Ima keep it this real.... Man ain’t suppose to be with a man. A women is not suppose to be with another women.

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, West said:

You are not swift enough to follow the logic. 

Found in nature does not mean "supposed to be". Therefore your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. 

Duh

If something is a natural state of affairs, clearly it is "supposed to be" in nature.

And if there is no harm then there is no justification for a post-natural civilization to attack that behavior.  

What definition would you like to invent for "supposed to be."🙄

[West]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If something is a natural state of affairs, clearly it is "supposed to be" in nature.

And if there is no harm then there is no justification for a post-natural civilization to attack that behavior.  

What definition would you like to invent for "supposed to be."🙄

Animals don't wear clothes in nature yet we are not supposed to walk ass naked through our city's downtown

Male Hamadrayas baboons travel in packs and raid others to steal away their mates yet we are not supposed to do such a thing

Tardigrades can withstand extreme radiation yet we are not supposed to go into areas of high radiation without protective equipment

Crows steal eggs of other birds to eat yet we aren't supposed to eat other people's babies. 

Edited yesterday at 06:51 PM by West

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, West said:

Animals don't wear clothes in nature yet we are not supposed to walk ass naked through our city's downtown

Male Hamadrayas baboons travel in packs and raid others to steal away their mates yet we are not supposed to do such a thing

Tardigrades can withstand extreme radiation yet we are not supposed to go into areas of high radiation without protective equipment

Crows steal eggs of other birds to eat yet we aren't supposed to eat other people's babies. 

1. Claimed harm

2. Harm

3. WTF?

4. Harm. 
 

You don't have even an inkling of how to formulate a logical argument, do you? 

[West]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. Claimed harm

2. Harm

3. WTF?

4. Harm. 
 

You don't have even an inkling of how to formulate a logical argument, do you? 

So you agree there are times where we are not supposed to, even though its found in nature?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, West said:

There is certainly a push in many places to remove children from families who do not affirm their gender. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-change-court/

 

We have discussed that case before... I think the parents were split on this one.  Also he was admonished by the court as I recall.  Not exactly what I was asking for.

[West]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We have discussed that case before... I think the parents were split on this one.  Also he was admonished by the court as I recall.  Not exactly what I was asking for.

In Saskatchewan and Alberta they just passed parental rights legislation where schools are now required to notify parents. 

Many of the woke activists claim that parents are going to beat up their kids therefore they don't have to tell them. 

One such group is the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives a far left woke organization that is mainstream among left wing political parties. 

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/saskatchewans-parents-bill-of-rights-is-going-to-hurt-queer-youth/

Here is their argument on why parents should be excluded on trans issues. Of course it's bullshit; beating your child is already illegal regardless of ones gender identity. Yet nonetheless they make the argument. 

There's also arguments among the left who claim trans should be put into foster care if their parents "misgender" them. 

Edited yesterday at 09:06 PM by West

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, West said:

So you agree there are times where we are not supposed to, even though its found in nature?

Of course. Civilization suppresses the savagery of the natural world for mutual benefit. But that was never in question, nor debated. However, to suppress our instincts and appetites justly, one must show that activities produce external harm. 

Again, homosexuality is both 1) natural, 2) harmless.

It is "supposed to be" and there is no justification for discouraging a harmless activity.  

 

[West]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Of course. Civilization suppresses the savagery of the natural world for mutual benefit. But that was never in question, nor debated. However, to suppress our instincts and appetites justly, one must show that activities produce external harm. 

Again, homosexuality is both 1) natural, 2) harmless.

It is "supposed to be" and there is no justification for discouraging a harmless activity.  

 

There are varying ways society curtails such things through varying degrees of intervention

Religion, philosophy, and legislation are some examples. Societal views are another. 

In some cultures, showing the bottom of your foot is deemed to be disrespectful and you are not supposed to do such a thing, tho not illegal and "harmless".

Certainly billions of people would hold the belief of Christion Jones. And they are entitled to do so. 

Edited yesterday at 09:36 PM by West

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, West said:

In Saskatchewan and Alberta they just passed parental rights legislation where schools are now required to notify parents. 

Many of the woke activists claim that parents are going to beat up their kids therefore they don't have to tell them. 

One such group is the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives a far left woke organization that is mainstream among left wing political parties. 

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/saskatchewans-parents-bill-of-rights-is-going-to-hurt-queer-youth/

Here is their argument on why parents should be excluded on trans issues. Of course it's bullshit; beating your child is already illegal regardless of ones gender identity. Yet nonetheless they make the argument. 

There's also arguments among the left who claim trans should be put into foster care if their parents "misgender" them. 

Probably better to prevent assaults than to say we can always arrest parents afterwards. 

I think the argument against notifying parents is valid, but it isn't anything to do with medical procedures.

The argument for notifying them is justifiable also, but I don't agree with it.

[West]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Probably better to prevent assaults than to say we can always arrest parents afterwards. 

I think the argument against notifying parents is valid, but it isn't anything to do with medical procedures.

The argument for notifying them is justifiable also, but I don't agree with it.

I dont think its valid. Its bigoted against christianity and fear mongering. It's also illogical given that parents are notified about a plethora of other things and the child abuse thing is also address by mandatory reporting legislation. 

The medical procedures thing is all the same conversation that's been going on over the past five or six years. Don't think I have to go back and find every quote about it.. you can research that yourself. Certainly within some on the left they think a Christians child should be removed from their care to give puberty blockers and is mainstream ndp ideology where I'm from.

Add to that place like California using parents views on gender as a determining factor in custody cases... which is disgusting 

Edited yesterday at 10:10 PM by West

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, West said:

There are varying ways society curtails such things through varying degrees of intervention

Religion, philosophy, and legislation are some examples. Societal views are another. 

In some cultures, showing the bottom of your foot is deemed to be disrespectful and you are not supposed to do such a thing, tho not illegal and "harmless".

Certainly billions of people would hold the belief of Christion Jones. And they are entitled to do so. 

Yes, people have every right to be ignorant bigots. As long as they don't harm others, no problem.  But their employers also have the right to set and enforce standards of behavior as a condition of employment, as they should.

[West]

31 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, people have every right to be ignorant bigots. As long as they don't harm others, no problem.  But their employers also have the right to set and enforce standards of behavior as a condition of employment, as they should.

That's fine. Then the business can end up like Bud light. 

People are over the alphabet mafia. Sick group.. thankfully the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. 

Edited 22 hours ago by West

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, West said:

1. I dont think its valid.  

1. It's entirely possible, therefore arguable.  

The fact that you don't agree with it is a different point.

[West]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's entirely possible, therefore arguable.  

The fact that you don't agree with it is a different point.

Possible but we also live in a society where parents aren't profiled as child abusers based on religious affiliation. Such a thing would fly in the face of the Canadian constitution 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, West said:

Possible but we also live in a society where parents aren't profiled as child abusers based on religious affiliation. Such a thing would fly in the face of the Canadian constitution 

That's also not done when they don't relay the child's naming preferences... it's a faulty assumption.

[West]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's also not done when they don't relay the child's naming preferences... it's a faulty assumption.

You are gaslighting. It's not working... especially when the rainbow mafia has intentionally chosen symbols and phrases, like the rainbow and "pride", to mock and target Christianity. 

[eyeball]

On 6/1/2026 at 10:45 PM, West said:

...A women is not suppose to be with another women.

But it's so hot when they are and there just has to be a good reason why.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, West said:

You are gaslighting. It's not working... especially when the rainbow mafia has intentionally chosen symbols and phrases, like the rainbow and "pride", to mock and target Christianity. 

The idea that the rainbow *targets* some group is a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This is your problem with people who you don't like.  Everything else you are arguing springs from that.

[West]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The idea that the rainbow *targets* some group is a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This is your problem with people who you don't like.  Everything else you are arguing springs from that.

You mean Charlie Kirk getting shot in the head by a trans was just a conspiracy theory? 

 

[User]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The argument for notifying them is justifiable also, but I don't agree with it.

Of course you don't. It is much easier to push the trans madness onto the confused children when you do it behind their parents backs. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, West said:

You mean Charlie Kirk getting shot in the head by a trans was just a conspiracy theory? 

 

Yes