CdnFox

LOL of course i can. Nobody mentioned anything to do with slavery being a right yet you freaked out and replied with : " Slavery as a "right" is a contradiction in and of itself. That it was the law doesn't change that. It was morally corrupt and utterly indefensible. " UTTERLY INDEFENSIBLE!!!!! - and nobody had even mentioned or tried to defend it. LOL Or how about: : "You literally just compared the emancipation of the slaves to the trans rights debate. How much more low-brow can you get? " REEEEEEEEE Which as i previosly pointed out was an emotional respsonse and an emotional argument. The elmemnts of it that i compared were valid and accurate. Or "That you think they're the same is funny. Slavery is the denial of (effectively) all rights. Is that what you figure is happening here? " When of course nobody had said anything of the kind. You had a complete hissy fit over something that wasn't happening. Nobody said or even suggested that slavery is a 'right'. Or that slavery is the same as being transexual or the like. But you latched on to that despite nobody saying it and got all bent out of shape about it multiple times despite having had it explained to you that it wasn't what was being said. Not only did i tell you - i pointed out i told you several times. I tell you what - if i post where i mentioned them clear as day are you willing to admit you're a liar? Or would you prefer to stop pretending i haven't said them already. See - this is you freaking out. So badly you refuse to admit something that anyone can go back and see i posted several times. ROFLMAO - "my little heart desires' huh But yeah you're not getting emotional at all. You can also compare things to show how similar they are. And when you pretend you CAN"T - as you INSISTED - then it's you who looks like the fool. I pointed out the similarities such as they are, and they're valid. You don't like that they're valid so you said you CANNOT compare them. You don't even know why you're arguing do you . You have completely forgotten what you've said before or what you're arguing about. You don't even have a point - it just bothers the hell out of you that i might be right.

You literally quoted me in your reply to me when i replied to you. You quote me, then reply to the quote, then try to claim that you're not replying to me. Sigh - well you sound like the type who prefers to stick his head in the sand out of fear someone might say something he doesn't like.. You do you big guy. I will say that your reply advising that you won't reply because replying isn't worth it is a pretty stupid reply.

It clearly did offend you - you freaked out. How DAAAARREEEEE you COMPARREE!!!! - Glad to hear you're over it. And of course it's worth much, if they hadn't had that conversation back in teh day we'd still have slavery. It's entirely valid and worth discussing. You just don't like it because it doesn't support your current preferred narrative regarding gay/trans rights vs others. But your dislike doesn't override the validity of the discussion any more than property rights overrode the human rights of slaves So no argument. Just 'faux' outrage. Kay. You mean other than the ones i've mentioned several times? If you can't read, i can't help? And yet you still can't understand it. Did you even have a point or an argument? You're just kind of rambling like a fool at this point. Let me recap for you. Things that have similarities can be compared even if they are different in other respects. Gay/trans rights should not supercede nor be held to be more important than other human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion or a parent's rights to know what's happening with their child. If you have a different opinion to those then by all means make it.

No, it isn't. with the exception of 'kinky boots'. Great show.

Can you post where i said i wanted that? ohhhh that's right - you always have to lie to try to make a point. Ya know - that generally means you don't have a very good point. But hey - go ahead and quote where anyone here said they're against correcting birth defects - genital or otherwise. I think you'll find nobody said that, not just me. Sigh. this is why nobody trusts the left.

You mean other than the reason i pretty specifically stated? Auto deaths are at least some what relevant because kids do travel in cars. But they generally don't die from covid or cancer. It happens but it's extremely rare. But they're nice scary words Do you really need me to explain why that's kind of silly to mention? 'gun homicide' rates are irrelevant, unless you think it ONLY matters when people die by a gun. Homicide rates matter. And the US is not the highest homicide rate in the developed nations. So - countries with far less guns have higher homicide rates. And some with as many guns have lower crime rates. Switzerland for example where many people have an automatic rifle at home if they're military age. You're trying to suggest that correlation is causation. The problem with homicides in the states is criminal activity. Mostly gang on gang. So it would be more reasonable to say that the presence of gangs and organized crime and criminals is the cause of death, not the presence of guns. Literally nobody is banning men from wearing a dress. why must you lie to try to make your point?

So the fake mob invite to fake attack the court that nobody could produce a link to or any information about didnt' happen. Well. Imagine that.

yeah. I mean - it is the white house and a lot of americans do take the protocols' there pretty seriously but there's definitely worse things out there

Probably more along the lines of vote buying in what they perceive as their 'target market' if you will - but this kind of thing really spreads divisions instead of helping.

Medical health information?!!? - i assure you it really isn't. Uhhh.... I'm sure that sentence worked in your head when you wrote it but... What does this have to do with children? Are you saying the children's fears about their parents are 'unreasonable moral panic'? - I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases their fears are going to be worse than the actual reality, kids always think their parents will be mad at them. But there's ways to address that.

Of course it is - and kids will have questions that they're too young to really undesrtand the answers to. But that's the point isn't it - this is about indoctrination and 'grooming', if it wasn't you'd just let things happen naturally. there's plenty of 'the gay' in our culture and literature and it's easy to include more, they'll be exposed and they'll realize it's pretty normal on their own.

You mean the truth? I really don't think you are Nope. That's not whats happening here at all. Do you notice how schools don't "use" media to "teach" kids that it's ok to be a straight white person or the like? They just expose kids to media and kids figure things out over time. If that's ALL the gay/trans community wanted then as long as there were gays in media that process would happen naturally. Especially s the kids get older and are exposed to more and more media. but - what the Letter Community wants is to indoctrinate kids. They want to discuss complex sexual issues with kids long before they're ready and push the idea that it's fun and preferable to be gay. well - i woudln't be ok with straight people pushing sexual issues on kids that young either. And surprise surprise - the number of kids with 'gender dysphoria' is shooting up like a rocket since this kind of thing was introduced. Pure coincidence obviously. And really - can we stop pretending that if i wasn't they'd already know this and you're hoping to get your hands on them BEFORE they're old enough to understand so you can 'train' them? Leave the effing kids alone. They will come to their own conclusions over time and the vast majority won't have a problem with gays if you just let it happen naturally. But trying to force -feed sexuality to children not only harms the children but it makes the parents turn against you.

Yes - the vast majority of the increase is homicide due to criminal activity. Of course - if we're talking about total numbers considering the population is increasing there will likely always be more this year than last year in most years anyway if nothing else changes

No, that's stupid. But it is a prime example why intelligent conversations can't be had about the issue. The fact its it's not really about 'guns' - what's killing the kids is gangs and drugs. Most of those 'gun deaths' come from activity directly related - kids shooting kids for crime reasons. So the correct response is to target criminals and crime orgs and try to stop the kids from killing each other. Because a) the bad guys will always get guns and b) if they can't they'll use knives. But instead of discussing that rationally you come up with some bullshit about how the rights response involves drag queens. Which we both know isn't true. So basically you're fine with kids getting killed as long as you can find a way to make republicans look bad. Great.

Not in the bits quoted. for example they mix suicide and accidents into the "gun deaths" for children. And fail to mention the majority of the homicides are gang and drug related with young teens shooting other young teens. And the conclusions from the data are not from the CDC. And look at the it you quoted. GUNS KILL MORE KIDS THAN COVID!! OR CANCER!!! Kids don't die from covid and rarely die from cancer. At least the car stat has some relevance, kids do ride in cars. But it's like saying more die from guns than chewing bubble gum - that's just not a cause of death for kids. But - Covid sounds Scaaaarrrry. And Cancer sounds scaaaarrry. Like i said. there's been a lot of research over the years. Access to guns is not a big driver in homicide rates. There's no correlation generally speaking. And for all the research as far as gun laws go only a few laws make any difference and for the most part they prevent accidents. Black listing criminals and those identified as 'dangerous' helps a small amount but those people often then go on to kill using other tools anyway. The top mass murders in us history don't include guns and the top mass murderers (spread over time) didn't tend to either.

And even worse, to medically alter themselves to the gender of their choice, which DOES have consequence, but consequence they won't really feel until much later when it's far too late.

https://tnc.news/2023/06/12/drag-queen-camp-kids-winnipeg/ A youth theater that receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funding from taxpayers is hosting a “drag camp” for kids as young as 13. According to the camp description, kids will be able to become “Drag Things” by being instructed in make up, wigs and drag performances. The camp costs $350 for registration. “Do you love the idea of being a Drag King, Drag Queen, or Drag Thing but don’t know where to start? Explore the fun of drag through this week-long introduction to the art form,” In 2022, the theatre received $241,993 in funding from Canadian taxpayers and the year prior, MTYP received $587,044. Can open - worms everywhere...... So this upsets people from a number of points of view. Many will look at this as a 'grooming camp'. Why are you taking 13 year olds and teaching them how to be 'drag "things"' . But - even those who say as long as the parents choose to allow it i guess it's ok for them to do so may be very unhappy about spending 3/4 of a million dollars to support it out of their own money. Supporting theatre is one thing but supporting 'drag thing training' is something very different. At a time when we've got children stomping on pride flags in the streets i question spending that kind of public money to produce trained 'drag things'

You're wrong twice. I did click on them and nobody cares about what you have to say. You're the comic relief here But they didn't support your statements. Sorry. And that's why nobody takes you seriously groom harder! Maybe you can get a date finally if you program them young enough

You screwed that one up i' afraid. His point was that only sickos would suggest that cutting off genitals was 'natural'. He's not suggesting that we only do things that are natural or that other things (such as wearing glasses) are natural, he's suggesting the argument that it IS somehow natural is false. So your reply shows you failed to understand his point. Both of those actually serve medically beneficial reasons. Boob reduction is necessary to reduce strain on other body parts that cause medical issues. Circumcision was done because it was believed that it would prevent various penile illnesses (probably did at one point). And in neither case are they making any significant change to the person's life choices - they can still have kids, enjoy sex, etc etc. Cutting off a boy's penis however serves no medical benefit and radically alters the boy's life choices. Well if it happens then it IS in fact natural. That's pretty much the definition. You probably meant it's not normal. That's different.

True. Ideology over facts never makes for a good leader. Unless you're the pope.

Not really. Just smarter than you. Most people would probably say that about their kids. Or friends. Or random people they met. "Hey- you may be a homeless bum i just tripped over but you're still smarter than Hodad so you got that going for ya!" You just don't set that bar very high LOL!

He'd probably approve of that. The quesiton you should be asking is "what if doctors decided abortion should be illegal from conception". Suddenly the medical experts opinions would be of far less interest to him It is a very sad truth that the left is all about science and experts till the second those people disagree with their ideology. Then it's "Are you gonna listen to THEM?"

Let me ask you a question. If i were to provide sources and they were, say, sources like university professors or gov't departments... would it actually change your mind or would you acknowledge it? Or would you just try to change the channel and bluster in another direction because the beloved beliefs of your tribe is being questioned? Typcal of you that you are fine with no sources for the conclusions when it's one you like but you condemn others when it's one you don't like

Well - THAT certainly proves the left is sane well done. Represent!!!

You literally support a group that participates in rioting. And again you use big words that you don't understand whataboutism isn't when you point out that someone else does the SAME thing - it's when you try to excuse one thing by saying someone else did something else that's also bad. For example - if i said the republicans dont' have to denounce violence because biden has illegally taken money for influence by using his son, that would be whataboutism. When i say the lefties can't complain about the republicans until they condemn their own violence - that's pointing out hypocrisy. Sorry sweetie - you got it wrong. It's your hypocrisy that's the problem here. But i suppose that's easier than dealing with the issue at hand I think everyone would find your comparison a bit of a stretch - but i think that kind of goes WITHOUT saying