Page 31 of 33
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:10 am
by MSimon
hanelyp wrote:Admin, can we get a [spoiler] tag?
I wish. It doesn't quite rise to the level of removal. But it is close.
Man (heh) that is ugly. Couldn't you cut it down to one picture D?
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:45 pm
by GIThruster
I'm sure there will be a class action lawsuit against the city, many millions of dollars lost to victims and mostly their lawyers, and that will be the end of this kind of foolishness. Arguing that kids find out about this sort of stuff anyway is a really sick argument. If this were done in a private home rather than a school, the person doing the "education" would not only go to prison for child abuse (where they teach the meaning of real punishment for that crime) but wear the stigma for the rest of his life as a child predator.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:47 pm
by Diogenes
Stubby wrote:Teaching anal sex...
Not quite true
Chicago Public Schools spokesman Bill McCaffrey issued a statement indicating that the materials were supplied in error and were never part of the elementary curriculum in the district:
The objectionable material presented at Andrew Jackson Language Academy this week is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum. It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students. As part of our sexual health education policy approved by the Board of Education in 2013, Chicago Public Schools offers a comprehensive sexual education curriculum that is designed to ensure age-appropriate material and minimum instructional minutes for every grade level, consisting of family and sexual health education topics for K-12 students.
Kids are going to find out stuff. You can either lock your kids in home school and keep them away from other children; or accept that this information is going to be shared. The only question is going to be how they get the information.
Google
Friends
mostly uninformed parents
or
sex education
When they are caught, they always say it is a mistake. But since you are unclear on how this stuff works, perhaps another example will help?
How schools are pushing transgenderism to children. More radical and aggressive than ever.
We are suddenly seeing more and more "transgender" children in schools across America. How is that happening? How do kids get these ideas, and why do they embrace them?
It doesn't happen by accident. The homosexual-transgender movement is working hard to indoctrinate schoolchildren that "transgenderism" and cross-dressing are normal and just another way of becoming "who you really are."
This is the third part in our series on this year's annual GLSEN Conference in Boston which brought together LGBT teachers, activists, and supportive administrators to outline their latest tactics for the schools. Part II revealed their plans to push "gay clubs" in middle schools.
But Massachusetts (along with California) has enacted the most extreme legislation and regulations in the nation on this issue, forcing "transgenderism" into schools throughout the state. This is reflected in the GLSEN conference. Other states are certain to follow this path.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2 ... index.html
Oh, and Snopes is garbage. It's just a Man and Wife Lefty propaganda team.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:58 pm
by Diogenes
MSimon wrote:hanelyp wrote:Admin, can we get a [spoiler] tag?
I wish. It doesn't quite rise to the level of removal. But it is close.
Man (heh) that is ugly. Couldn't you cut it down to one picture D?
Sure. Done.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm
by mvanwink5
Thanks D for sparing me, I cringe just thinking about what the loons want to put on billboards, PBS, and in elementary schools (you didn't need to show me what they do to children in socialist education institutions). Don't worry though if the socialist have their way the Muslims will in short order make adjustments to their "worker" utopia.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:51 pm
by MSimon
I don't see how you can have free speech and put an end to this sort of thing.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
I mean it doesn't rise to the level of porn or I would have excised it without having to go to Joe for permission. Which I am loathe to do in what is a free speech area. By design.
So we will have some ugliness to contend with. What will probably happen over time is that people will grow up with it and it will be unnoticeable. Just as is happening with some other subjects (ahem).
America is no place for old men. By design. Given the option of here or North Korea or China even, my preference is for here. With all its inconveniences.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:58 pm
by GIThruster
All free speech finds its limit somewhere. We all know you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. The basis for this is it causes harm. Force feeding pre-pubescent children gay sex tutorials does them harm. If my kid were subject to that I'd have a hard time not shooting someone. And though I am not nor would I advocate using violence in the culture war, I am astonished the Right has let themselves be pushed as much as they have. I will not be surprised when the days of extremist conservatives bombing buildings come again. This stuff is just way out of hand.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:39 pm
by MSimon
GIThruster wrote:All free speech finds its limit somewhere. We all know you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. The basis for this is it causes harm. Force feeding pre-pubescent children gay sex tutorials does them harm. If my kid were subject to that I'd have a hard time not shooting someone. And though I am not nor would I advocate using violence in the culture war, I am astonished the Right has let themselves be pushed as much as they have. I will not be surprised when the days of extremist conservatives bombing buildings come again. This stuff is just way out of hand.
The Right has no conception of how to fight a culture war. They can't give way where they are weak so they lose everything.
The Right could have gained serious credibility for its cultural position by fighting against Prohibition. But instead they held the line and now the consensus among the general population is that the Right is wrong about ALL cultural issues.
It would do good to read B.H.L. Hart "Strategy" with special attention to his chapters on politics.
I have been saying this to my friends on the Right for years. And was dismissed out of hand. Ah. Well. They interpreted an offer of assistance as an attack. Because in some sense it was an attack. "Don't go in that direction. You will get hurt." Well it turns out I was correct. Karma is a biatch. It didn't have to be this way.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:47 pm
by MSimon
You can't force feed per-pubescent children anything about sex. They are either not interested or repulsed. After the hormones turn on you can't stop them. But they are still repulsed by the things that are not attracted to.
What does this "war on" cause? It draws attention where it would be better if there were none.
That is how a cultural "war on" works. Indifference is the safest attitude.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:27 pm
by Diogenes
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:30 pm
by Diogenes
MSimon wrote:
The Right could have gained serious credibility for its cultural position by fighting against Prohibition. But instead they held the line and now the consensus among the general population is that the Right is wrong about ALL cultural issues.
It would do good to read B.H.L. Hart "Strategy" with special attention to his chapters on politics.
I have been saying this to my friends on the Right for years. And was dismissed out of hand. Ah. Well. They interpreted an offer of assistance as an attack. Because in some sense it was an attack. "Don't go in that direction. You will get hurt." Well it turns out I was correct. Karma is a biatch. It didn't have to be this way.
Simon, it is my opinion that the current cultural rot is systemic and cyclic. If my theory is correct, you can't really stop it, you can just nibble away at the margins a bit till it reverses again.
Till then, you can only hope to preserve some Islands of sanity in this frothing sea of chaos.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:45 pm
by Teahive
Diogenes wrote:
Sure. Nothing wrong with that bunch.
I wonder what you're afraid of. That soldiers might be
ugly? That they might be wearing the "wrong" clothes?
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:13 pm
by Diogenes
Teahive wrote:Diogenes wrote:
Sure. Nothing wrong with that bunch.
I wonder what you're afraid of. That soldiers might be
ugly? That they might be wearing the "wrong" clothes?
Or that they might have a serious psychological disorder while having access to a lot of people and things that go boom.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:42 am
by Teahive
Diogenes wrote:Or that they might have a serious psychological disorder while having access to a lot of people and things that go boom.
That's a possibility, as with everyone else. It's not implied in being transgender, though.
Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:48 am
by Diogenes
Teahive wrote:Diogenes wrote:Or that they might have a serious psychological disorder while having access to a lot of people and things that go boom.
That's a possibility, as with everyone else. It's not implied in being transgender, though.
Not implied in someone who thinks they are supposed to be the opposite sex? What about people who think they are Napoleon? Is that indicative of a serious mental problem?
Perhaps if they think they are a chicken? Lord knows the Military could use the eggs, and they'll work for chicken feed!
Nah dude, Mental illness is definitely implied in someone who thinks they need to switch genders. There is some sort of deep seated psychological problem going on in such people's minds.
