herbie Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 We've always talked politics at family gatherings. 55 years ago Gran brought up the subject of That Goddam Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality. Dad quickly replied: Yeah and now just watch, they're gonna breed like flies! And I say he was right, now they're all over the place, right in your face like they have some right to exist! Just like Daddy, with my hand over my face chuckling. Trolling to see who takes the bait. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 On 4/13/2024 at 8:06 PM, herbie said: We've always talked politics at family gatherings. 55 years ago Gran brought up the subject of That Goddam Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality. Dad quickly replied: Yeah and now just watch, they're gonna breed like flies! And I say he was right, now they're all over the place, right in your face like they have some right to exist! Just like Daddy, with my hand over my face chuckling. Trolling to see who takes the bait. If this was all just about whether they should exist or not you would have a point. The problem is this is about demanding acceptance. I know leftists hate the term slippery slope but the Overton window is a real thing. Eventually everything will have to be tolerated. We are already hearing rumblings of minor attracted persons. In the old days they were called pedophiles. Using the logic of leftists though you really have no basis to oppose people having sex with minors. If minors can consent to procedures that change their gender then on what basis could you oppose their consenting to sex with a pedophile and still maintain any intellectual integrity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 59 minutes ago, Yakuda said: ... on what basis could you oppose their consenting to sex with a pedophile and still maintain any intellectual integrity? Indeed, what is the basis? Is it principle? Moral? Biological? These things are so culturally based that it's hard to have a balanced conversation. The Alberta transgender laws applaud parental rights, while taking the rights away from parents to start transitioning their child if everyone approves. As far as underage sex, I would say move to Kansas... Very Republican state... And make friends with parents of a 15-year-old. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The general marriage age (lacking,general marriage age is 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Indeed, what is the basis? Is it principle? Moral? Biological? These things are so culturally based that it's hard to have a balanced conversation. The Alberta transgender laws applaud parental rights, while taking the rights away from parents to start transitioning their child if everyone approves. As far as underage sex, I would say move to Kansas... Very Republican state... And make friends with parents of a 15-year-old. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The general marriage age (lacking,general marriage age is 21. You posted only half my words. I just obtained "knowledge" that anything you quote should of be considered accurate unless it's independently verified. In practical terms that means you're disingenuous at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 23 Author Report Share Posted April 23 3 hours ago, Yakuda said: The problem is this is about demanding acceptance. Yeah that is what the problem is. And with that statement, you seem to be standing in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 8 minutes ago, herbie said: Yeah that is what the problem is. And with that statement, you seem to be standing in the way. Good. I'm glad I'm standing in the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, Yakuda said: You posted only half my words. I just obtained "knowledge" that anything you quote should of be considered accurate unless it's independently verified. In practical terms that means you're disingenuous at best. Hm ? You posted a question at the end and I responded to it. There's no reason to quote the stuff I don't care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Hm ? You posted a question at the end and I responded to it. There's no reason to quote the stuff I don't care about. As I said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 On 4/13/2024 at 8:06 PM, herbie said: they have some right to exist! They do. The issue is when their rights trump those of the majority. Thats when you get push back, and rightfully so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Hm ? You posted a question at the end and I responded to it. There's no reason to quote the stuff I don't care about. Do you have an answer to my question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 (edited) 22 hours ago, Perspektiv said: The issue is when their rights trump those of the majority. Another error in logic. They don't. Having the same rights doesn't eliminate or reduce someone else's. Might go against majority opinion, but not their rights. Edited April 24 by herbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Do you have an answer to my question? No. That's my answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, herbie said: Having the same rights doesn't eliminate or reduce someone else's. Tell that to Lia Thomas. She literally has erased the rights of the women who aren't strong enough to remotely compete with her. Anne Andres. Not only smashing, but obliterating female weightlifting records. This is going against maybe not rights, but women and the sense of fair competition. They can exist. Not at the expense of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.