Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Malifice]

Uh huh.
Go away.

How about you go away.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Defend this, I dare someone.

At least we aren't sexualising our kids.
Much.
That is more than appalling.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Thats actually quite sickening. Is the woman fit to raise a child.

 

[Malifice]

Thats actually quite sickening. Is the woman fit to raise a child.

Calm down. Is it really that bad?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Calm down. Is it really that bad?

You're defending that?

 

[Gough]

How is that photo demonstrative of the thread title?

 

[Malifice]

You're defending that?

Im not defending it, but Im not appalled and sickened by it. Its not the draq-queen s**t that bothers me about it (that's a non issue), its the sexualisation of the kid that I take issue with.

It's on the same level as those Beauty pageant kids ('Toddlers and Tiaras') where kids are both sexualised and thrust into the adult world waaaay too early. Let kids be kids for gods sake.

I dont know the kid, and maybe it was the kids idea, and they're quite mature for their age, and the person they're posing with is a family friend or whatever. I'd need more context to comment further.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Calm down. Is it really that bad?

You serious. Are you crazy. You've just proved the point I raised a few weeks ago. How long before the left starts to defend pedophilia. Anything goes now.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Im not defending it, but Im not appalled and sickened by it. Its not the draq-queen s**t that bothers me about it (that's a non issue), its the sexualisation of the kid that I take issue with.

It's on the same level as those Beauty pageant kids ('Toddlers and Tiaras') where kids are both sexualised and thrust into the adult world waaaay too early. Let kids be kids for gods sake.

I dont know the kid, and maybe it was the kids idea, and they're quite mature for their age, and the person they're posing with is a family friend or whatever. I'd need more context to comment further.

You need "context" for that? LOL, unbelievable.

EDIT: I re-read your post as I thought I may have read it wrong. Your last paragraph is actually deeply disturbing.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Great channel on YouTube, ex USSR citizen goes around asking questions to....well these sorts of clowns..

 

[Snake_Baker]

Great piece from Haidt as to how contemporay parenting has contributed to the snowflake generation and the rise of mental illness.

If you think you're being a good parent by shielding your kids from the world and/or attempting to modify the world to suit that goal, then you better think again.

(Time stamped to relevant section)

 

[Chief]

Lefty councillors cutting down the amount of Christmas tree pick up spots this year compared to last year. A clear subversive tactic to discourage people from buying Christmas trees in the ongoing lefty war against Christmas and yet these bloodsuckers are still happy to take their Christmas holidays - Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells.

I remember working in a shop during high school,wanting to start a war on Christmas...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Lactatia's mum looks exactly how you would expect.

View attachment 604378

.........when ideas just aren't enough.

 

[Chief]

How is that photo demonstrative of the thread title?

I makes the poster feel icky, therefore it is “lefty”.

 

[Chief]

Except there is no chance you could wake up as an Indian child or Barron Trump. Zero. You have two possible outcomes for being. To be or to not be. That is all.

You’re really clutching to that, eh? Why not move on to the actual issue of chance in a person’s life instead?

To help you out, how about:

You can’t help it if your parents have a sudden change of fortune in your early childhood.

That’s randomness in your life you have no control over.

 

[Chief]

We live in a distributed labour society, very simplistically one person grows the food, one guy sells the food, one guy is the police, one guy teaches the children etc.

The way that society assigns value to those contributions is to reward the work with a shared accepted currency, money. That money is traded for the labour of the others and the value society places on those roles determines how much money each gets.

There is an argument that a person might not perform a task that is valued enough to support themselves, that their human value deserves an allocation and that's reasonable.

The formula for everyone would be $ = contributionValue + intrinsicHumanValue.

But since everyone has that value it's not worth a thing, it has only created a new zero point.

The counter argument is that there are roles that are required in society that aren't rewarded well enough. I can't think of a vital role that isn't rewarded but I can think of many undesirable jobs paid poorly due to their low entrance level.

There are other currencies that people accept - kudos, social standing, enjoyment, duty to country or family, love, mental health benefits, autonomy, etc etc.

 

[its free real estate]

You’re really clutching to that, eh? Why not move on to the actual issue of chance in a person’s life instead?

To help you out, how about:

You can’t help it if your parents have a sudden change of fortune in your early childhood.

That’s randomness in your life you have no control over.

Your initial argument was that you were privileged by having good parents who cared about you. That’s not something that happens at random, that takes intent from your parents.

 

[its free real estate]

You need "context" for that? LOL, unbelievable.

EDIT: I re-read your post as I thought I may have read it wrong. Your last paragraph is actually deeply disturbing.

“Quite mature for their age”. The Overton Window shifts!

 

[Gethelred]

I can't think of a vital role that isn't rewarded but I can think of many undesirable jobs paid poorly due to their low entrance level.

Parenting?

When you are in government there are no bonuses for doing what is best for the country you govern; when in opposition, you are paid the same whether you are antagonistic or opportunistic to the country's detriment, or if you serve in the country's best interests.

I suppose that's my issue; when someone is paid the same for good service as substandard service, there is no distinction between the two and money ceases to be a good abstract measure of a person's worth.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I makes the poster feel icky, therefore it is “lefty”.

Debatable whether it belongs in this thread, but that photo makes me feel icky as *, tbh.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Debatable whether it belongs in this thread, but that photo makes me feel icky as ****, tbh.

Made me feel abit icky too. Some don't seem to mind it. Hopefully the police also find it icky.

 

[Malifice]

You need "context" for that?

Of course I do.

Would you have the same issue with the picture if that was a naked woman next to the kid?

What if the woman was the kids aunt?

Context is important, no matter how much you want to argue otherwise.

 

[Taylor]

It looked like a staged photo op with a naked man and a child in drag.

 

[Malifice]

It looked like a staged photo op with a naked man and a child in drag.

Like I said above, I'm not down with over-exposing kids to adult/ sexualised stuff at an early age. There should be some exposure of course (even if that's just the birds and the bees chat, or otherwise introducing them to other adult concepts), but targeted and tailored to the childs age and maturity.

But I cant help but feel the main issue many have with the image, is the fact the naked person in it, is a trans or cross-dressing man.

I have no problem with explaining to my kids what transexualism, cross dressing, homosexuality and LGBTI stuff is (without attaching any stigma to either), and depending on their maturity, exposing them to it (take them to Mardi Gras etc). I wouldnt want to expose them to complex adult issues too soon, in too much depth, or to overly sexualise them.

It's a question of context.

 

[Craven Morehead]

But I cant help but feel the main issue many have with the image, is the fact the naked person in it, is a trans or cross-dressing man.

No, just no. It's simply about kids being kids. They don't need that, regardless of how mature they appear to be.
It is simply wrong.