The 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:
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
Who is online
44 visitors
The Ramaswamy campaign has begun.
it's over as soon as one of the other candidates starts enlightening the public of his recent past...
Pretty sure that far right wing fascists are in the minority.
They may be loud but their numbers are dwindling as geriatrics die off.
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
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.
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.
You are going to put your foot in your mouth again.
You must know how the media operates. There is a huge difference between Ramaswamy declaring a tyranny of the minority and DeSantis saying it.
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.
[deleted]
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?
And there it is...........
Not long ago they weren't considered white either.
The Obama coalition!
Funny. I remember George Zimmerman being classified as white hispanic.
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.
You are proving otherwise.
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)
Ramaswamy is an honorary white guy. Thats it.
he's a shoe in for the trump ticket, since he's already declared he'll pardon traitors...
Eureka! Your biases are on 'blast'!
Who the "F" are you calling indecent: Liberals? People not conservative? Secularists? All of the above? Who?
Hilarious coming from someone who brings up race in many, many comments.
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!
The radical left, specifically.
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!
So there is a difference between fascists declaring and saying?
There what is?
Exactly what most leftists hate.
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.
Wait.... you say that about Trump. And De Santis. And Pence. And pretty much everybody who isn't a liberal Democrat.
Hmmmmmm.......
Yep. None of those far right wing losers stands a chance.
There are actually more sane folk than there are insane fascists.
VOTE FOLKS!!!!!
True..
Also, there are more sane folks than insane socialists/communists (democrats)
VOTE OUT THE INSANITY!!!!
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!!!
Ed, quite seriously, how will you accomplish this if Trump is the nominee?
As I have said before, I will vote third party if needed as I have in the past.
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).
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.".
I understand. I could easily wind up voting third party protest as well.
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!
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.
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!)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
You just described the democrat ticket without realizing it. LOL
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)
"August 23 Fox News Debate Candidates. President Trump has not confirmed he will participate."
the former 'president' will not participate much like the press conference where he would exonerate himself regarding Georgia
The article is about Vivek Ramaswamy and the simple truths he listed.
... unamerican truths.
Bingo!
Maybe South American
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.
Maybe he believes in science and not religion.
You leftists should love him simply for that.
That is his case! Well said.
Except his number 1 tenant is belief in god, which clearly means he believes.
I'm thinking his has 8 arms...
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.
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.
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.
Sure hope I will always think over believe.
Good point!
Can we say he put science first?
That would be a definite "no".
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
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..
And you think there are???????? Speaking of LMAO too funny.
What a morainic comment, there are over a billion Hindus in the world so they are all in your opinion not normal...
No, I think he is saying what Ramaswamy is saying. There are only two genders.
Google that!
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!!
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?
sedition supporting trumpsters sure seem to...
[Deleted]
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!
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...
Kinda shows the 'fraud' factor in it right on the 'packaging,' doesn't it?
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...
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.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
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.
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?
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.
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.
Atheism is not an excuse to avoid morality regardless of liberal belief.
Deviant sexual behavior and sexual perversion is not natural, normal, or healthy.
Human activity is responsible for climate change; scapegoating oil companies won't change human activity.
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.
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.
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.
Equal opportunity allows people more freedom than does equal outcome.
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.
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.
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.
That was a comparison, 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?
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.
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.
You have proof of the existence of this "soul", and that it's forfeited by nonbelief?
Please present it for our persusal.
[Deleted]
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.
We are absolutely agreed on this point - this is blatant religious bigotry.
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.
Is this not proof enough of soul’s existence:
Your argument is that God is unreal. Does that mean God's morality is unreal?
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.
And mine was a conclusion, not a straw man.
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.
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.
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':
Add to your "Gaye" collectibles. The new 'guy' has come and we are going to love him too. Soul Singer—hey!
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.
Already answered @8.1.16.
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.
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.
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.
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'!
So do you think [deleted] was just pretending to get votes?
A distinction without a difference. It falsely assumes that atheists want to avoid moral responsibilities and consequences.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Hmmmm?...
So religious charities only benefit the donors after death in your opinion?.....
Exactly, it’s all the atheistic charities taking care of the migrants and operating food closets and homeless shelters.
No doubt...
No, you just find him nonsensical and self-serving 8.2.1
Yep, all those slaves freed by the movement started by Christians like William Wilberforce sure didn't benefit.
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.
Pathetic. That is a manmade condition, otherwise known as coercion.
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?
I agree completely....
I disagree completely...
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.
So those poor people that received the groceries didn't benefit from that belief?
Do you seriously think only believers practice charity?
The benefit is from the act of giving, not its motivation.
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.
No, not at all. Why do you ask that?
Why should they be?
What does that mean?....
I don’t know how to reconcile your different comments.
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.
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.
Is the soul a matter of faith/belief or not? (Yes or No?)
Did the Atheist or the Christian fuel the bagging up and distribution of groceries?
Well, as Hal was there helping, both did.
No doubt
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
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.
Most of the food banks in the very blue Fairfax County, VA are church run.
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.
That's just not true.
Similarly, many used their Christian beliefs to justify it.
You're a good person Sandy.
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.
Yes, I know. I'm responding to the claim that only the individual with faith benefits from that belief. Ridiculous, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I find religionists to be foolish at best
low hanging fruit...
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.
Sadly, (some) Christians can be jerks to the nth degree. I see it and experience it even while living in the 'space.'
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.
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.
I'm sure that you know your Bible better than an atheist like me, but where is rape commanded?
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.
Let's recap, shall we? I said:
You responded:
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).
Why do you think condoned or commanded?
I call them phonier than thou small c christians
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.
Read the article and stop pretending that anyone is being persecuted. Stop telling the rest of us what to do.
that's rich...
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.
Well said!
Show us where he said that.
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.
[Deleted]
Um.....the person you responded to and made accusations against.
Did you forget you did that?
For all you know covers a lot of ground, cj.
Some folks just live to defend the indefensible.
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.
Please, Richard.
I know there's a good reason I keep some people on ignore.
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?
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!
Have known same sex couples who were toxic.
They hated everything about each other.
They hated that that was all they had.
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.
Please elaborate, if appropriate.
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.
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.
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.
I remember when flying the freak flag actually meant something...
It's like the shell game, only using words.
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.
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.
Not quite accurate.
Thomas Sowell may have said it best:
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.
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.
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.
Sowell is a conservative-libertarian. A Koch at heart.
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!
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.
Thank you for that.
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.
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.
Well,. . . thank you anyway.
One of my favorites and still relevant to this very day:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Back to Granddad's Pride (briefly):
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.
I want to show you something (deceptive):
and compare it to:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
Used by everyone on all sides.
Yes, that would be because it's true for all sides.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoting John B Finch, Chairman of the Prohibition Party.
Paraphrasing not quoting, but yes..
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!)
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?
Don't know about him, but I would call him a male.
Because that is what he is.
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.
No.
So not your typical male after all, eh?
There are obvious mental issues that need to be resolved.
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!
Meaning exactly what I said.
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
As far as you know.
And that is your opinion. You see it as biased, I see it as a possible safety / well being issue.
Nobody mentioned anybody's skin color. Why make this a racial thing when it isn't?
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.
Your decision to take this path presents to everybody you really have nothing of importance to say.
Thank you for your racist comments.
Whatever, Jeremy. "Many" people think you have nothing of importance to say too. *Snap!
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.
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.
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.
That list seems to seriously trigger many.
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.
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.
Should children be taught sexual sadism and bondage in public schools - or anywhere else for that matter?
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.
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?
The minority controlling women's bodies with religious fascism is wrong.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
more....
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.
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.
Thanks mocowgirl. I’ll checkout the video.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Vivek Ramaswamy smart as a fox could be positioning himself for a VP slot? (You may have heard it here first!)
Will give you credit if that comes true, fur sure.
Candidly, I think all but Desantis and Pence are.
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.
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.
It does matter what children are taught and age does matter. Watching porn at an early age can rewire the brain.
What does pornography have to do with knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist?????
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.
What nonsense.
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.
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.
Based on your guess? Your research? Your credentials as an expert in the field?
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.
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.
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.
"Experimentation and to seed further political division' that is some whackjob conspiracy nonsense and ignorance against the trans-community.
What does that mean in context of people preying on children's minds and bodies?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the narrative that they should put forward?
Figure it out.
You can recognize the wrong narrative but not the right one.
Filler. You have nothing else?
Folks that never made the cheerleader cut in high school, make up for it here.
Exactly, the right to remain oblivious to reality.
A frequent occurrence with many on the left.
Also no explanation as to how he/she/whatever this person is - was 'pushed into transitioning'
So you don't have a clue.
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.
"Can't rape the willing," is an expression from my youth. In context of Oli London he volunteered for his surgeries and I presume appropriate documents were itemized, listed, explained, and ultimately signed. That is what I mean about the expression here. Of course, I am referring to people who cry 'foul' after they open themselves up, no pun intended, to an 'act.'
As to suicides among transsexuals, I have no true knowledge of or about that. One thought does come to mind, well actually three thoughts:
1. The transitioning person may find the physical sensations they 'lose,' are not worth the sensations they are left. That could be a reality check all its own.
2. The transitioner, is faced with a reality that the illusion of him as a female or her as a male is not 'carryover' well in reality/society. That is, their personal level of anxiety for being 'outed' is too high and unstable—leading to depression.
3. The transsexual is highly aware that certain political forces will not accept him/her not even granting "momentary peace" because of their pursuits to turn people against them; keep them unable to physically work or support themselves, and otherwise causing them to have a dead-end, poor quality life.
Those are my thoughts.
Mine too. Always makes me think of the high school kid, banging his math teacher, which is statutory rape. That's the point. Oli went to it, sure, but I have a hard time believing dude doesn't have some issues. He didn't need a plastic surgeon to help him find his checkbook, he needed someone to pump the breaks. And that's the issue. Whether or not someone is coming at this with blinders on, aided by people who are more than happy to take their money.
A fourth on your list could be that the person suffers from depression unrelated to gender, but the notion is tossed out there, as a possible fix, leaving the real issue unattended.
“ In recent years, at least a handful of European countries have gently tapped the breaks on gender-affirming care for minors.”
.
” Western Europe, where governments and medical authorities in at least five countries that once led the way on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents are now reversing course, arguing that the science undergirding these treatments is unproven, and their benefits unclear.”
This ignorant ass claims he was pushed into transitioning and that there are thousands upon thousands who are de-transitioning? A bunch of lies and ignorance, where is this moron's proof?
I don't see the 'powerful message' from this moron - he is merely spreading lies and ignorance against the trans-community.
Just the opening of this is ridiculous (I am not finished listening yet) but this is one man's story or several. . . that is, the Exception/s to the Rule. This person is speaking talking points. . . . and may transit again after getting rich off books about transitioning and de-transitioning.
You know what is really f-ed up? These people who rush to writing books and cozying up to people who want to exploit their experiences, when in fact they will be transitioning back and forth throughout their short or long lives! It's all so exploitive. . .and expedient.
Why is his story any more ridiculous than anyone else's? Is that a verifiable fact or based on emotion?
What does the Food and Drug Administration say about the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones for children’s gender care?
What safety trials have been conducted?
Why did the FDA order pharmaceutical companies, 7 years ago, to add a warning label to puberty blockers about possible psychiatric problems?
Well, hopefully, the flow won't entail having to learn 150 genders which will happen if the trans community is allowed to eliminate actual science.
Does medical science know the risks of pubertal suppression to adolescent brain development and bone density?
What are the risks or long-term effects on cardiovascular and metabolic health following estrogen and testosterone therapy?
Can You Identify As Transracial? | Would You Rather | Channel 4
Oli is transracial too? Or, has been transracial before and de-transitioned back to White?
Oli is 31 years old thereabouts. He is young and experimenting with a great many things ON IMPULSE.
That is why I ask why he is writing books. . . clearly it is obvious that he is not decided if he is done with his/her transitions altogether.
And I just 'met' Oli today (right now) and I can discern that he is not 'fit' to write about who he is becoming with any finality. Plus, I find it obvious when the Right-wing sphere of politics rushed to give EXPLOIT Oli, the influencer, while he is in-between "becomings."
Your statement would have more validity if you were not known for your right-wing spin on . . .well, everything. Do not try to manipulate this issue. One which you clearly know less about because you are not interested in learning about transsexualism (even less than myself as a homosexual man).
You tell me/us, if you know that is.
Afraid at what you might find if you did some research?
I don't have time to catch down ever detailed remark made on this comment board . . .and apparently neither do you. Else it would be easy for you to share it. And you are not sharing a damn thing. Need I ask why not? Okay, Why not?
After all, I just put a pin into Oli London's Barbie/Ken writes a memoir at a tender young age 'balloon' when s/he is still not sure where he/she will settle upon being in the end. As of today, Oli London entirely set of behaviors is that of a person acting on impulse trying to find her/him-him/her self!
You've advocated for a medical treatment for kids without any information on it's risks.
Because they aren't known, the studies haven't been performed.
Then there you go! Don't do it. It is not anything I have to support or not support.
My position on this as far as it is-is people need to tell the TRUTH about the matter and not just assent to posting partial truths and right-wing talking points videos and anti-transsexualism statements.
My view is the whole of the transsexualism set of issues are in flux and people are 'jockeying' back and forth trying to exploit what is known and not known to their advantages-truth coming in secondary or worse.
That is intolerable.
Incidentally, I see your link materialized. . . but, the 'trap' was already sprung.
Have you told the whole TRUTH about the matter? Not if you didn’t include risks,
Why would I know the whole truth about transsexualism when I am not so? And neither are you. Some conservatives 'role' here is to blow shit up and y'all do that as often as you can. You don't know what the "h" you are talking about . . .and as far as you are concerned you don't have to. Just push conservative talking points and right-perspective articles from biased professionals who toe the conservative line on issues.
As I said, I don't have time or inclination to research-chase down all the proliferative articles conservatives write and push out to the public. Nor, do I have any intention of believing any of them until I do find time in my day/s to read up on a subject for myself.
As Reagan stated: Trust, but verify.
I back my points up with some knowledge on the issue and which “right biased professionals” have I quoted?
You use unsourced left based talking points.
Do you know the whole truth of transsexualism or not? Or are you merely posting what others say that affirms your points of view? As for right-wing perspectives I am sure you know what I speak of generally. When I have time to bone up on the subject I will, until I express my opinion about the characters involved just like everybody else does. Maybe with one important difference—maybe:
I don't care about who wins in the debate about transsexualism, I just want the best for the child/ren and adults involved overall. And right-wing politics, by definition, is not interested in and most definitely takes a partisan attitude against transsexualism.
Without the studies being performed it’s unknowable, which might give caution to broadly advocating it for our kids,
I form my point of view after being informed.
Very original, good job CB.
There is no reason that children should be involved. The fact that they are is the primary reason for the objections.
Yep, there are two genders, you're born one or the other....
I don't know about that, Greg. It is my certain belief that some conservatives are 99.99 percent manipulative in what they write, propose, and share. So if not this than something else would be brought up as a talking point to distract from, discount, diminish, or/and thwart transsexualism.
Again, I don't know about transsexualism fully, but I do know that right-wing politicians and MAGA don't either but would like nothing more than to see an end to it by hook or crook. And to that end you post 21.8.25 above! You don't support transsexualism for adults either! Just stop already with the deceit.
Do you disagree?
You see what people are doing to themselves. . .and the discussions taking place about it. Go with that.
Along those lines. . . let's go with your point of view: There are only two sexes. So there is nothing to discuss, eh?
(So why are you discussing nothing?)
Ummmm.....
Those Swedes are just a bunch of right wing extremists.
"Sweden, known as a pioneer in LGBTQ rights, started restricting gender-affirming hormone therapy for minors - allowing it only in very rare cases - a year ago."
"Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare explains that the reason behind the rollback is that little is known about the effects of these treatments over the long term and "the risks outweigh the benefits currently"
"We had a protocol in place which was designed for very rare and extreme cases and suddenly the demand exploded so we continued to use that protocol,” said Mikael Landen, a psychiatrist specialising in gender dysphoria who contributed to the scientific study on which Sweden’s health authority based its decision."
In 2019, there were at least 13 minors who suffered from "serious side effects,” according to Swedish reports.
One of them had developed osteoporosis - a health condition that weakens bones - after taking puberty blockers. Others have suffered from liver damage, significant weight gain and depressive symptoms.
This was revealed by investigative journalist Carolina Jemsby, who directed the documentary ‘The Trans Train’.
She believes the current debate shows the issue of gender-affirming care for trans teens is "more complex than the healthcare system and society had hoped".
"One aspect of this dilemma is that it has become a political issue," she told AFP.
"It does a disservice to this group who need scientifically proven medical care to help them and give them a better life, and a better ability to live who they are".
A Swedish paediatric endocrinologist, Ricard Nergårdh, recently told the country’s public broadcaster that the procedure teenagers with gender dysphoria go through was “chemical castration”.
Trying to establish some kind of baseline for discussion. And your answer was?....
Just stop. 21.8.26 explains my position on some of the articles out there. I don't care about the politics of transsexualism. And as you, a cancer survivor knows, all medicines have SIDE-EFFECTS for a miniscule number of the population and 13 individuals definitely constitutes a "low" number of serious side effects depending on the size of the pool.
Yawn. I tire of this.
Incidentally, it is nice to see conservatives being "international" when it suits them. Otherwise, it's discount, minimize, and/or demonize the international community at-will.
I don't know how minimal the type of my chemo side-effect are, maybe you do.
How big was the pool?
Don't let your biases fool you, I've always been international. I've lived outside of the US for 13 years, how about you?
This is not about you so much as it is about the conservative MAGA politicians and policies with which you associate yourself.
Go with what I wrote at 21.8.28! Other than that I would ask how one classifies hermaphrodites or persons who transplant and remove their breasts and sex organs. Do you ever wonder what they are called? They sure don't look like the "traditional" male or female you are trying to foist on this discussion as traditional males and females!
They don't really apply to this discussion.
They do...
No....
Agreed, now could you answer the question?
Because it's all lies and ignorance and you believe this one person's lies and ignorance against the trans community - 'experimentation and seed further political division' - made up nonsense
It sounds like this person Oli is the one with a problem - NOT ALL transgenders as mccowgirl is saying
As a birth defect.
Hermaphrodite is not a gender.
Mentally ill.
This is more about your biases than it is about politicians that I associate myself with. Which MAGA politicians have you seen me associate myself with?
Intersex.
And yes it is weak that some conservatives get such words and concepts stuck in/out of their. . . comments.
And yet it is-intersexualism. And, transsexualism takes gender to another level as well.
How cute.
It's all ridiculous CB and painting targets on the backs of the trans community, a lot of nonsense and conspiracies
More nonsense - where do you find all this garbage?
How would they 'eliminate actual science'???????????
Sandy,
In the interview, he said stock in store.
I followed your link. It took me to the Springfield, MO store as my local store. (University town) There are zero copies available in the Springfield store. I can order it to ship to store and pick up.
I checked the Fayetteville, AR store. Same situation. Fayetteville, AR is where the University of Arkansas is located.
I don't know if that is the situation throughout the US.
Ok, but it's available. He's not being silenced, which is what you claimed. I could have his book by Thursday, if I chose. By Tuesday, if I ordered from Amazon. And he's obviously getting television interviews. That pretty much goes against the "silenced" claim.
Where did I claim that London was being silenced?
But you bring up a point that is happening. Middle-aged left wing femininsts are being silenced or de-platformed for speaking up for women's rights. Why?
A man is not a woman. This is a fact. He can be castrated. He can take synthethic hormones. He can be the best facade that modern medicine can make of a biological woman, but he will never be a woman.
Yet, anyone just stating the facts is getting huge backlash. Why? When did biology actually change? Who changed it?
To date, the trans activists are acting a lot like the anti-vaxxers - relying on pseudo-science or no actual science at all.
That was your claim in your comment @21. He is most decidedly NOT being silenced. You have posted multiple videos of him being interviewed, and he has a book out that can be easily obtained from several different retailers.
I am a middle-aged feminist. I am not being and have not been silenced.
Can I be frank here? Nobody has time to watch all of the videos you post. You are intelligent and well-spoken, and can support your points yourself. I may not agree with you all the time, but I have never found you to be lacking in the ability to converse rationally. It's one thing to post a short video or two to support your point. But multiple videos, one over an hour and a half long and at least one that was just journalists talking over each other giving their opinions, are likely to go unwatched (due to length), and don't add much to your point (due to being opinion pieces rather than research). You're a better support of your own thoughts than a bunch of videos.
For my part, can't speak for what transsexuals are doing to themselves or saying about themselves. . . I fully accept that transfemales and transmales are not females and males, respectively. They are. . . different. And that difference must be accounted for, if only because they do exist differently.
That is my point. Also, I take exception to organized. . .okay, right-wing groupings that insist on ignoring the differences in transsexuals from the categories: Male or female. That is just crude, rude, and blind. We can all see something is going on with these people that is different from males and females.
As for kids transitioning. I don't understand it. . .exception: I do understand the part of the discussion that goes that for sports purposes a boy who wants to be a girl must transition before puberty to make it 'right' for professional sports.
This does engender a discussion about where society should enter into the parent/child/doctor relationship on account of genderization and transsexualism. Because conservatives certainly can't address the issue fairly. As it is clear, conservatives with limited exceptions do not accept or respect that homosexuals have a proper place in society.
Well, thank you.
I will be just as frank.
I honestly quit coming here because almost everyone here seems to spend their entire time arguing with each other over trivial talking points. There is no in-depth discussion on any subject whatsoever. It is like being stuck in an academic class in junior high school with the mean kids who just want to score points. Learning anything is never their goal.
If only one person has enough interest to watch one video or make one valid argument, then I haven't wasted my time or anyone else's.
People are free to skip the videos. Hell, if they are not concerned with any facts, I wish they would just put me entirely on their ignore list. I am as much a waste of their time as they are of mine when I give them the courtesy of replying to their emotional rants with logic and information that might at least make them come back with a reply worth discussion.
[deleted]
You go first. What is the conservative view of transsexualism?
I agree about the conservatives and the homosexuals. Attitudes are evolving - especially with the younger people who are not as indoctrinated with that old time religion.
I never know what you mean by homosexuals having a proper place in society.
I have always felt that education was key, but I have discovered that is because I am and have always been an academic all of my life, I frustrate most people with more info than they want to know.
Humans are far more complicated than it is possible to legislate for. I want a society where people are safe to be themselves as long as they are not harming others.
Sexual orientation of anyone is not a threat to society unless there is a victim. That is why I post videos of many discussions in the hope that someone, anyone, will explore more content on their own and share. The internet is a wonderful place until the algorithm figures a person out better than they know themselves and only offers content that confirms their biases they probably don't know they have. I can confirm my biases all day long. The only reason I come here is for someone to challenge me to make consider something I did not know and could not possibly feel because I haven't lived through their experiences.
[deleted]
You are one of the most thoughtful and sincere commenters here. That is what causes consternation with many here. They don't know how to respond to unbiased, knowledgeable comments. You make them uncomfortable.
It is good that (some) conservative attitudes are evolving. Check!
There are conservatives who are regressing (devolving) on homosexuality too, or who have never advanced at all from the conservative stance of 'old.' As we will likely see when SCOTUS comes into its fall session and likely look over same-sex marriage as needing to be placed under states rights. Although, marriage is a civil right that all who wish to participate in it should be permitted under law as it relates to sexuality.
What I mean by proper place? Mainstream homosexuality. Some conservatives seem to only be okay with homosexuality when it is 'silent' (not seen/not heard from) in the culture. Hidden. Bushes. Bathhouses. Stalls. Outback. Countryside. Etceteras.
Or worse, when it is legislated in a law that handicaps and criminalizes homosexuals.
And ALL of the life on Earth revolves around what they want, what they do, what they have done, and what they have seen without any true understanding or consideration of others.
Tig introduced me to Robert Sapolsky's books and youtube lectures a few years ago. It opened my eyes to how complicated our species is on the one hand and how much of our programming possibly happens before we are born.
I really try to treat everyone as being capable of evolving their mindset. Our society has changed drastically since the 1960s and will continue to change.
In the case of the subject of this seed, I am totally in favor of supporting trans rights, but not to the detriment of women and children. This is where there has to be a discussion so everyone is safe and treated fairly.
Thank you.
Just thank you more than I can say.
I completely agree and all ways enjoy and learn from your comments.
Some didn't evolve and never will. They also want a woman who slops the hogs, milks the cows, splits the wood, fries the perfect steak and potatoes, buys them a bass boat and dresses in heels and pearls. They watch 1950s tv shows and dream of the good old days. I have been married to this type of man (a few times/currently). They will never change and are best avoided.
I would be very surprised if the SCOTUS will ever overturn same-sex marriage. Heterosexuals are shunning marriage by a large percentage these days. Who needs the legal hassles fighting over an iron clad pre-nuptial agreement when it all goes sour in a few years? Birth rates are below replacement and largely born out of wedlock. I am supportive of same-sex marriage, but unless there are valid reasons to enter into a legal contract with their loved one, I will be surprised if the same-sex marriage percentage won't wane out naturally as reality sets in that love and commitment are really the most important factors in a relationship.
I don't have any idea of the limitations that homosexuals face in public displays of affection such as hand-holding or kissing. I am not in public enough these days to see heterosexual displays of affection. The last hug I had was in January, at an area feed store, by a man who gave me a bird dog over a decade ago. I am not sure the feed store owner's wife approved of the hug. As far as I know, she doesn't know about the bird dog. She probably wouldn't like that either. I just chalk it up to people can be strange and are better left to their own devices.
You know human nature and experience well. I would love to meet you for real but am content just learning your thoughts here.
I am an introvert raised on a farm. I have spent most of life working with animals and mostly loved it. I survived and the animals survived - it is all good.
With people, I watch and learn and rarely engage. Some of the nicest people I have known have turned out to be the vilest. Their facade was perfect. Luckily, I was not their target. It was truly heartbreaking to learn of the crimes they had committed. I was so sorry I had ever met them personally because it made it more difficult to trust anyone. I've probably closed myself off far more than has been mentally healthy for me. I know it has made far more overprotective of children - mine and everyone else's.
I was invited to a Vinemeet in Branson, MO a few years ago. It was in easy driving distance of my home. I really wanted to go, but I just couldn't.
When I get lonely, I go to Lowe's or Wal-Mart, talk to strangers about superficial things like rising prices or the weather and return to my cave.
It is difficult for me to engage for long on this site.
Indeed, I tend to think that introverts process information more thought fully than extroverts do, they take the time to understand ideas.
Introverts possess better observational skills. You notice things others might not because they’re talking and processing out loud.
Maybe you allow the time to really connect with people.
Most folks here aren't looking for a healthy engagement.
I don't know, Mocowgirl. I have lived my life with a lot of interference from people who try to define me, my faith, and my beliefs (for me). It does not matter to them that I am a good person overall, or even specifically good to them. They simply judge people for their own benefit. And, the older I get the more I realize it.
For example, it is a big deal to get out from under the 'curse' of homosexuality being labeled a mental illness by a major of professional society, gain a modicum of acceptance, and it has been a 'study' in patience to not remark on those commenters who take liberty to call homosexuals mentally ill on NT—despite the medical science clearance of this form of sexuality.
Those who hate us will not/don't change. They are stuck. They will attack. They will hit. They will hurt. They will legislate against up and call it good for us (to be back behind bushes, stalls, outhouses, in bathhouses, and all-around out of sight and out of mind).
For our part we have 'tasted' freedom to be mainstream and tasted marriage as a group; and it is better and healthier for us. So yes, I, we, bristle and confront writers and speakers who tell us we are not good enough to be in mainstream society—with them and theirs.
But, they persist. And sometimes their insistence becomes bullying, fists, or shots fired.
On or off of the internet?
If you seek validation on the internet via partisan political discussions, you may as well be bass fishing in the Sahara Desert.
Most of us struggle to be accepted for one reason or another. It really depends on what our expectations of other people are. I am not stupid enough to go to an area church and expect anyone in it to accept me as an atheist. The saved will feel obligated to convert me to their religious beliefs or cast me out of their church and community if they have the power to do so. The saved will judge me as demonic, demon possessed, a minion of Satan, and a whole host of other things that they cannot and will not be associated with. NONE of them will bother will consulting a medical science manual to see if atheism falls under a mental illness.
On the internet, I am free to be me and say who I am and what I really think. Some people accept it, and some don't but at least I don't have to worry about them having the power to have me locked out of every business in our small town because I am an atheist. Most likely, I couldn't get a flat fixed or even buy gas in my local community if it was known that I am an atheist. A local restaurant is owned by Laotians who might not care.
Are you stating that you are being physically attacked where you live?
I am a homosexual. I can't put the 'body of work' into words that explains what amount of hatred, deception, deviousness, 'shadiness,' and government neglect has happened to my "people" and me. Of course, all homosexuals have their stories to tell even though (thankfully) it is not the same story - by hook or crook!
It's a lot, if you can imagine. Couple that with me being a black homosexual and "h" half the time I don't know, am not told, and it can easily become confusing as to which issue a 'hater' is reacting to, as people don't always state it plainly.
Recently, I have reason to expect some in my own family for being indifferent to my personal charm and affections, simply because they reject my past life-even though it is front and center for decades now. (I think they were told something about me. They won't bring it up with me.) I don't care, because I can't 'fix' what people won't even bother to talk about with me.
On the internet? People say stupid crap all the time. So what. My only statement on that is: 1. It's stupid homophobic crap. 2. They show they are crude-brutes and they apparently don't even know it!
No. I am not being attacked. Homosexuals, my associated group/kind, are being attacked. I am not attacked because I look like and can defend myself. That said, I will confide this much about a practical issue:
As I grow older living a quiet, settled life, in a familial setting. . . I am developing deepening and longterm friendships with many heterosexuals who do not know my 'inner man' past or present thoughts/turmoils. . . as such, I go through phases when I let my 'hair down' and 'hang loose' or remember who I was in my youth and. . .I distinctly am watching some of these folks going deeper into their religious ideology and am aware that at any given moment they can past judgement on me. . . cut off relationship. . .and even tell (gossip) what they know or think they have figured out.
It's all very weird. Heterosexual people can be good to one another. They can also cut each other off for reasons of preference or fear of what their friends will say about them if they keep certain relationships on-going. It is hard to speak on this.
I share the above two paragraphs, because I wish to point out that what politicians do when they put homosexuals on 'front' street with their negative questions, affronts, and policies of hindrances. . . finds "purchase" to one degree or another in the minds of many people in society helter-skelter fashion. That is, many people will not change how they deal with homosexuals because of politics or conservative-leaning remarks. . . just as many will change; they will call it reevaluating their position and where they were often for time-now they are closed off once again.
I find that through it all, my whole life has been lived with someone judging me for being homosexual and that the 'book' is still not closed today on what I can write about it.
Your situation is typical of power struggles in many, if not most, families. Gossip, back-stabbing, power struggles, jealousy, hatred, mental and physical abuse are all common behaviors of the family dynamics of our species. Some people are easier targets than others, but absolutely no one is exempt from abuse - even the "golden" child.
I have shared a limited amount of my personal experiences online. It caused me intense grief to even type any of it because I had to relive those experiences in order to write about it. I am so very happy I finally found a woman who shared that she had the same trauma in therapy. Talking about her past trauma was just creating an endless cycle of grief that she could not get past. Once she began journaling as a release for her grief and anger, she began to heal her emotional wounds. I have done it in a limited capacity. I find it helpful. Mostly, I just try to forget and make every day the best I can make it. In order to do that, it usually means avoiding personal contact with people who want to talk about the past or have a childlike understanding of human behavior.
What you have experienced and continue to experience is in the realm of typical human behavior and has little to absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Facts rarely matter to people who want to use, control or slander someone. This is why I have read a lot of research and watched thousands of hours of videos trying to understand human behavior. I have even watched videos of quotes of ancient philosophers. I am amazed of how little people's behaviors and attitudes have changed in some regards. This is why I find the argument that we have limited "freewill" to be logical.
Never share anything with anyone if you don't want to be judged. People cannot help judging others. It could be hard-wired as a survival instinct so we are not even aware of it.
Even my most beloved grandmother gossiped behind my back. She loved me and worried about me surviving because I was far too independent minded and acting for the society I was being raised in. She also tried to mold me into someone who would be more acceptable to the society we were living in. In hindsight, I realize all that. At the time, I either ignored her or said ugly words that I will regret to my dying day.
Not everyone has our back and there are plenty of users, but not everyone is our enemy just because they disagree or don't understand the things we do.
However, I have learned the hard way that unless they are a person who have signed an NDA, don't use other people as therapists. Maybe, you might see if that would work for you.
Heterosexual people are not one group who have one mindset.
Some groups are more accepting than others.
To be too accepting of others means rejection from groups that have narrow acceptance criteria.
This is typical, normal human behavior. Possibly hard-wired as a survival instinct because non-conformity to the tribe you were born in, often meant death throughout human history.
Every human, in every nation, could finish that sentence with what they were judged for.
Most people don't stand out for widespread notice unless they do something really out of societal bounds where they live. Even in a small community, most people don't know or care about people outside of a very small number of people.
I have read our species, on average, can only recall a limited number of names and faces. So in today's media age, we are exposed to way too many people to remember. I have seen talk show hosts admit they don't remember the celebrities they interview if they meet them on the street. The same celebrities who their fans will line streets for hours to get a glimpse of.
Some people envy and aspire to be noticed. To be envied and noticed is to be judged and hated by the people who want to be envied and noticed and are not envied and noticed. Because of the way I am wired, I find the whole scenario to one of the reasons that our society is dysfunctional and becoming more so every day. No one is grateful for anything they have or own because they know someone else has something "better" and they are envious.
Maybe it is because I have lived a life closer to nature, but I appreciate the pine tree in my yard far more than I would having a diamond necklace collecting dust on a shelf. My livestock doesn't care how I am dressed. They just want watered and fed. People expect me to jump through hoops that I find a complete waste of my life and idolize material goods that I have no use for.
My utmost ability to conform to my society's standards means that I will change out of the overalls I am currently wearing to a pair of jeans so I buy lawnmower gas this morning. I could get by with wearing the overalls, but I prefer not to stand out as memorable in my community in any way if I can avoid it.
These are just 3 examples of why NO ONE should be allowed to experiment on children or have access to a child's sexual education without parental permission.
and
and
All your examples are from London's version of the Daily Enquirer.
Not a reputable source so then neither are your ridiculous claims.
A few more articles....
Children's Hospital Caught Trans-ing Kids No Longer No. 1 for Pediatric Care (townhall.com)
TRANSGENDER woman with a BEARD is now a LESBIAN, is it TRANSPHOBIC if lesbians refuse to date a trans woman? (msn.com)
My Research on Gender Dysphoria Was Censored. But I Won’t Be. | The Free Press (thefp.com)
International Experts Admit What U.S. Experts Won't About Youth Gender Transition (townhall.com)
Detransitioned boy castrated by doctors warns kids about perils of gender ideology: 'Patient for life' (msn.com)
JUST when you thought things couldn't get any dumber, obvious (ugly) MAN wins title of MISS Netherlands – Twitchy
The castrated “boy” in your link was 19 when he made the decision to have his balls cut off. What sort of big government intervention would you suggest for those legal adults who request this procedure?
It seems you failed to read the article for the message contained therein.
How old was he when he began getting indoctrinated about needing to transition?
The title contains the line “… boy castrated by doctors …”
If indoctrination were the concern then why are they disingenuously putting his personal decisions as an adult into the title? And since when does any Christian care about indoctrinating children?! It’s literally the basis of their playbook.
19 and he can decide something that life changing but not old enough to legally buy a beer. Something is very messed up with legal age to be able to do things.
I think that all here will recognize that drinking a beer is far more serious than castration.
You can have beer more than one time