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.18    10 months ago

Interesting. But mocowgirl, I am not at all sure what this has to do with me, teachers, or students. . . who are the narcissists in play in our discussion that I should relate this video?

Also, I want to understand your thinking to share 30 minutes and  1 hour plus videos with me, and when asked to comment on the materials in the packages the return is, forgive me, hollow or a lack of further interest.  Do realize that I take time out of whatever I am doing to listen to these videos, but without understanding how they fit into the discussions very little may be gained.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.20  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.19    10 months ago

Programming children to have a victim mentality is detrimental to their success in life.

That is part of what I gleaned from Sowell's viewpoints, and they are backed up by even contemporarily research which was discussed in the video I shared.

Who are the narcissists in Sowell's discussion?  The people who feel that other people owe them star status attention, respect, or money because they have a victim mentality or the people who are gaining status by teaching other people that they are a victim. 

I will agree that Vaknin's videos can be difficult to follow without a background in human psychology.  In in the last 4 years, I have watched probably thousands of hours of videos on human psychology and biology.  I don't know how much of it I understand fully, but I understand enough that our government should not be allowing adults who are sadists, narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths to have access to program children's minds and bodies. 

Any books dealing with sexuality should be scientifically peer-reviewed before placing in school libraries or classrooms.  Porn, in any form should not be allowed.  Kids can find enough of that on their phones and computers.  It is up to their parents to police, or not, that area of their lives.

The people, pushing to introduce inappropriate images/literature into schools, are not doing it to benefit the lives of the children.  There is a reason we have rating systems for movies and video games.  These are not images that children should be exposed to.  

Why aren't we teaching 1st graders calculus?  The same reason we don't teach them sex education.  Their minds are not ready for the concepts.

There is not an age that anyone should be taught victimhood.

Are children who act in R-rated movies allowed to watch the film when it’s done? | Culture Online - UCL – University College London

Are children who act in R-rated movies allowed to watch the film when it’s done?

Many thanks for this, what a great question! And as with most great questions, the answer is far from simple.

8 March 2022

First off, it’s important to note that the rating system is advisory, which means that it provides helpful guidelines for parents, guardians, and distribution companies, for instance, but it is not illegal for someone who is underage to watch this type of content. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) clearly states that this is to do with child welfare; the system is meant ‘to help children and families choose what’s right for them and avoid what’s not’.

So, they look at things such as strong language, graphic violence, nudity, etc and decide if it would be okay to expose young viewers to such content. Technically, then, children could be allowed to watch R rated films in a theatre, provided they are accompanied by an adult, but it is imperative to note that this could affect the child’s development, for example (there is a reason why these guidelines exist!). At home, it remains at the discretion of a parental figure. But the issue is even more complex than this, not the least because the rating system varies greatly between different countries. For instance, the same film may be rated R here in the UK and PG-13 in the US. It is therefore somewhat subjective. 

To sum up, it may appear rather puzzling, but children (and any underage actor) who act in R-rated productions should not watch the film when it’s done. They should abide by the same regulatory system as the rest of the population to ensure their own wellbeing.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.21  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.20    10 months ago

All I can say to this is okay. And furthermore, I don't see how you derive narcissism and victimhood as a consequence of victimhood. You would have to be more clear—or blunt.

As for the well-being of kids watching something that is permitted in public, keep in mind:

1. Kissing is not pornography.

2. Men, women, boys, or girls dressed in attire associated with erotica means something to adults, it may not mean the same to a kid (who are not of age to be sexually-driven). 

I wouldn't do it, but I don't wear garters, chaps (at all), or leather (bondage gear) alone or with anyone else. Therefore, I don't know what these people are doing and hoping to gain from it. 

It may be good to try to read about it/hear one or several of them (S & M types) address what they aspire to achieve through writing children's books expressing that form of love. 


Are you hinting at "race hustlers" which was mentioned in the student "chat" you posted?  Because appearances can be deceiving. For example: Al Sharpton has dedicated his life to helping victims. . . that is proven out through litigation that provides support and solutions for the problem areas his 'network' finds and works to resolve. And we all should be able to see in a country in some ways striving to fall (back) into oligarchy (hierarchical rule by the rich) instead of republic control, many more inequities will return when/if it does happen.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.22  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.21    10 months ago

"Love" does not and should not involve causing physical and/or mental pain to others.  If a person is a sadist, odds are they are a narcissist.  I have read that only a masochist could love a narcissist.  Possibly, but I wouldn't call it loving a narcissist, I would call it self-loathing on the part of the masochist.  

People, who do some consensual role play, that does not involve bruises and blood-letting - fine, wonderful healthy.  Any coercion, it is not healthy at all.

People's fantasies are something that might terrify them if any of it happened.  A person controls what happens in their fantasy.  A popular fantasy is the "rape" fantasy.  I have my doubts that anyone really wants to be raped.

I am not going to detail my consensual and non-consensual sex experience on a website.  I have had enough experience to wonder about what made the difference between the thoughtful lovers and the "wham bam, thank you ma'am, wasn't I wonderful" men who expected a standing ovation and possibly a parade in their honor.  The difference was emotional maturity and emotional stability.  The men, who love women, really love women.  The others are just not wired to do anything but spread their sperm to anything that will house it.

I don't hint at anything.  Sowell discussed his opinion on the winners and losers of what he termed as "race hustlers". 

I stated plainly why I watch videos to learn about issues from differing perspectives in the US and throughout the world. 

That is where the nature/nuture aspect is important to understand.  People raised in the same neighborhood and going to the same schools have very different outcomes despite them having the same opportunities from a young age.  This is where parents, or lack thereof, has a role, but is certainly not the deciding factor.  Orphans, abused children, and impoverished children succeed where children who appeared to have more financial and emotional support don't.  I watch videos and read news and research articles to try to understand where society can make a difference in childhood development.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.23  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.22    10 months ago

Back to Granddad's Pride (briefly): 

BBC
Grandad's Pride publisher defends kids' book showing man in leathers
Kevin Shoesmith - BBC News
Thu, August 24, 2023 at 8:06 AM PDT·2 min read  

Claims of "hidden messages" in a children's book depicting a grandad wearing leathers for Pride are "deeply offensive", its publisher has said.

Andersen Press has defended Grandad's Pride after Genesis Pre-School in Hull decided to remove it from its shelves.

The publisher said the company, along with author Harry Woodgate and the school, had all been subjected to hate.

It accused some who had commented online of "stoking hatred" and said it stood by Woodgate.

'Doctored imagery'

In a statement, Andersen Press said: "There has been a lot of hate spread online about this book since these stories came out, directed at Harry Woodgate, Andersen Press and Genesis Nursery.

"Many of those spreading this vitriol are using doctored imagery and illustrations that are not present in the UK version of the book, further stoking hatred all in the name of culture wars.

"Grandad's Pride faithfully depicts Pride parades from the past and present, many of which are attended by children. We consider accusations of 'hidden messages' to be baseless, deeply offensive and homophobic."

Grandad's Pride is about a man's memories of attending Pride events and was produced to help teach children as young as four about healthy relationships and the LGBT+ community.

Hull parent Will Taylor said he pulled his daughter out of the school over the book, which he said depicted a man wearing "leather fetish gear".

The pre-school's chair of trustees agreed the book was not age appropriate and ordered its removal.

Andersen Press previously said images were discussed during its "stringent and robust" editorial process, adding it was a true representation of what a Pride march looked like and what many children who attended such events would see.


GRANDAD'S PRIDE.

This book does not contain illustrations show in the image at comment 18.1 ! Who did that? Who doctored the book in the U.S? Is this a new scandal?!

What the heck is going on here? How is this possible?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.24  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.23    10 months ago
This book does not contain illustrations show in the image at comment 18.1 ! Who did that? Who doctored the book in the U.S? Is this a new scandal?! What the heck is going on here? How is this possible?

Don't know.  With today's technology, the culprit should be found.

However, the book was objected to in England and pulled from the school in England without the bondage images.  It will be the same in a lot of areas of the US.

Fundamental Christians will probably continue to believe sodomy is a sin until someone revises their holy book and Yahweh rescinds his command to go forth and multiply.  As long as they obey secular law and stay in their lane is about the best anyone can hope for.  Currently, they have their hands full trying to control women's breeding on one hand and protect women's bathrooms and sports from men on the other hand.

People, who are not Fundamental Christians, should be in the majority in the US.  But that doesn't mean that they want to explain sex to their pre-teens.  Some will and some won't. 

I would have fought tooth and nail from having the grade schoolteachers in my area teach sex education to children.  Without having a liberal-minded enforcer on hand, my children would have been taught the Fundamental Christian version of every thou shall not that is possible to create.   The school, my kids attended, was only finally forced to quit having public prayer at football games a few years ago. 

Because I am an atheist, I avoid having anything except superficial conversations with anyone in my area.  I would be far more accepted if I was a lesbian than being an atheist.  I don't like living a lie, nor can I pretend to agree with someone to make them like me or accept me because they wouldn't be liking or accepting me, they would be accepting a facade.  Maybe, in 20 to 50 years, these Christian folk will understand what an atheist is, but I doubt it.  There are atheist support groups forming in rural communities and I thought of joining one just to have someone that would not think I'm a sinner deserving of and bound for Hell.  I don't envision a day that atheists will be pushing books in schools on accepting atheism or marching in parades to celebrate atheism.

This is why I research to understand just how far it is possible for people to evolve their thinking.  The people (largely female) with empathy are at the bottom of the social heap trying to survive and put out all of the fires caused by all of the people (largely male) trying to climb to the top of the food chain.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.25  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.24    10 months ago

I want to show you something (deceptive):

_130877891_pride1a.jpg

and compare it to:

original

From the video at 8.1 .

And in the video I added to this discussion of the book being read aloud, the entirety of either of these two scenes is absent.  Observe the MANY subtle differences that make all the difference in the world between the two images.  Even the images are ReSIzed!!!

Moreover, do you see the "CREDIT: Harry Woodgate" stamp? Mr. Woodgate is the author of the book and its series. Who misappropriated his name on their 'work'?

What the "hell" is going on here?!!!  Doctored, indeed!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.26  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.25    10 months ago

I really don't care if the images were doctored or not.  I do care about protecting children from inappropriate images whether it is in books, movies, or games.  This is why we have ratings systems.  

It is not appropriate to even have these books in grade school classrooms or libraries.  Children are not mini-adults and should not be treated as such.  Parents should be the initiators of teaching their children about sex as their children shows interest in it and asks questions.  The children do not and should not belong to the government.

Children should be watching Sesame Street instead of Deadwood.  Anyone who would allow their children exposure to the world of sexual sadism/masochism should not have children.  

Sexual sadism/masochism psychology, necrophilia, bestiality, and fetishes should not be high school classroom topics any more than watching and reviewing porn.

Who is pushing the agenda to sexualize children?  Who benefits from it and how?  

The world already has enough issues with men who have zero boundaries with other adults.  There is no justification to allow them access to children's minds.

Spanish FA chief Luis Rubiales is SUSPENDED hours after he threatened to sue footballer Jenni Hermoso over World Cup kiss 'lies' in extraordinary statement | Daily Mail Online

Hermoso, 33, said through the Spanish players' union FUTPRO that she 'felt vulnerable and a victim of an  impulse-driven, sexist, out of place act ' after Rubiales kissed her following Spain's 1-0 victory over England on Sunday. 

This statement was signed by 56 players, who have refused to play until Rubiales is sacked. 

Rubiales had claimed he asked permission to kiss Hermoso, who was said to have responded to say he could give her 'a little peck'. 

'I want to clarify that, as seen in the images, at no time did I consent to the kiss he gave me and of course in no case did I seek to raise the president. I do not tolerate that my word is questioned, much less that words are invented that I have not said,' Hermoso said. 
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.27  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.26    10 months ago
The children do not and should not belong to the government.

How many teachers a year are arrested for raping children?  These are the type of people that seek professions where they have authority over children so they have "legal" access to their minds and bodies.

Female 'teacher of the month' Casey McGrath charged with 'raping student at Chattanooga high school' with cops saying the 28-year-old is 'at least 10 years older than the victim' | Daily Mail Online

A   Tennessee   teacher, previously named 'teacher of the month' has been arrested and charged with the aggravated statutory rape of a student. 

Casey McGrath, 28, was arrested by local police in Hamilton County last Friday after being suspended in March while investigators looked into claims that she had 'inappropriate physical contact with a student' at Central High School. 

The August 14 indictment against McGrath states she engaged in sexual activity with someone between the ages of 13 and 18 on May 1st, 2022.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.28  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.26    10 months ago

The doctored aspect is a crime against the book author and the book readers!  We can't use a 'perfectly good author and a good story' to make some (larger) point about sadism and fetishes that the book does not invoke. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1.29  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @12.1.28    10 months ago
We can't use a 'perfectly good author and a good story' to make some (larger) point about sadism and fetishes that the book does not invoke. 

There is an image of a man in BDSM gear in the book.  It is not age appropriate.

I just watched a woman defend the book on The Saturday Five on gb news.  The debate about this book begins around the 50-minute mark.  There is a homosexual man on the panel.  You might find this debate worthwhile or not.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.30  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @12.1.29    10 months ago

Comment 12.1.23 at 53 seconds into the video (thanks to your assist with another video) I have finally located the controversial image. It is rather small with a big impact! I don't agree with it being there. That said, my understanding is kids are taken to Pride parades and 'stuff' like this is similar (is not lighter than) what they 'ingest' through their eyes. The image is being exploited all the same by purists, for that reason. 

Thus, it is what it is. 

The question becomes this: Even though pride parades show off a bit or alot of debauchery conduct, is it appropriate to memorialize certain aspects of 'kinky' behavior in a child's book. 

The all around answer: No, it should not be there. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13  CB    10 months ago
There is no doubt about the truth in the message and Vivek Ramaswamy found a way to express what is killing America.

Allowing liberties and freedoms plural to all proper citizens (ones doing no harm to their fellow citizens) of this country is in Vivek and some conservative philosophy "killing America"? Just how long is this country expected to operate under the illusion that the only 'decent' Americans are White/Anglo/Straight/Christian/Protestants/Conservatives (with a sprinkling of conservative people of color for effect)?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
13.1  MonsterMash  replied to  CB @13    10 months ago
Just how long is this country expected to operate under the illusion that the only 'decent' Americans are White/Anglo/Straight/Christian/Protestants/Conservatives (with a sprinkling of conservative people of color for effect)?

Personally, I know a lot of decent Democrats, unfortunately they're a minority on NT.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.1  CB  replied to  MonsterMash @13.1    10 months ago

Nothing I can say about that! But I will not accept that people can make glib statements about who is decent and undecent simply as a means of disrespect!

Someone mentioned being pansexual and there are people who think they can mock simply because they choose to stick their you know what into you know where on the same person all their lives? I don't think so., One person's morals are their own. What about doing what you want as long as you do no harm? Is it just rhetoric? Theory? Practice?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
14  GregTx    10 months ago

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  GregTx @14    10 months ago

Used by everyone on all sides.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
14.1.1  GregTx  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1    10 months ago

Yes, that would be because it's true for all sides.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
14.2  Hallux  replied to  GregTx @14    10 months ago

Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoting John B Finch, Chairman of the Prohibition Party.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
14.2.1  GregTx  replied to  Hallux @14.2    10 months ago

Paraphrasing not quoting, but yes..

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15  CB    10 months ago

 Vivek is talking bs. Like the ONE he is modeling after: Winning is its own reward. To that end, Vivek is using republican poll tested phrases and not representing all the citizenry of the country-who can be represented by inclusion, equality/equity, and diversity. INSTEAD we have a wannabe oligarch defending partisanship and his party of choice; the party of exclusion, inequality, and sameness. (We know who they are without the written mention!)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16  CB    10 months ago
2. There are two genders.

I shutter to think what Vivek calls a born male who has opted to grow breasts and have a 'cut' between the legs where a penis used to be? Classify that. Humans make categories to identify nearly everything and everybody. . . what makes a sex change individual any different from being reclassified?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
16.1  bugsy  replied to  CB @16    10 months ago
I shutter to think what Vivek calls a born male who has opted to grow breasts and have a 'cut' between the legs where a penis used to be?

Don't know about him, but I would call him a male.

Because that is what he is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.1  CB  replied to  bugsy @16.1    10 months ago

You would call him a male. Let's test that theory. Would you invite him into your home, agree to him marrying your daughter/s, or better yet marrying your son/s (he is 'cut' down there you know and has breasts), and would you drink a beer with him

After-all, all things being equal he's just a male, right?!  RIGHT?!!!  Please proceed with your reply.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @16.1.1    10 months ago
You would call him a male. Let's test that theory. Would you invite him into your home, agree to him marrying your daughter/s, or better yet marrying your son/s (he is 'cut' down there you know and has breasts), and would you drink a beer with him

No.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.3  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.2    10 months ago

So not your typical male after all, eh?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @16.1.3    10 months ago

There are obvious mental issues that need to be resolved.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.5  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.4    10 months ago

Meaning what? Are you now a physician or psychologist too? That would be odd, because those professions confessed decades ago that ostracizing people due to their sexual drives and tendencies was not helpful and in fact harmful to the individuals. But, Jeremy!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @16.1.5    10 months ago
Meaning what?

Meaning exactly what I said.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.7  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.6    10 months ago

But, but, but you are not a physician or psychologist. Your, "There are obvious mental issues that need to be resolved," is a biased opinion of one, okay, a conservative group of men of a certain color.  There are men who don't even bother with the question

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @16.1.7    10 months ago
But, but, but you are not a physician or psychologist.

As far as you know.

Your, "There are obvious mental issues that need to be resolved," is a biased opinion of one,

And that is your opinion.  You see it as biased, I see it as a possible safety / well being issue.

okay, a conservative group of men of a certain color.

Nobody mentioned anybody's skin color.  Why make this a racial thing when it isn't?  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.9  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.8    10 months ago

Well being for who; You? And you can 'clapback' about race color all you want. I know what I am addressing as a problem 99.99% WASP conservative and Christian (since all of y'all are not religious I write "and Christian) men.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @16.1.9    10 months ago

Your decision to take this path presents to everybody you really have nothing of importance to say.  

Thank you for your racist comments.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.1.11  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.10    10 months ago

Whatever, Jeremy. "Many" people think you have nothing of importance to say too. *Snap!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.8    10 months ago

of course it is race thingy.

probably about some imaginary rights being denied by somebody somewhere (alway done, of course, by some conservatives)!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1.12    10 months ago
probably about some imaginary rights being denied by somebody somewhere

And naturally they can't specifically state what rights are being denied.  But you're right, it's always by somebody of the conservative persuasion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.13    10 months ago
And naturally they can't specifically state what rights are being denied. 

Of course.

I have tried many, many times to find out which rights are being denied, only to be met with a resounding silence EVERY time.

I think it is a bunch of made-up hooey.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
16.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1.14    10 months ago

It's one or the other.  Either complete silence because they can't point them out or they go on and on with moronic accusations because, you know, they can't point them out.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16.1.15    10 months ago

Some folks have been told they are victims so many times they have started to believe it, and once you got that victim bug, you just can't let go of it.

Nor, apparently, can you justify the faux poutrage.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

Vivek Ramaswamy made a list of simple truths while in flight to Iowa.

I wonder if he realized how powerful the list would be.

All he would have to do is read some of the responses here.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
17.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @17    10 months ago

That list seems to seriously trigger many.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
17.2  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @17    10 months ago

They are not truths. He made a list of talking points and arranged them in order of importance based upon polling's perception of what would be important to his target audience. 

Sorry, Richard. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
17.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Thomas @17.2    10 months ago

Not only that but this guy has zero experience in government, has only voted twice in his life (once a throwaway vote the other for Trump), and has a list of government agencies he claims he will outright eliminate while pardoning Donald Trump.  one of the most laughable candidates for POTUS in US history.  Another “I’m rich therefore I deserve to hold the most powerful position in the world” clown.  I read an interview with him yesterday and it was shocking how much plainly available information he was completely unaware of.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18  mocowgirl    10 months ago

Should children be taught sexual sadism and bondage in public schools - or anywhere else for that matter?

Parents remove their four-year-old daughter from pre-school after she was shown 'Grandad's Pride' book featuring men in bondage gear and trans 'top surgery' that was written by winner of Waterstones Children's Book Prize | Daily Mail Online

'He also has a studded dog collar around his neck and knee-high boots. Both have various leather straps around their bodies and studs/spikes.

'The main and most immediate concern is that children have been exposed to at least two age-inappropriate sexual or erotic images of a man in what can only be reasonably described as 'bondage/fetish/BDSM' gear.

'When we went to the nursery to raise concerns about the book, to be honest, we expected staff to instantly apologise and that would be the end of the matter. But the safeguarding lead began to defend the images.

'They argued the children would not understand or perceive erotic or sexual images. Staff claimed the image was just portraying 'dress-up' and would not be perceived as erotic by a child as they have no idea what 'erotic' is.'

The staff denied the images are erotic, telling the couple: 'That's just your opinion.'

Where is the line between education and allowing narcissists to indoctrinate our children to accept abuse as not only acceptable, but normal?  

Keeping government out of sex between consenting adults should always be legal, but allowing sexual sadists access to children's minds and bodies should never be legal.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @18    10 months ago
Keeping government out of sex between consenting adults should always be legal, but allowing sexual sadists access to children's minds and bodies should never be legal.

This discussion revolves around the minority eliminating women and the minority being allowed to portray homosexuals as perverts.  

What is the minority's agenda?  Equal rights or destruction of the rights of others?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
18.1.1  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1    10 months ago

The minority controlling women's bodies with religious fascism is wrong. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
18.1.2  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1    10 months ago

I am not sure where to go with that one. As anybody can know people do a great many appropriate and inappropriate things for an assortment of reasons. As the guy "dressed in bondage gear" may be inappropriate I am not sure where it falls in the context or scheme of that children's book. Again, it requires a large discussion/article of its own to address the frivolities of homosexual and transpeople's conduct(?)

I have more questions than answers at this point.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @18.1.2    10 months ago
As the guy "dressed in bondage gear" may be inappropriate I am not sure where it falls in the context or scheme of that children's book

What age is appropriate to teach children that their grandfather is a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain on others for sexual gratification?

At what age do we introduce bestiality and necrophilia?

What about fetishes? 

Can we include classes on personalities like narcissist, sociopath and psychopath?  It is definitely best to avoid all interaction with people with these personalities as much as possible for one's mental and physical health.  Snake handling and grizzly bear wrestling would probably be safer and more enjoyable than dealing with these people, but of course, that is not inclusive, is it?  

The Disturbing Link Between Narcissism and Sadism | Psychology Today

One area of research I wish was easier to explore is the connection between narcissism and sadism. If a person is sadistic, it means that he or she derives gratification from punishing, harming, or abusing others. I'm particularly interested in the narcissism-sadism connection because a client of mine has a boss who is extremely sadistic toward her. Based on her description, my client’s boss likely meets the criteria for narcissism, but with the additional component of a sadistic streak, which causes him to regularly punish employees in ways that make no sense. While there is often an overlap between narcissistic personality and sadistic behavior, not all narcissists receive gratification from hurting or upsetting others.

To expand further, we must discuss the term “gratification,” which isn’t the same as enjoyment or deriving actual pleasure. The gratification I’m referring to—the type narcissists seek—is called “narcissistic supply." This refers to   attention   and admiration from others which make the narcissist feel noticed and special. In some ways, narcissists aren't so different from young children whose emotional needs are not met and who desperately seek appreciation from others. Those who find themselves in close relationships with narcissists see the inconsistencies that others don't: How the narcissists appear on the surface day to day is in direct opposition to how they really feel inside. This is the paradox of narcissism. How can narcissists feel so bad about themselves but act like entitled kings and queens? To those around the individual, it doesn’t make any sense.

This distortion—acting superior but feeling inferior—is a central component of the disordered, narcissistic personality. A narcissist has two different selves: their real self, and the self they   wish   they were.  
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
18.1.4  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.3    10 months ago
What age is appropriate to teach children that their grandfather is a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain on others for sexual gratification?

The image in the book is inappropriate erotica for children and should not be marketed towards them. I have no idea WHY some homosexuals like to show their 'natural born asses' in front of people publicly. I have never done it and certainly don't plan on doing it now. 

Yes, I see it (and straight people 'sag') and it (both) are embarrassing to a point. 

I don't attend Pride Parades and do not watch them on television. But somehow I do get to see glimpses of 'booty-shaking' and S & M male types and oh my goodness the butt-out chaps. I don't know any people like those folks personally.  I just know they exist somewhere in the "community."

Having a modicum of modesty could go a long way with the success of the Pride movement! Perhaps it is time that I do something:

1. Call into movements or whatever they are called and ask them to consider checking and having stronger rules for what decency and age appropriateness. Just because sexuality loom large in the homosexual community no one should have the impression that debauchery is all homosexual are seeking to liberate 'into.'  Anything can be overdone.

Children should be taught about extreme indulgences of sexual appetites. . .when they come into puberty. It is then that it come 'front and center' in their own selves in one form or another-through hook or crook!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @18.1.4    10 months ago

I am not in the mood to research the reasons for sadism/masochism/fetishes, etc., but I agree that teenagers should be taught the reasons for the development of of sadistic/masochistic personalities from a scientific view and not ever with images that could be viewed as erotic.

The more I research personality disorders, the more concerned I become how ignorant I was about how oblivious or accommodating our society is to narcissists, sadists, psychopaths and sociopaths in order not to offend anyone.  We are only allowed to be offended when their abuse becomes so violent and public that it can't be ignored any longer.  

Pre-schoolers should be taught to be wary of strangers and anyone who fondles them in any way that is inappropriate.  It is up to the parents to teach "inappropriate" to the child - not a school.  Pre-schoolers do not need to have books on sexual matters - period.  

I believe that teenagers should be taught in biology/health classes what we know about the science/biology of sexual attraction.  Homosexuality is present in hundreds of animals of which includes our species.  I hope that textbooks are written by medical professionals who can educate students (and their parents) in a way that is non-confrontational and non-discriminatory.

But first, they must be taught to respect their own bodies and their empirical right to say no to anybody at any time every day of their life. They must be taught the laws enacted to protect them from predators and why those laws are necessary - even if they are selectively enforced.

I am 100 percent for sex education in school at appropriate ages and appropriate mental maturity.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.6  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.5    10 months ago

 how oblivious or accommodating our society is to narcissists, sadists, psychopaths and sociopaths in order not to offend anyone.

Example of what teenagers should be taught in sex education about sexual predators.

Confessions of America's most prolific serial killer: When novelist Jillian Lauren asked twinkly-eyed Sam Little why he'd murdered 93 women he replied: 'It felt like being in love' | Daily Mail Online

'And how did it feel to kill women?' Lauren asked Little. 'Oooeee, it felt like Heaven,' he replied. 'It felt like being in bed with Marilyn Monroe. It felt like being in love.'

This is stomach-churning stuff. He told her he loved that moment when the terrified women looked him in the eye and realised they had underestimated him.

This was about power and ownership as well as sexual gratification. Little believed he 'owned the souls of every single one of his 'babies'.' 

In her effort to understand his mindset, Lauren spoke to a psychologist, who added the theory of 'everyday sadism' to the usual triad of empathy-less evil: antisocial personality disorder, Machiavellianism and narcissistic personality disorder.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.7  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.6    10 months ago
how oblivious or accommodating our society is to narcissists, sadists, psychopaths and sociopaths in order not to offend anyone.

Below is an example of why it is imperative that predators are identified as early as possible and put into counseling before they commit felonies.  And of course counseling is not even effective depending on what the mental disorders are.

This from Australia.  

Courtney Morley-Clarke's murderer, SLD, will be released from prison despite experts warning there's a high chance he could commit violent sexual crimes | Daily Mail Online

A psychopath who was Australia's youngest-ever murderer when he killed an innocent three-year-old girl will be freed from prison despite experts warning there's a high chance he'll violently offend again.

In one of the most shocking cases in Australian history, the now 36-year-old man, known only as SLD, walked down the road from his adoptive home to kill toddler Courtney Morley-Clarke when he was just 13-years-old.

Justice Stephen Campbell made the difficult ruling last Friday for SLD to be taken out of prison and put under an extended supervision order (ESO).

The court heard SLD had a very difficult childhood.

He was one of three children and was abused by his junkie mother before entering the foster system at just two-years-old.

Despite being a problem child, he was adopted by a family in the small NSW Central Coast town of Point Clare when he was four.

However, the newfound stability did little to change the 'disturbed' nature of the boy. 

By the time he reached his teens, a psychiatrist was convinced he'd never become a functioning social adult.

Now we know they were right.

Three-year-old Courtney Morley-Clarke was sleeping in her home when SLD snatched her from her bed in January, 2001.

Courtney's body was discovered the next morning hidden in a patch of tall grass, she'd been stabbed in the heart and abandoned wearing only her nappy.

SLD, aged 13 years and 10 months, gladly took credit for his horrific crime.

The tragedy broke hearts around Australia but the court was at a loss at what to do with a young boy who committed such a cruel murder.

For guidance on sentencing, Justice James Wood looked at the British case of toddler James Bulger who was tortured and killed by two 10-year-old boys.

SLD was sentenced to 20 years behind bars. 

His sentence expired in 2021 but he was deemed too dangerous to be released,   The Weekend Australian  reports.

His possible freedom was assessed again last week but this time the court-appointed expert favoured an ESO over more prison time, noting there was little to no chance of rehabilitation for SLD in jail.

Still, experts aren't convinced freedom will rehabilitate SLD either.

SLD has been diagnosed with a severe personality disorder with antisocial and psychopathic features.

His lack of empathy is further driven by an attitude of self-importance and entitlement.

The court heard evidence SLD is obsessed with sexual fantasies and the idea of losing his virginity.

His intense desire coupled with his continued anti-social state that could see him 'act without compunction' have led to fears for the safety of women around him.

Worryingly, Justice Campbell found SLD was 'liable to offend in a circumstance where his will is denied' and 'his offending may involve the use of a weapon'.

Under the ESO, SLD will be required to wear a GPS monitor and stay in line-of-sight surveillance at an ­offender support unit run by Corrective Services in Long Bay jail.

The strict supervision orders are handed to offenders who are at risk of committing serious violent, sexual or terrorist crimes if left alone in the community. 

Justice Campbell admitted keeping SLD under the order would be 'extremely challenging', which has already proven true.

In his first months living in the support unit, SLD was caught breaking his restrictions by accessing WhatsApp, YouTube and link-up app Tagged.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.8  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.7    10 months ago

more....

Courtney Morley-Clarke's murderer, SLD, will be released from prison despite experts warning there's a high chance he could commit violent sexual crimes | Daily Mail Online

When confronted about his wrongdoing, he told the officer: 'Listen miss, I will choose what conditions to follow and what ones aren't important.'

Still, Justice Campbell urged people to remember 'SLD's general right to be at liberty following the expiration of the sentence lawfully passed upon him'.

SLD was back behind bars at the time of last week's hearing but was told he will be allowed back into the unit if he agrees to behave. 

'I am not aware whether SLD has agreed to this,' Justice Campbell said.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
18.1.9  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.8    10 months ago

You have joined the additional comments to a comment directed to me. So I will say this: The premise of the question has been shown to be doctored and inaccurate; that dispute needs to be settled before anything regarding the image can be further elaborated on with any precision.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
18.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @18.1.9    10 months ago

What are the specifics of “the dispute” that must be settled?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
18.1.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @18.1.10    10 months ago
What are the specifics of “the dispute” that must be settled?

The image was doctored to depict two men embracing.  This image is not in the book.  There is a man in bondage gear in the book.  I believe it was this image that the school agreed was age inappropriate, but I am not certain.

I just posted a video from gb news somewhere above.  At the 50 minute mark, there is a debate about the appropriateness of pushing this material into public schools.

If you are interested in what is happening in Britain, this panel also discusses foreign aid/excessive taxation and free speech issues in this week's edition.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
18.1.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.11    10 months ago

Thanks mocowgirl.  I’ll checkout the video.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
18.1.13  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @18.1.12    10 months ago

Just got back in from being out all day,  Drinker and Mocowgirl. . . 

Comment  12.1.23  at 53 seconds  into the video does show (near the book fold) two people (not sure of the sex of the second embracer in a shirt) embracing; one individual is in kinky attire. 

It still does not explain why anyone would doctor the video in the other scenario. Just weird doings, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @18.1.14    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
19  CB    10 months ago

Vivek Ramaswamy smart as a fox could be positioning himself for a VP slot? (You may have heard it here first!)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @19    10 months ago
Vivek Ramaswamy smart as a fox could be positioning himself for a VP slot? (You may have heard it here first!)

Oh so close!

Post 2.1. five days ago.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
19.1.1  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @19.1    10 months ago

Well, I did stipulate, "You may have heard it here first!!"  Then, I am with Vic on this.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
19.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @19    10 months ago

Will give you credit if that comes true, fur sure.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
19.3  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @19    10 months ago

Candidly, I think all but Desantis and Pence are. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
19.3.1  CB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @19.3    10 months ago

Strong possibility. However, Christie and Hutchinson are confronting the head of their party, that is a different type of ambition and it does not lead to selection as V.P.  Good point, nevertheless!  Haley, calls the head of the ticket. . .'old' several times over now. . .she must not want to be Trump's underling!  BTW, whoever wants to be Trump's V.P. should ask Mike Pence about it, first!

Trump will vet this next V.P. choice up the 'yahzoo'! He wants a person who won't think about putting him over and beyond the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
19.3.2  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @19.3.1    10 months ago

Yeah, you are probably right, at least with Christie. Although, I can see Christie trying to get himself into the conversation. He's a weasel. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
20  mocowgirl    10 months ago
appearing to play into the idea that children are somehow being “indoctrinated” simply by being taught that LGBTQ+ people exist. 

It does matter what children are taught and age does matter.  Watching porn at an early age can rewire the brain.  

How watching porn can "rewire" kids' brains – and what to do about it - CBS News
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
20.1  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @20    10 months ago

What does pornography have to do with knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist?????

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21  mocowgirl    10 months ago

Tyranny of the minority indeed.  The trans community is silencing, or trying to silence the trans people who are now de-transitioning once they discovered they were NOT trans.  They were just kids seeking an identity and validation from others instead of learning to embrace and love themselves.  The trans community use the internet to further confuse children who need professional counseling and wind up getting life counseling from ????? on TikTok.

This man has a powerful message.  He has written a book that Barnes and Noble in the US is refusing to stock, but of course, has ample copies of Grandpa's Pride on the shelves.

The reason I have to post news videos from other countries is because so far few people have the nerve to honestly tackle this issue in the United States for fear of being cancelled for telling the truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
21.1  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @21    10 months ago

What nonsense.

What truth?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Tessylo @21.1    10 months ago
What truth?

Watch the video.  Are you actually calling this man a liar?

Google for news items about the people who are de-transitioning.  These people have been allowed to be medically and psychologically abused as children by people who used them for experimentation and seed further political division.  It is just too damned bad that all of the so-called professionals in the medical field can't be held accountable for the damage they have done and continue to do to children who need support through their teenage years instead of chemicals and surgery. 

As far as the politicians that are backing this type of abuse, they have absolutely no excuse for championing abuse of children.  When I believe that these scumbags (in both political parties) can't sink down further into abusing the masses, they prove me wrong.  Of course, they only get by with this crap because they find enough dim-witted supported to treat politics like a football game - pick a team and defend it at all costs.  In this instance, it is our children paying the price of partisan politics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
21.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.1    10 months ago

I watched as much of this video that I could stomach.  He is lying.  I'm not going to research this liar's claims.  Waste of time.  This is all ignorance against the trans community, plain and simple.

Sounds like a bunch of made up nonsense that you are spouting there and ignorance against the trans-community.

'Experimentation and to seed further political division????????????'

Again, nonsense and ignorance against the trans community.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Tessylo @21.1.2    10 months ago
He is lying.

Based on your guess?  Your research?  Your credentials as an expert in the field?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
21.1.4  MonsterMash  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.3    10 months ago
He is lying.
Based on her politics

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.5  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.1    10 months ago
These people have been allowed to be medically and psychologically abused as children by people who used them for experimentation and seed further political division.  It is just too damned bad that all of the so-called professionals in the medical field can't be held accountable for the damage they have done and continue to do to children who need support through their teenage years instead of chemicals and surgery.

There is an old saying: "You can't rape the willing." 

Oli London is experimenting on himself! And only time will tell if he is done as of now with is efforts. Probably not, because he has a lot of surgery issues which seem to remain incomplete or suspended in time.

You can't push Ol London off on this discussion of transgenderism as something the medical and psychology disciplines have 'failed' without knowing what documents other forms of explanation and disclaimers Oli London ("Barbie") accepted and signed to authorize the treatments he received. Oh and now, "Barbie" is "Ken" - just in time for the BARBIE  movie fad!

Lastly, I never, ever, thought I would be put in a position to defend transsexualism (which I know little to nothing about but am 'applying' myself). But, it is what it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @21.1.5    10 months ago

He is an adult and entitled to make his own decisions.

What most are complaining about are minors undergoing treatments that are really unproven.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.7  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.6    10 months ago

Then why did mocowgirl introduce Oli London [Barbie/Ken] to a discussion about kids? You are way off base as usual with your right-wing spin/cover-up this time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @21.1.7    10 months ago
Then why did mocowgirl introduce Oli London [Barbie/Ken] to a discussion about kids? You are way off base as usual with your right-wing spin/cover-up this time. 

Well, she probably posted it to show that changing genders doesn't always work out well.

The only spin here is what you gave imagined, it isn't real!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
21.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.3    10 months ago

So he is telling the truth based on what?  Based on what he said?  How was he 'pushed into transitioning'?  Your credentials as an expert in the field?

He is spreading ignorance against the trans community, essentially putting targets on their backs like you are doing - talking about experimentation on children - lies and ignorance, not truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
21.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.3    10 months ago

"Experimentation and to seed further political division' that is some whackjob conspiracy nonsense and ignorance against the trans-community.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21.1.11  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @21.1.5    10 months ago
There is an old saying: "You can't rape the willing." 

What does that mean in context of people preying on children's minds and bodies?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21.1.12  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @21.1.5    10 months ago
You can't push Ol London off on this discussion of transgenderism

I'm not pushing anyone.  However, unless it is against this community's guidelines, I am permitted to cite anyone relevant to this issue that I deem fit.  

London is presenting himself as an example of a confused youth who didn't fit in and began experimenting with his own body with disastrous results.

London has written a book to try to explain to the confused youth of today and their parents the pitfalls of youthful mental instability/uncertainty combined with a medical community that should have done far more counseling before offering any alternatives.

I hope that London's book is indeed helpful to explain what is unexplainable unless a person has lived it to the people who are experiencing the same (of similar) feelings and need guidance.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.13  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.11    10 months ago
There is an old saying: "You can't rape the willing."  Oli London is experimenting on himself! And only time will tell if he is done as of now with is efforts. Probably not, because he has a lot of surgery issues which seem to remain incomplete or suspended in time.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.14  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.12    10 months ago

And I posted evidence of Oli London as a confused "Ken" personality.  As such, "Ken" is still transitioning, . . .do you think it is appropriate or too soon for Oli to be writing a memoir about a continuing experiment happening to him?

Moreover, do I really need to point that Oli London found his book "audience" amongst Right-wing sponsors and supporters against transsexualism. He is visibly promoting his book to the right-wing audience in the video. Could it be that he sure hopes they buy it and read it? And to that end, he has said what it takes to persuade them he is 'with' them? 

I'm just saying. 

Also, I find it. . .convenient. . .that the interviewer of Oli London did not 'clarify' that look Oli London is sporting. It has a 'background story' all its own. Namely: "Ken" - a doll.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
21.1.15  mocowgirl  replied to  CB @21.1.14    10 months ago
He is visibly promoting his book to the right-wing audience in the video.

Really?  In this video, he is with a left-wing woman - a woman who is being demonized by the men in the trans community. The men, who claim to be women, but damn sure don't act like it when they resort to violence.  In fact, those men seem to have a Hell of a lot more in common with the MAGA crowd when they don't get their way on something, don't they?  These transwomen will actually beat on lesbians to "prove" they are a lesbian, also.  That would be assault if they were a man or a woman hitting lesbians, but a transwoman is off limits - a protected species.

This is a very civilized discussion on why there has to be civil discourse on this issue to help children and the trans community.  This is something the British are beginning to do that to date is not happening in the United States.  The losers are our children.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.16  CB  replied to  mocowgirl @21.1.15    10 months ago

None of this makes any sense. Asking Oli London to be a spokesperson for. . . what is it he is a spokesperson for: detransitioning? You have presented several videos by this man and I have yet to learn, for example, in the interviews what age we was when he transitioned?  Did he have sex change? Did he have breasts?

He appears (to me anyway) to be sharing his De-transitioning story as the interviewers only interest! And nothing, for example, about who he is (faddishly) appearing as today in this interview: "Ken" doll.

This is not helpful. 

And no, I am not someone who promotes transsexualism. It does not come up on my radar except on NT. 

My position is let people do what they want: To each his/her own as long as it does no harm to minimal harm to themselves or others.

This man has no validity as it is right now to be doing interviews about anything on the topic. He needs to go figure out who he wishes to be.

There is just too much deception going on around these issues. Two interviews and no one is asking Oli London about being female or why he is now fashions himself as some faddish (male) Ken.  Apparently, that would disrupt the narrative they want to put forward.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
21.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @21.1.16    10 months ago

Apparently, that would disrupt the narrative they want to put forward.

What is the narrative that they should put forward?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.18  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @21.1.17    10 months ago

Figure it out. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
21.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @21.1.18    10 months ago

You can recognize the wrong narrative but not the right one.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.20  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @21.1.19    10 months ago

Filler. You have nothing else?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @21.1.17    10 months ago
What is the narrative that they should put forward?

That we are all supposed to become cheerleaders for the alphabet folks?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
21.1.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.21    10 months ago

Folks that never made the cheerleader cut in high school, make up for it here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @21.1.22    10 months ago
Folks that never made the cheerleader cut in high school, make up for it here.

Just think---while we have been talking, we have probably denied someone of their rights!

I know that a male is a male and no amount of surgery will make him into a woman.

And I refuse to pretend otherwise just to be "socially correct" to people who simply don't have a clue.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
21.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.23    10 months ago
Just think---while we have been talking, we have probably denied someone of their rights!

Exactly, the right to remain oblivious to reality.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
21.1.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @21.1.19    10 months ago

A frequent occurrence with many on the left.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
21.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  CB @21.1.16    10 months ago

Also no explanation as to how he/she/whatever this person is - was 'pushed into transitioning'

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
21.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @21.1.18    10 months ago

that would disrupt the narrative they want to put forward.

What is the narrative that they should put forward?

So you don't have a clue.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.1.28  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @21.1.27    10 months ago
21.1.16  

None of this makes any sense. Asking Oli London to be a spokesperson for. . . what is it he is a spokesperson for: detransitioning? You have presented several videos by this man and I have yet to learn, for example, in the interviews what age we was when he transitioned?  Did he have sex change? Did he have breasts?

He appears (to me anyway) to be sharing his De-transitioning story as the interviewers only interest! And nothing, for example, about who he is (faddishly) appearing as today in this interview: "Ken" doll.

This is not helpful. 

And no, I am not someone who promotes transsexualism. It does not come up on my radar except on NT. 

My position is let people do what they want: To each his/her own as long as it does no harm to minimal harm to themselves or others.

This man has no validity as it is right now to be doing interviews about anything on the topic. He needs to go figure out who he wishes to be.

There is just too much deception going on around these issues. Two interviews and no one is asking Oli London about being female or why he is now fashions himself as some faddish (male) Ken.  Apparently, that would disrupt the narrative they want to put forward.
 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
21.1.29  Transyferous Rex  replied to  CB @21.1.5    10 months ago
There is an old saying: "You can't rape the willing."  Oli London is experimenting on himself! And only time will tell if he is done as of now with is efforts. Probably not, because he has a lot of surgery issues which seem to remain incomplete or suspended in time.

On the 2nd sentence, pretty much my thoughts. We (read everyone) could get into a debate on what is an appropriate or reasonable age for someone to make lasting decisions of consequence. I don't know what the age is. I do have children, oldest is 20, and watching them grow and mature leads me to a belief that some issues are better left until they are older and more experienced. 

I don't understand or appreciate what someone feels, or is compelled by, leading to a decision to transition. I watched the Caitlyn Jenner doc, on Netflix. Good watch, for anyone who hasn't seen it, btw. Hard to argue, and why would I, or anybody? Caitlyn made the ultimate decision, I'd say, relatively late, and after enough time to meditate on the subject. Oli, on the other hand, apparently hasn't meditated on the subject enough. That's the biggest issue I see with the notion of allowing an adolescent to make life altering decisions. My 20 year old can't make rational decisions regarding his earnings. I'm willing to let him flounder in the water a bit on those, because I have the ability to rescue him, hopefully with a lesson learned. I can't say I'd be on board with a decision to transition at this point. Buyer's remorse, over a new vehicle, is relatively easily fixed. Getting your manhood cut off? Not so much. 

Concerning is the rate of suicide in the trans community. I read a study report, indicating that the rate does not decrease with those that have transitioned. I'm no psychologist, but, to me, there may be something else at play, as transitioning apparently did not fill the void. As a parent, I'd want to make damn sure a penis or vagina was the actual issue, before I'd be on board with a decision to transition by an adult child. Caitlyn Jenner seems an example of someone who is happy. (I've seen stories otherwise, but I've seen interviews where she has expressed as much) I don't think she is/was experimenting. I think there are many, like Oli, who are, for whatever underlying reason. Clearly, transitioning is not resolving the perceived issue. I don't think this is an issue that can be addressed during adolescence.

As for raping the willing, I think it comes down to informed consent. Referring back to my kids, there is no damn way they have the ability to give informed consent to something this drastic. To that end, you can rape the willing. When someone is unable to give informed consent, it's called statutory rape. I think that is what Oli is saying.