Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, Foosters said:

When teachers read a picture book to children with a loving mother and father, are they grooming the children for heterosexual sex?

THANK YOU.

Children in America receive heterosexual sex education basically from the moment they are born and a part of society.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

THANK YOU.

Children in America receive heterosexual sex education basically from the moment they are born and a part of society.

 

Crucially, it is not in any sense "grooming." "Grooming" isn't sexual education, it refers to developing a relationship of trust with a minor to sexually exploit/abuse them. All the recent "groomer" talk aimed at liberals by conservatives is an attempt at creating a new blood libel. They're accusing liberals of knowingly promoting pedophilia because it will make it easier for them to justify murdering us. It is straight up nazi shit and Donkey is knowingly and intentionally trying to promote this blood libel by conflating normal sex education with pedophilia.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)

Since when are preschoolers (prek-3) taught about sexuality? My older sister has been teaching those exact grades for the last 10 years (probably more) and not once has any of that been brought up. Jesus wtf is going on with the right?!

 

edit to add: the right has got to be made up of the biggest pussies in the country

Edited by CowboyFred
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

THANK YOU.

Children in America receive heterosexual sex education basically from the moment they are born and a part of society.

 

This is the same answer I gave, essentially. What's the problem with my response? 

Of course the answer is yes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Crucially, it is not in any sense "grooming." "Grooming" isn't sexual education, it refers to developing a relationship of trust with a minor to sexually exploit/abuse them. All the recent "groomer" talk aimed at liberals by conservatives is an attempt at creating a new blood libel. They're accusing liberals of knowingly promoting pedophilia because it will make it easier for them to justify murdering us. It is straight up nazi shit and Donkey is knowingly and intentionally trying to promote this blood libel by conflating normal sex education with pedophilia.

Just saw this. The question was posed to be using the word grooming by someone else, I didn't use it. I also didn't know the granular distinctions of it as you apparently do (and now I do). 

So I guess I'll amend my answer; no it's not "grooming" but yes it's "normalizing" or whatever you want to say, as trauma said, and it's always been that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
41 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

THANK YOU.

Children in America receive heterosexual sex education basically from the moment they are born and a part of society.

 

How come there’s no white history month?

  • Haha 2
Posted
21 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

This is why public school is so messy and a headache. You have all kinds of people and beliefs and values that no administration can make everyone happy and eventually just does the minimum to mildly annoy everyone about something they care about. It’s an impossible job the more divisive and splintered and sub-verticaled different beliefs and cultures are getting.

Why is anything that strays from a conservative snowflake’s normative worldview considered “divisive?”

I’ll hang up and listen 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Why is anything that strays from a conservative snowflake’s normative worldview considered “divisive?”

I’ll hang up and listen 

snowflake microscope GIF's

Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Why is anything that strays from a conservative snowflake’s normative worldview considered “divisive?”

I’ll hang up and listen 

It's literally divisive because any change is going to be a form of conflict. You can't have change without conflict, whether it be direct or indirect.

Let's look at this logically because when I say divisive, I don't attach a negative or positive value to that word:

  • Because American society as we know it was dictated by the white, heterosexual man for the white heterosexual man hundreds of years ago, we can assume the conservative snowflake normative worldview is the beginning of the conversation. You can call it foundational or even fundamentally ground zero. Hence "Fundamentalists", even.
  • Anything that "strays" from this, regardless of whether it's good progress or bad, would then be naturally divisive. You are dividing the way people feel about their resources and institutions via attention, time, emotions, desires, fears, etc.

 

 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 minute ago, TurkeyChew said:

It's literally divisive because any change is going to be a form of conflict. You can't have change without conflict, whether it be direct or indirect.

Let's look at this logically because when I say divisive, I don't attach a negative or positive value to that word:

  • Because American society as we know it was dictated by the white, heterosexual man for the white heterosexual man hundreds of years ago, we can assume the conservative snowflake normative worldview is the beginning of the conversation. You can call it foundational or even fundamentally ground zero. Hence "Fundamentalists", even.
  • Anything that "strays" from this, regardless of whether it's good progress or bad, would then be naturally divisive. You are dividing the way people feel about their resources and institutions via attention, time, emotions, desires, fears, etc.

 

 

Fuck every last bit of that

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

Fuck every last bit of that

Fair enough; I'm not carrying water for it in this conversation with you. You asked the question and I did my best to answer it. 

Does showing heterosexual man/woman wife/husband books to kindergartners normalize heterosex? Yes. Of course.

Would showing same sex couples to kindergartners normalize the opposite? Sure, it seems to stand to follow.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Fair enough; I'm not carrying water for it in this conversation with you. You asked the question and I did my best to answer it. 

Does showing heterosexual man/woman wife/husband books to kindergartners normalize heterosex? Yes. Of course.

Would showing same sex couples to kindergartners normalize the opposite? Sure, it seems to stand to follow.

Yeah you absolutely are carrying water for this argument, even in this post.

A committed homosexual relationship is not the “opposite“ of a committed heterosexual relationship. Looking at it that way is wrong and is the basis for how something as simple as a loving family being portrayed can become “divisive“. Use your fucking brain and don’t buy into this theocratic bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Just saw this. The question was posed to be using the word grooming by someone else, I didn't use it. I also didn't know the granular distinctions of it as you apparently do (and now I do). 

So I guess I'll amend my answer; no it's not "grooming" but yes it's "normalizing" or whatever you want to say, as trauma said, and it's always been that way. 

What would be the problem in normalizing non heterosexual relationships/people?

Posted
23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Yeah you absolutely are carrying water for this argument, even in this post.

A committed homosexual relationship is not the “opposite“ of a committed heterosexual relationship. Looking at it that way is wrong and is the basis for how something as simple as a loving family being portrayed can become “divisive“. Use your fucking brain and don’t buy into this theocratic bullshit. 

Disagree, respectfully of course.

  • Fuck You 5
Posted
23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Yeah you absolutely are carrying water for this argument, even in this post.

A committed homosexual relationship is not the “opposite“ of a committed heterosexual relationship. Looking at it that way is wrong and is the basis for how something as simple as a loving family being portrayed can become “divisive“. Use your fucking brain and don’t buy into this theocratic bullshit. 

yeah, so about that....

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

What would be the problem in normalizing non heterosexual relationships/people?

Just like normalizing hetero relationships; there are no inherent problems, unless they conflict with your value and belief system. I think it's for each person to decide on their own; you and I are not and should not be anyone else's moral compass. And certainly public school should not be where people look for moral or spiritual development.

Edited by TurkeyChew
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 11
Posted
Just now, TurkeyChew said:

Just like normalizing hetero relationships; there are no inherent problems, unless they conflict with your value and belief system. I think it's for each person to decide on their own; you and I are not and should not be anyone else's moral compass.

We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work. Societies mora compass shouldn’t demonize people for not being “normal”. Which is what you are trying to do. So again what is the problem with normalizing queer folk?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, StruggleBus said:

This is a losing issue for the D's. Pick your battles, retards.

So were civil rights. I’m sure someone who still calls people “retards” is on the right side of this.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, StruggleBus said:

This is a losing issue for the D's. Pick your battles, retards.

Dems didn't "pick" this battle. Republicans simply invented the issue out of thin air and, if Dems don't push back on it, it will make it easier for Republicans to prime their supporters to support violence against us.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Just like normalizing hetero relationships; there are no inherent problems, unless they conflict with your value and belief system. I think it's for each person to decide on their own; you and I are not and should not be anyone else's moral compass. And certainly public school should not be where people look for moral or spiritual development.

Why are you so committed to arguing in favor of a bill that you so clearly detest?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Why are you so committed to arguing in favor of a bill that you so clearly detest?

Have I done this? I don’t think so. Show me a post.

Posted
22 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

This is why public school is so messy and a headache. You have all kinds of people and beliefs and values that no administration can make everyone happy and eventually just does the minimum to mildly annoy everyone about something they care about. It’s an impossible job the more divisive and splintered and sub-verticaled different beliefs and cultures are getting.

Public school was ok before one side decided to culture war the fuck out of every fucking thing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Public school was ok before one side decided to culture war the fuck out of every fucking thing.

If they don’t manufacture paint chip eating chud babies then they will run out of voters. Start em young by rat fucking public education into the ground to remove any chance of critical thought and open mindedness. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Public school was ok before one side decided to culture war the fuck out of every fucking thing.

I think it was okay until the internet and the (inherently problematic, racist, and misogynistic) shared American fabric and aesthetic broke, which is argued was for the better. But now we have so many more fiefdoms and interests to please which is an impossible task as you can’t please everybody.

  • Fuck You 6
Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

It's made divisive by people who want it to be divisive. In this case, republican state legislatures and governors who are lying about fake problems concerning race and gender and public schools and making laws to address these fake problems. 

That’s fair and I agree and be that as it may, it’s still divisive (as you seem to agree).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 5
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

That’s fair and I agree and be that as it may, it’s still divisive (as you seem to agree).

Sure. "Webster's defines divisive as..."

Keen insight there.

Edited by 'stache
Posted

True. That goddamn LGBTQ+ fiefdom has always confounded me, with their wanting to be treated with dignity. HELLO.  JOIN THE AMERICAN FABRIC YOU GUYS. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
45 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work. Societies mora compass shouldn’t demonize people for not being “normal”. Which is what you are trying to do. So again what is the problem with normalizing queer folk?

I disagree with your premise: public services are not societies moral compass services arm. They serve at the pleasure of the constituency.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Sure. "Webster's defines divisive as..."

Keen insight there.

You must have missed where someone asked to explain how the word divisive worked in the sentence.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s the point. Neither needs to be normalized. Only one side is full of adults acting like babies about it. You basically want one group of people to give up their rights so snowflakes won’t be uncomfortable. Fuck that and fuck you for being their apologist 

The truth is I don’t particularly care one way or another actually, as long as substitutes exist (e.g. private school, home school). I think it should be personal choice and freedom.

You want to have a 10 year old with the experience that ‘stache shared? Great! Go for it! 

That experience doesn’t sound appealing for your offspring? Great, go for it in a different direction.

Freedom to choose is what makes us great.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 5
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The point that was being made is that these aren't divisive topics until your side makes them divisive, and they do so intentionally and with horrid intent. Worse of all, that they outright lie to create non-existent problems that they use to divide. That's the fucking problem.

I see your point— that’s just ugly dirty politics. It’s getting out front of an issue and killing it before it’s bloomed or making a mountain out of a molehill for political momentum. It’s everything the Dems hate about their own politicians who never play the game and get dirty politically, when you read these sites where Dems are down on their own, etc.

The CRT non-issue is another lighthouse example of that political gambit at work.

Edited by TurkeyChew
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 5
Posted
13 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I disagree with your premise: public services are not societies moral compass services arm. They serve at the pleasure of the constituency.

What is this gibberish 

Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

What is this gibberish 

A response to this definitive-in-your-own-mind opinion you posted: “We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3


×
×
  • Create New...