Prepubescent "Transgender Activist"

[Adrift]

I don't really understand the mindsets of US Conservatives in these matters...

I mean, in lots of countries the kids at the beach are often naked to the age of about 4. In Europe and South America, women sunbathing topless can be quite common. In various parts of Europe, naked saunas with both genders are a thing. Any children who grow up on farms will see animals mating on a regular basis and understand the idea. And until recently in human history it's been reasonably common for families to live together in single-roomed houses in which the children were present while their parents do the deed.

In short, children don't melt die, or otherwise combust, if they know or see the differences between males and females, or if they know about or see sex. The idea that we need to withhold information to protect them is absurd, and says much more about our own lack of comfort with such subjects and our unwillingness to talk about them, than it says anything at all about whether it matters if children know or see things about gender or sexuality.

Yet despite that, US conservatives seem to see it as their job to protect the little babies from the scary knowledge. Thus, they try and sabotage sex education classes. Thus they try and make sure no girl ever sees a boy's peepee. They flip out at the idea of mixed gender showers because of their prudishness (I don't necessarily object to prudishness itself, I'm from a similar culture that's similarly prudish and even frowns at the idea of same-gender showers, and am happy saying any level of prudishness is just an arbitrary cultural norm). Yet... bizarrely... they seem totally fine with same-gender showers, and don't mind the idea of all the boys in the locker-room showering together, even though it's inevitable that a reasonable percentage of those boys are gay. It's apparently important to keep the transgender kids out of the locker-room in case something is seen, but the gay kids can look all they want, or something. Unless... bizarrely... the kid openly comes out as gay, and then it's apparently a big problem, because it means sports teams can't cope with the kid being in the locker-room. They were fine with the kid looking at the them naked when he was gay but hadn't told them he was, but they can't handle him being in the locker-room after he's told them. It all seems bizarre to me and full of double-standards and unjustifiable views.

First you support infanticide, then you support offering pedophiles pedophile porn, and now you're lamenting that "US conservatives" aren't allowing their children, very young boys and girls, examine one another naked in public; Prudish for explaining to their small children the differences between sexual genitalia at home, rather than in a public school. No one here is against sex education. That's just something you made up, but there is obviously a place and time, and teaching it to four year olds in public schools by having them disrobe in front of one another isn't it.

You keep using the word "bizarre" totally unaware that you are the one that is bizarre. I guarantee that if you made public all of these slimy and creepy views you express on this forum in public in your home town, you'd be tarred and feathered. There is something very wrong with you. Something very broke. And you think it's normal, liberating even. It's not normal, it's not liberating. It's corrupt.

[Jaecp]

First you support infanticide, then you support offering pedophiles pedophile porn, and now you're lamenting that "US conservatives" aren't allowing their children, very young boys and girls, examine one another naked in public; Prudish for explaining to their small children the differences between sexual genitalia at home, rather than in a public school. No one here is against sex education. That's just something you made up, but there is obviously a place and time, and teaching it to four year olds in public schools by having them disrobe in front of one another isn't it.

You keep using the word "bizarre" totally unaware that you are the one that is bizarre. I guarantee that if you made public all of these slimy and creepy views you express on this forum in public in your home town, you'd be tarred and feathered. There is something very wrong with you. Something very broke. And you think it's normal, liberating even. It's not normal, it's not liberating. It's corrupt.

Adrift, you are slandering Starlight if you say that he supports offering pedophiles porn without context. That is, seriously, screwed up. You know full well that that thread was talking about a hypothetical if porn could be used as a substitute for their urges, aka protecting children, and said porn was to be CGI.

Cut the strawmans dude, shouldn't you be better than that? It's one thing to list off shortened versions of those conversations as a reference point, but by then saying he'd be tarred and feathered over it? Yeah, if I went down to the coffee shop and started going "we should give porn to pedophiles!" I'd probably get up arrested, but neither I nor Starlight ever said anything like that. You want to argue against the specifics of one of these "bizarre" views? I welcome it. But you didn't. I remember that thread. You threw out moral outrage over the basic concept and refused to treat a hypothetical as one and now are misrepresenting even the post you're responding to! This kind of nudity is already quite common in various parts of the world.

It's not like he's saying "hey, random idea, what if we replaced sexual education coursework with having our toddlers just, like, hang out naked?" because thats freaking ridiculous. And yet you actually managed to write "teaching it to four year olds in public schools by having them disrobe in front of one another isn't it. " with a straight face, I assume, which boggles my mind.

No wonder you find him so bizarre, you can't even properly summarize Starlight's position when its right in front of you

[Adrift]

Adrift, you are slandering Starlight if you say that he supports offering pedophiles porn without context. That is, seriously, screwed up. You know full well that that thread was talking about a hypothetical if porn could be used as a substitute for their urges, aka protecting children, and said porn was to be CGI.

Cut the strawmans dude, shouldn't you be better than that? It's one thing to list off shortened versions of those conversations as a reference point, but by then saying he'd be tarred and feathered over it? Yeah, if I went down to the coffee shop and started going "we should give porn to pedophiles!" I'd probably get up arrested, but neither I nor Starlight ever said anything like that. You want to argue against the specifics of one of these "bizarre" views? I welcome it. But you didn't. I remember that thread. You threw out moral outrage over the basic concept and refused to treat a hypothetical as one and now are misrepresenting even the post you're responding to! This kind of nudity is already quite common in various parts of the world.

It's not like he's saying "hey, random idea, what if we replaced sexual education coursework with having our toddlers just, like, hang out naked?" because thats freaking ridiculous. And yet you actually managed to write "teaching it to four year olds in public schools by having them disrobe in front of one another isn't it. " with a straight face, I assume, which boggles my mind.

No wonder you find him so bizarre, you can't even properly summarize Starlight's position when its right in front of you

Oh, spare me the faux indignation Jaecp. My "moral outrage" was and is absolutely justified. The things you two were proposing are monstrously horrifying. Children are our most precious and innocent treasures, and people who support infanticide, pedophiles, and now naked show-and-tells are screwed in the head. I don't know what the hell is wrong with you, but by defending this creep, you're just as bad as he is. If it were up to me, both you two would have been kicked off the forum a long time ago.

[Jaecp]

Oh, spare me the faux indignation Jaecp. My "moral outrage" was and is absolutely justified. The things you two were proposing are monstrously horrifying. Children are our most precious and innocent treasures, and people who support infanticide, pedophiles, and now naked show-and-tells are screwed in the head. I don't know what the hell is wrong with you, but by defending this creep, you're just as bad as he is. If it were up to me, both you two would have been kicked off the forum a long time ago.

No one is supporting pedophiles you buffoon.

There was a hypothetical proposed along the vein of "what if something bad could do some good" and the example I chose, unaware of how controversial it would end up being, was something along the lines of "If pornography could be used to control a pedophiles urges then would you give child porn to a pedophile" and it was nothing more than that. Incidentally, in said hypothetical, fewer children would be sexually assaulted than in our world!

By saying that Starlight supports that you are lying about him. This is not faux indignation, Adrift, this is me wondering why your ability at argument has gotten so terrible that you must resort to lying about the beliefs of your ideological opponents to discredit their current arguments.

[Adrift]

No one is supporting pedophiles you buffoon.

There was a hypothetical proposed along the vein of "what if something bad could do some good" and the example I chose, unaware of how controversial it would end up being, was something along the lines of "If pornography could be used to control a pedophiles urges then would you give child porn to a pedophile" and it was nothing more than that. Incidentally, in said hypothetical, fewer children would be sexually assaulted than in our world!

By saying that Starlight supports that you are lying about him. This is not faux indignation, Adrift, this is me wondering why your ability at argument has gotten so terrible that you must resort to lying about the beliefs of your ideological opponents to discredit their current arguments.

I was NOT lying about him, and it IS supporting pedophiles. It's outright obviousness that giving pedophiles pedophile porn is in some way supporting them. Knowing that you two are not complete imbeciles, I'm certain you knew that the idea you proposed, and that Starlight defended, was going to be controversial. My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, and you know it. You also know that if you presented your views about supporting pedophiles through offering them pedophile porn in any other public forum of this nature you'd find the same moral outrage. Again, stop with the faux indignation (and yes, it IS faux indignation). I'm not buying it.

[Jaecp]

I was NOT lying about him, and it IS supporting pedophiles. It's outright obviousness that giving pedophiles pedophile porn is in some way supporting them. Knowing that you two are not complete imbeciles, I'm certain you knew that the idea you proposed, and that Starlight defended, was going to be controversial. My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, and you know it. You also know that if you presented your views about supporting pedophiles through offering them pedophile porn in any other public forum of this nature you'd find the same moral outrage. Again, stop with the faux indignation (and yes, it IS faux indignation). I'm not buying it.

Hey, quick question,

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

(edit: there's a link above!)

[Jaecp]

Can anyone else tell Adrift what a hypothetical is?

[Adrift]

Hey, quick question,

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

(edit: there's a link above!)

Jaecp, we went through this already. I don't care if it was a hypothetical. As mentioned in that previous thread, rational people don't hypothesize about these sorts of things, because they're so foul, so disturbing that to seriously hypothesize about them is insanity. Shooting an alcoholic in the head might stop him from drinking, but seriously hypothesizing about it is madness. That you are not getting this just demonstrates your level of depravity. You NEED Jesus man. Seriously. You're so out to lunch that you think your and Starlight's lunacy sounds reasonable. It isn't. It's pathetic.

[Adrift]

Can anyone else tell Adrift what a hypothetical is?

Dude, just stop.

[Jaecp]

Wait, wait wait, you get to not care that it's a hypothetical?

That's stupid

[Adrift]

Wait, wait wait, you get to not care that it's a hypothetical?

That's stupid

Jaecp, stop.

[Jaecp]

Jaecp, we went through this already. I don't care if it was a hypothetical. As mentioned in that previous thread, rational people don't hypothesize about these sorts of things, because they're so foul, so disturbing that to seriously hypothesize about them is insanity. Shooting an alcoholic in the head might stop him from drinking, but seriously hypothesizing about it is madness. That you are not getting this just demonstrates your level of depravity. You NEED Jesus man. Seriously. You're so out to lunch that you think your and Starlight's lunacy sounds reasonable. It isn't. It's pathetic.

I take it you haven't read up on what the President of the Philippines is doing with their war on drugs, eh? Also, what the hell is "seriously hypothesizing" supposed to mean? It was an if then statement.

If pushing a metal nail into someones chest to puncture one of their lungs saved their life, would you do it? Stabbing people is wrong, but for some reason it helps?

Adrift, you don't have the capacity to convert me to your religion. It is not within your power and as the holy spirit doesn't exist, that's the only power you have. So either up your game or don't.

[Sparko]

So it was all hypothetical, Jaecp? Which means you really don't want to give porn to pedophiles because in reality you think doing so is idiotic, sick, and won't work. Right?

[Jaecp]

So it was all hypothetical, Jaecp? Which means you really don't want to give porn to pedophiles because in reality you think doing so is idiotic, sick, and won't work. Right?

You know I said all that in the thread, right? Neither Adrift, nor Cow Poke, gave a damn.

[Sparko]

You know I said all that in the thread, right? Neither Adrift, nor Cow Poke, gave a damn.

So you think it is really a bad idea then, in reality, right?