Prepubescent "Transgender Activist"

[Jaecp]

Didn't you say you wish you could reach through the computer screen to punch him in the mouth? I can't believe you didn't get thrown off the forum for that.

And he's a tiger tank anyways, so you'd eat your teeth.

This is America, James, so threats of violence are fine, as long as we don't make people uncomfortable about sex.

And yeah. Few people have gotten the better of me in a fight since the military. My Kung Fu is too strong ;) I don't see a point in mentioning it though, you know? This is, supposedly, a debate forum, right? We're supposed to be fighting with our minds and our words, but time and time again Adrift uses emotion and moral outrage, but like Spartacus said in the original thread there are actual people who argue for this stuff and freaking out at me over a thought experiment doesn't defend children, it just means that if someone actually starts arguing for this in earnest then he has no tools to fight with. It's not like moral outrage has defeated NAMBLA.

[Sea of red]

This is America, James, so threats of violence are fine, as long as we don't make people uncomfortable about sex.

And yeah. Few people have gotten the better of me in a fight since the military. My Kung Fu is too strong ;)

For all of his harping to other people about maturity, he's acting like a complete idiot lately.

Telling people to shut-up, threatening people with internet tough guy crap, and unhinged melodramatic preaching to the choir, is not something I used to ever expect from him.

[Starlight]

For all of his harping to other people about maturity, he's acting like a complete idiot lately.

Telling people to shut-up, threatening people with internet tough guy crap, and unhinged melodramatic preaching to the choir, is not something I used to ever expect from him.

He's probably upset at the increasing number of people not taking him seriously.

[Sea of red]

He's probably upset at the increasing number of people not taking him seriously.

My hunch is that he's trying to gain respect from the rest of this forum by lashing out at it's most hated members with predictable preaching to the choir.

[Jaecp]

For all of his harping to other people about maturity, he's acting like a complete idiot lately.

Telling people to shut-up, threatening people with internet tough guy crap, and unhinged melodramatic preaching to the choir, is not something I used to ever expect from him.

Mm, it's a bit silly, isn't it? For me, the mark of intellectual maturity is the ability to entertain any idea and follow its logic down as far as it goes, Bertrand Russel style.

My hunch is that he's trying to gain respect from the rest of this forum by lashing out at it's most hated members with predictable preaching to the choir.

Trump style, woot.

He's probably upset at the increasing number of people not taking him seriously.

Is there anyone on the left here who takes Adrift seriously anymore? I remember liking to respond to him on old TWeb in the apologetics section, but nuDrift is just.... boring. There isn't any challenge to someone going "this is morally offensive!" or whatever. There simply isn't. It's not like it's not possible to argue against the hypothetical, hell I could easily take his position and we could argue about it. I already know 3 potential lines of attack I could use to attack my hypothetical even without challenge the core premise of the thought experiment. From those 3 lines of attack, 2 of them I have already thought up a good answer, and the third I'd need to do research on.

But I'm never going to get to have that conversation because of his petty moralizing.

[Starlight]

There isn't any challenge to someone going "this is morally offensive!" or whatever. There simply isn't.

Or bizarre assertions and creative math, like insisting America is the freest country on the grounds that it supposedly has the lowest population density.

[Adrift]

Didn't you say you wish you could reach through the computer screen to punch him in the mouth?

I sure did.

This is America, James, so threats of violence are fine, as long as we don't make people uncomfortable about sex.

Well no, not sex. Sex with children. One would hope you understood the distinction, but I'm increasingly beginning to question that.

This is, supposedly, a debate forum, right? We're supposed to be fighting with our minds and our words, but time and time again Adrift uses emotion and moral outrage

Yes. I tend to become a little emotional, and morally outraged when the subject turns to killing children or raping them. But I repeat myself here. My emotionalism over the killing and raping of children has been brought up a few times in the past. I don't find having an emotional reaction to that sort of thing particularly odd. I'm certain most people don't. It's been my experience that most people react as I do about these sorts of subjects because, as I mentioned previously, children are our most precious, and innocent resources.

For all of his harping to other people about maturity, he's acting like a complete idiot lately.

Telling people to shut-up, threatening people with internet tough guy crap, and unhinged melodramatic preaching to the choir, is not something I used to ever expect from him.

He's probably upset at the increasing number of people not taking him seriously.

My hunch is that he's trying to gain respect from the rest of this forum by lashing out at it's most hated members with predictable preaching to the choir.

Mm, it's a bit silly, isn't it? For me, the mark of intellectual maturity is the ability to entertain any idea and follow its logic down as far as it goes, Bertrand Russel style.

Trump style, woot.



Is there anyone on the left here who takes Adrift seriously anymore? I remember liking to respond to him on old TWeb in the apologetics section, but nuDrift is just.... boring. There isn't any challenge to someone going "this is morally offensive!" or whatever. There simply isn't. It's not like it's not possible to argue against the hypothetical, hell I could easily take his position and we could argue about it. I already know 3 potential lines of attack I could use to attack my hypothetical even without challenge the core premise of the thought experiment. From those 3 lines of attack, 2 of them I have already thought up a good answer, and the third I'd need to do research on.

But I'm never going to get to have that conversation because of his petty moralizing.

If "moralizing" against infanticide, child porn, and now mixed-gender public nudity in grade schools means that an increasing number of "the left" doesn't take me seriously anymore, then good riddance. If it means I'm "preaching to the choir" then I'm okay with that too. I don't know where any of you got the idea that I've ever cared about what you all thought of me to begin with. As far as I know, I've never been a particularly popular poster on this forum. Certainly not with the Tektonics crowd, nor with some of the previous forum owners, nor with the many skeptics I've debated in Apologetics 301. I've always spoken my mind, called things as I see them, and have never cared much if that won me friends or enemies from anyone on the "left" or "right". I will not stop "moralizing" against things like infanticide and child porn. Ever. So if discussion with "nuDrift" bores you, then you might as well put me on ignore now.

And hiding behind words like "hypothetical" doesn't smooth things over. Sane people don't talk about killing newborns and giving child porn to pedophiles. Even in hypotheticals. You three do not have the high road here. You just don't. Your souls are sick. Your consciences are seared. One day your eyes will be open to the things you are saying and thinking here, and I honestly hope that happens before Christ's return.

[Jaecp]

I sure did.

And you don't see how this is a failure on your part?

Well no, not sex. Sex with children. One would hope you understood the distinction, but I'm increasingly beginning to question that.

The hypothetical was, specifically, about reducing that from the level that happens now. This is why me, Starlight and James think you're being such an idiot about this.

Yes. I tend to become a little emotional, and morally outraged when the subject turns to killing children or raping them. But I repeat myself here. My emotionalism over the killing and raping of children has been brought up a few times in the past. I don't find having an emotional reaction to that sort of thing particularly odd. I'm certain most people don't. It's been my experience that most people react as I do about these sorts of subjects because, as I mentioned previously, children are our most precious, and innocent resources.

The hypothetical was, specifically, in the context of preventing rape. You're being ridiculous.

If "moralizing" against infanticide, child porn, and now mixed-gender public nudity in grade schools means that an increasing number of "the left" doesn't take me seriously anymore, then good riddance. If it means I'm "preaching to the choir" then I'm okay with that too. I don't know where any of you got the idea that I've ever cared about what you all thought of me to begin with. As far as I know, I've never been a particularly popular poster on this forum. Certainly not with the Tektonics crowd, nor with some of the previous forum owners, nor with the many skeptics I've debated in Apologetics 301. I've always spoken my mind, called things as I see them, and have never cared much if that won me friends or enemies from anyone on the "left" or "right". I will not stop "moralizing" against things like infanticide and child porn. Ever. So if discussion with "nuDrift" bores you, then you might as well put me on ignore now.

This is a debate forum. Moralizing is referring to your complete lack of argument for your position. Moral Outrage is not a substitute for an argument and, as other conservative Christians have told you, there are people who are not me who will argue for this in earnest and not as an exercise. You do your cause a disservice by refusing to engage with the concepts in a way that you can refute them cleanly instead of relying on being the majority, which is 100% what you're doing. What about if the future gets to the point where people who actually think this is a good idea start advocating for it? Will you rely on simply shouting that its wrong without bothering to make an argument? Do you think that would work?

And hiding behind words like "hypothetical" doesn't smooth things over. Sane people don't talk about killing newborns and giving child porn to pedophiles. Even in hypotheticals. You three do not have the high road here. You just don't. Your souls are sick. Your consciences are seared. One day your eyes will be open to the things you are saying and thinking here, and I honestly hope that happens before Christ's return.

Hiding behind? You keep pretending like this is something I secretly believe. I keep telling you I don't. Either I'm lying for some reason or you're emotionally compromised.

[Sea of red]

I sure did.



Well no, not sex. Sex with children. One would hope you understood the distinction, but I'm increasingly beginning to question that.



Yes. I tend to become a little emotional, and morally outraged when the subject turns to killing children or raping them. But I repeat myself here. My emotionalism over the killing and raping of children has been brought up a few times in the past. I don't find having an emotional reaction to that sort of thing particularly odd. I'm certain most people don't. It's been my experience that most people react as I do about these sorts of subjects because, as I mentioned previously, children are our most precious, and innocent resources.









If "moralizing" against infanticide, child porn, and now mixed-gender public nudity in grade schools means that an increasing number of "the left" doesn't take me seriously anymore, then good riddance. If it means I'm "preaching to the choir" then I'm okay with that too. I don't know where any of you got the idea that I've ever cared about what you all thought of me to begin with. As far as I know, I've never been a particularly popular poster on this forum. Certainly not with the Tektonics crowd, nor with some of the previous forum owners, nor with the many skeptics I've debated in Apologetics 301. I've always spoken my mind, called things as I see them, and have never cared much if that won me friends or enemies from anyone on the "left" or "right". I will not stop "moralizing" against things like infanticide and child porn. Ever. So if discussion with "nuDrift" bores you, then you might as well put me on ignore now.

And hiding behind words like "hypothetical" doesn't smooth things over. Sane people don't talk about killing newborns and giving child porn to pedophiles. Even in hypotheticals. You three do not have the high road here. You just don't. Your souls are sick. Your consciences are seared. One day your eyes will be open to the things you are saying and thinking here, and I honestly hope that happens before Christ's return.

It's alright if you don't care what I think, or what anyone else that opposes you thinks. What's not acceptable is your inability to control yourself in a discussion that you find offensive, how you tell people to "shut-up", say we are sick for not agreeing with you, distort peoples positions to the most evil straw-man you can think of, and you're childish "I wish I could hit you!" melodrama. Geez, someone agrees with something you morally object to, and you want to punch them? You sound like some Reddit teenager. Honestly, you need to get control of yourself emotionally, and maybe see someone. You are so emotional about everything lately, and your posts have little to no content anymore. You're like a parrot that repeats the same thing over and over again, with the same emotional meltdowns we've been reading the past six months. We heard you the first ten times. Please, let a dead dog lie already - you made your point a millions times over.

No one has called for the raping of children - you are making that up and you know it. And as for Starlight's position on abortion, get over it already. It's been almost two years since he said that, and you've made your point a million times over. Everyone on this forum shares your opinion, is that not enough? Are you just going to bring it up until he leaves the forum? Good grief, move on with your life. Put him on ignore, or find a way to engage him civilly. You think I like everything I read on here about war, drug users, prostitutes, gays, and other stuff? I debate it - sometimes it gets heated - then I move on. I don't have to keep debating the same stuff, and trying to goad people into a discussion that was already covered.

You are not on a mission from God, Jake Blues.

[Darth Executor]

Your hypothetical isn't one. Their current president has bragged about personally killing drug addicts on the street when he was a mayor, he funded extrajudicial kill squads. Legitimately scary stuff

I can see why you'd be scared, liberals have been abusing the good will and support of law and order to pull off some of the most morally repulsive acts in human history. The idea that a president would get fed up with your crap and just start shooting you must be filling up your pants every night.

Proverbs says the wicked flee when no man pursue. I can only imagine how much faster you run when someone really is pursuing you.

I noticed nobody got all that outraged about people being attacked or murdered by drug addicts before, but a lot of you are suddenly outraged about Maduro. This is not a new pattern, whenever a muslim goes on a killing spree there is no shortage of liberals kvetching about the inevitable islamophobic backlash, often before the corpses reach room temperature.

[Sea of red]

And you don't see how this is a failure on your part?

It's pathetic and the fact that he didn't take the opportunity to apologize, is even more pathetic.

[Darth Executor]

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.

sex ed would be a non-issue if liberals didn't exist and insist on teaching an endless stream of perversions on top of the important stuff.

[Darth Executor]

And the most hilarious thing of all is that conservatives here decide they know much better than doctors about this medical topic, and that because they personally have Views on the subject of gender that they are in a position to override the entire medical profession and know what is best for the child.

lol @ calling psychology "the medical profession". Why not call astrology "the astronomer profession" while you're at it.

[MaxVel]

He's probably upset at the increasing number of people not taking him seriously.

Apparently the same happening to you doesn't bother you at all....

[Jaecp]

Apparently the same happening to you doesn't bother you at all....

Fail.

Adrift not being taken seriously comes from a repeated refusal to engage in the basics of debate. The same is not true of SL.