The Continent’s Consensus on Climate?……Crumbling

[billvon 2,683]

On 5/18/2024 at 3:21 PM, Coreece said:

What do you mean?

Telling you what you should do about sex, telling you who to have sex with, providing a way to get forgiveness for when you do it the wrong way, and accepting contributions to minimize the penalties for doing it the wrong way.

When I first got to San Diego I went to a nearby Catholic church.  The first mass I went to, there was a drive for contributions, with the priest reminding people of that 10% they were expected to contribute.  I looked around at the congregation - mostly young military families, a lot of Mexican and Filipino kids.  And I thought "really?  These are the people you're hitting up?"

The next weekend I went back.  The priest announced they were having a special on indulgences - you could get a free plenary indulgence as long as you took communion, went to confession and then got a real one, with a "proportionate" donation.

After that I was done with that church.

[jakee 1,319]

On 5/18/2024 at 11:21 PM, Coreece said:

What do you mean?

Marriage? Family? A man laying with a woman? None of these things ring a bell with you?

[kallend 1,799]

Back on topic, the continent of Antarctica may lose its biggest glacier sooner than previously thought.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240520155541.htm

[Coreece 190]

On 5/21/2024 at 10:40 PM, kallend said:

Back on topic

Not so fast, we have plenty of other climate change threads and it's hard to find time to post, so apologies in advance.  Besides, I'm not the one responsible for the drift.

 

On 5/21/2024 at 12:47 PM, jakee said:

Marriage? Family? A man laying with a woman? None of these things ring a bell with you?

No, not the way you described it.  If that's what you meant why didn't you just say so to begin with?  I don't consider Marriage or having a family to be vices as you suggested.  

Besides, churches are under no obligation to marry anyone. Many, like the Catholic Church have strict guidelines/processes for marriage and have refused to marry even heterosexuals.

Any church that I'd typically attend would eagerly welcome anyone that is sincere and willing to abstain from (sexual) sin, or at least willing to recognize and limit the negative effects it would have on navigating the challenges of the world through a christian perspective.  

"Rank bigotry" as you put it, would be more like rejecting homosexuals out of hand regardless of their intent simply because they're gay, as if they're beyond redemption.

[Coreece 190]

On 5/21/2024 at 7:41 AM, olofscience said:

On 5/18/2024 at 6:26 PM, Coreece said:

Like who, and how?

Milo Yiannopoulos, Matt Gaetz, Trump.

First of all, you're apparently confused about what pedophilia actually is, besides, merely being accused of a crime does not count as trying to destigmatize anything.

Secondly, Milo was seemingly defending his "coming of age" relationship with an older man, which apparently isn't all that uncommon "in the homosexual world"

He then immediately lost a book deal and was canceled by CPAC and Brietbart. . . CPAC - and - Brietbart.  So I don't really see how that's a good example.

On the left however, you have activists and college professors giving TED talks envisioning our "Future Society"  and promoting books on how pedophilia is just another sexual orientation and that there's no immorality in merely being attracted to children.  They propose using terms like "minor attracted people"  to reduce stigma.  Then Liberal media amplifies these progressive ideas on how "society should be more empathetic to pedophiles." 

Combine that with the  hypersexulization of grade-schoolers and it's no wonder parents are concerned.  Whether it's the inappropriate content in school literature describing sex acts between 4th graders, taking elementary students on field trips to gay bars, drag story hour where people with names like "rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" teach children 3-8 years old how to twerk, children performing drag shows at gay bars for dollar bills, the Washington Post promoting stories like "kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it” or Disney's "not at all secret gay agenda" injecting queerness where ever they could because no one would stop them.  The list goes on and on. . .

I guess they weren't kidding when they said "we're here, we're queer, and we're coming for your children.

 

[jakee 1,319]

39 minutes ago, Coreece said:

No, not the way you described it.  If that's what you meant why didn't you just say so to begin with? 

Because it's incredibly obvious?

Quote

I don't consider Marriage or having a family to be vices as you suggested.  

That's exactly the point. You don't consider the sex you like to have as being a vice and you've found an organisation that's quite happy to pat you on the head, congratulate you and tell you that you're carrying out God's plan by having that sex. Oh, but not those other people who aren't quite exactly like you. How dare they hope to find an organisation which can validate their lives? Sinful bastards.

43 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Any church that I'd typically attend would eagerly welcome anyone that is sincere and willing to abstain from (sexual) sin,

Why should they have to abstain when you don't? You think you're special, and that your particular kink is the only one that's valid?

[jakee 1,319]

35 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Then Liberal media amplifies these progressive ideas on how "society should be more empathetic to pedophiles." 

Like who?

Quote

Combine that with the  hypersexulization of grade-schoolers and it's no wonder parents are concerned.

You mean, by all those Conservative dominated traditional child beauty pagents?

Quote

Disney's "not at all secret gay agenda" injecting queerness where ever they could because no one would stop them. 

Like what?

Quote

I guess they weren't kidding when they said "we're here, we're queer, and we're coming for your children.

Are you sure? Because your whole post sure reads like a joke.

[winsor 220]

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

First of all, you're apparently confused about what pedophilia actually is, besides, merely being accused of a crime does not count as trying to destigmatize anything.

Secondly, Milo was seemingly defending his "coming of age" relationship with an older man, which apparently isn't all that uncommon "in the homosexual world"

He then immediately lost a book deal and was canceled by CPAC and Brietbart. . . CPAC - and - Brietbart.  So I don't really see how that's a good example.

On the left however, you have activists and college professors giving TED talks envisioning our "Future Society"  and promoting books on how pedophilia is just another sexual orientation and that there's no immorality in merely being attracted to children.  They propose using terms like "minor attracted people"  to reduce stigma.  Then Liberal media amplifies these progressive ideas on how "society should be more empathetic to pedophiles." 

Combine that with the  hypersexulization of grade-schoolers and it's no wonder parents are concerned.  Whether it's the inappropriate content in school literature describing sex acts between 4th graders, taking elementary students on field trips to gay bars, drag story hour where people with names like "rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" teach children 3-8 years old how to twerk, children performing drag shows at gay bars for dollar bills, the Washington Post promoting stories like "kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it” or Disney's "not at all secret gay agenda" injecting queerness where ever they could because no one would stop them.  The list goes on and on. . .

I guess they weren't kidding when they said "we're here, we're queer, and we're coming for your children.

 

I recall NAMBLA being denied a presence in a gay parade of some description.  I suppose it is a case of perversion consisting of what you won't do (a feather vs.the whole chicken...).

[olofscience 456]

19 hours ago, Coreece said:

On the left however, you have activists and college professors giving TED talks envisioning our "Future Society"  and promoting books on how pedophilia is just another sexual orientation and that there's no immorality in merely being attracted to children.  They propose using terms like "minor attracted people"  to reduce stigma.  Then Liberal media amplifies these progressive ideas on how "society should be more empathetic to pedophiles." 

 

Could you do the numbers and show that this is on the mainstream left?

Because you're trying really, really hard to paint the left with a broad brush, when you, as an individual, clearly have serious issues regarding sexuality.

 

FYI, I'm leftist and I'm very against all forms of pedophilia and sexual abuse. Including the Christian kind.

Edited May 24 by olofscience

[BIGUN 1,229]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Because you're trying really, really hard to paint the left with a broad brush,

So you're saying that's an unfair tactic for either side, yes?

[jakee 1,319]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

I recall NAMBLA being denied a presence in a gay parade of some description. 

And that’s a good thing, right? The rest of your post is going to be about how how gay people shouldn’t be tarred as if they’re associated with actual perverts?

1 hour ago, winsor said:

 I suppose it is a case of perversion consisting of what you won't do (a feather vs.the whole chicken...).

Oh for fuck’s sake. Ok never mind. 

[olofscience 456]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

So you're saying that's an unfair tactic for either side, yes?

That's exactly what I was saying. Flies right over Coreece's head though.

[wmw999 2,291]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

I recall NAMBLA being denied a presence in a gay parade of some description.  I suppose it is a case of perversion consisting of what you won't do (a feather vs.the whole chicken...).

Nah, it's just proof that gays consider the ability to consent more important than the gender of the receiving hole. Do conservatives? Like that broad brush?

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,683]

22 hours ago, Coreece said:

 . . . .there's no immorality in merely being attracted to children. 

That is exactly right.  You can be attracted to whoever you want.  That's not immoral.  That's not moral.  It has no bearing on morality, because morality has to do with how you treat other people, not what's in your head.

If some guy is attracted to children?  I don't think that's moral or immoral.  In fact, I don't care, and don't really want to hear about it.  If he wants his girlfriend to dress up like a schoolgirl because it turns him on?  Again, I don't care, and as long as his girlfriend is a consenting adult, they can do whatever they like.

But if that guy lays a finger on an underage child, then that's both immoral and criminal, and he belongs in jail where he can't do that to anyone else.

This is true about every desire, fantasy and orientation out there.  Have rape fantasies?  Again, I don't care and don't really want to hear about it.  If that guy finds a woman who has fantasies about rape?  If they set up a scene where some sort of fake rape happens - AND they both consent to it - then again, no problem.

But if he ever rapes someone, he belongs in jail.

Or what about someone who wants a submissive wife who only has sex in the dark under the covers when her man wants it?  I don't care.  Maybe he'll meet someone who likes that.  Good for them.

But if he meets that person, and they start a relationship, and he starts hitting her when she disobeys because that's how he thinks it should work, then we're going to have a problem, and it's time to get the authorities involved.

Love guns?  Have fantasies about being Dirty Harry and ridding the world of refugee scum?  Want to collect guns to support those fantasies?  Go for it.  Again, I don't really want to hear about it, but if that's what floats their boat, none of my business.

But the minute he uses those guns to threaten, injure or kill someone else, then he deserves jail.

Starting to sense a pattern here?

[gowlerk 2,071]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Starting to sense a pattern here

Sort of like it’s okay to want to be POTUS. But it’s not ok to try to get there by staging a coup.

[JoeWeber 2,520]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

So you're saying that's an unfair tactic for either side, yes?

I'm not, for one. I think it's easy and somewhat reliable to paint sides with a broad brush. It can also be useful. Someone wearing a MAGA hat just might be cold, embarrassingly bald, or was given it as a present by his wife and hates it. But probably not. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that our sides have members with positions we may not agree with and getting lumped together with them because of so many common positions is a fair way to start being sure we're one of the ones who are friendly to pet and not bite.

[wolfriverjoe 1,449]

23 hours ago, BIGUN said:

So you're saying that's an unfair tactic for either side, yes?

Only when it's inaccurate.

[BIGUN 1,229]

19 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

is that our sides have members with positions we may not agree with and getting lumped together with them because of so many common positions is a fair way to start being sure

Load of bunk, Joe. You wouldn't do it with any other culture. 

[JoeWeber 2,520]

14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Load of bunk, Joe. You wouldn't do it with any other culture. 

Not at all. I'm sure that every Commanche wasn't a heartless murder and I know from experience that every Christian isn't out to impose what they believe on everyone else and every Republican politician isn't MAGA. But I don't have time to inquire with everyone, past and present, so it's a useful expedient to generalize. 

[BIGUN 1,229]

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 so it's a useful expedient to generalize. 

Think about that for a minute. 

[winsor 220]

Just now, BIGUN said:

Think about that for a minute. 

According to the Onion T shirt, "Stereotypes are a great time saver."

[JoeWeber 2,520]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Think about that for a minute. 

So if you see 50 fun loving people wearing MAGA you figure the could easily be Amish?

The great thing about being stereotyped as a Liberal is you don't need to constantly clarify that: "Oh, no, I'm a nice Liberal not one that wants to teach your sons to pray or your daughters to be mommies."

Edited May 25 by JoeWeber

[BIGUN 1,229]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The great thing about being stereotyped

OK. So, it's ok to stereotype now - but only if you're a liberal. Is that it?

[JoeWeber 2,520]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK. So, it's ok to stereotype now - but only if you're a liberal. Is that it?

I'm not just a liberal. I'm also a libtard, snowflake, woke loser, soyboy, cuck, do-gooder, hippie, communist and more. Not an implied stereotype in the lot.

[billvon 2,683]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm not just a liberal. I'm also a libtard, snowflake, woke loser, soyboy, cuck, do-gooder, hippie, communist and more. Not an implied stereotype in the lot.

Don't forget demonrat, socialist and Obiden worshiper.