Coreece

Errm, yeah - but if you were engaging in good faith right now the next words in your post would have been "so I could say 'look how stupid this lefty story is". Well it is, right? I felt my initial critique was fair enough. I could go deeper into it, but I'm a bit pressed for time - moving into my new place.

Imagine if someone came up to you and offered to give you all the things Christians loved - self-rejection, guilt and condemning homosexuality - if you'd just talk to him in good faith. Would that work for you? Well it's a climate change thread, but ya I guess we could talk about that - Tho I'd say it's more about self denial than self rejection. Self rejection might be more applicable to transgenderism. Guilt is a natural human emotion that can lead to personal growth if handled in a healthy manner. As for the last one, I wouldn't necessarily just single out homosexual sex as it's a subset of sexual immorality in general.

Or. . .since steelmanning is way too much to ask of this place, maybe someone could just try to engage in good faith. I offered a story with a few of the left's favorite things, (Climate change, Trans People and religious conservatives) but all we get is something about eating giant locusts with sex workers in Thailand, poor people vs white men, and Dekker's irrelevant nonsense about brothels. . .and of course, Trump.

Perhaps read his reply again, and see if you can figure out what rhetorical device he was using there. Like many liberals, I think he feels that brothels are probably a good thing. Doesn't matter tho, he was wrong. The effect was people leaving sex work, which is always a good thing. You can call me the type 3 denier if it makes you feel better.

Turning street prostitution into brothels.... No. The story is about male sex workers deciding to man up and get real jobs. It says they were sick of the shitty rainy season, but I think they were just sick of. . . .sex work. (had to keep it clean) According to Bill, that would make you a Type 3 Denier - Believing that the effects of climate change would be good. I don't see anything wrong with it, but the left can't have that. It would dampen alarmism, complicating efforts to evoke sympathy from the emotionally retarded (college students, Gen Z, etc) and garner their votes. But as I've already explained, this story doesn't really have anything to do with climate change. It's almost like the writer was playing a game of Mad Libs, and decided to use it as the headline.

The story shows how the mere perception of climate change is having a positive effect. While the (slight) overall increase in rain over the last hundred years, combined with recent record rain events may support the idea of climate change, for a sex worker it's just another shitty rainy day working in a rain forest during the rainy season. A couple extra inches here and there isn't going to make much of a difference to their bottom line for the day - it's still going to be a wash either way. The rainy season was always less profitable, but if you attach "climate change" and "Trans" to the problem, you now suddenly get support groups that allow sex workers to realize that they'd much rather just start their own business than eat giant locusts with Joe Weber.

I don't know, It's starting to get serious: "How climate change is hitting vulnerable Indonesian trans sex workers" https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/indonesian-transgender-climate-change-bandung-b2522422.html And no, I don't think it's a parody. . .

I don't think much will come of it. Iran felt the need to display a show of force to save face. Nothing too serious I hope.

Prevalence-induced concept change: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/06/harvard-researchers-may-have-answer-to-why-youre-never-satisfied/#:~:text=The answer%2C Harvard researcher Daniel Gilbert says%2C may,reduced%2C humans are inclined to redefine the problem. "We solved the problem! Now let’s unsolve it. . . By several measures, including rates of poverty and violence, progress is an international reality. Why, then, do so many of us believe otherwise? The answer, Harvard researcher Daniel Gilbert says, may lie in “prevalence-induced concept change.” . . .as the prevalence of a problem is reduced, humans are inclined to redefine the problem. As a problem becomes smaller, conceptualizations of the problem expand, which can lead to progress being discounted. “When problems become rare, we count more things as problems. Our studies suggest that when the world gets better, we become harsher critics of it, and this can cause us to mistakenly conclude that it hasn’t actually gotten better at all. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326048713_Prevalence-induced_concept_change_in_human_judgment that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to.

What I saw was someone talking about "taking care of their own backyard first." That is typically followed by how they're actually doing that. For example, a truck driver might say they're buying an electric semi, but in the past Gowlerk said that would make his job too difficult. And while that is a perfectly reasonable excuse, at least he'd still have a job. Others won't be so lucky and might find themselves out of work, with their own tax dollars subsidizing the competition. So anyway, since Ken The Dinosaur Trucker can't list any examples of his own, he focuses on Brent "The Dinosaur Dad." Don't look at me. At 22 I left a $121k/yr job (adjusted for inflation) for my son's mother. She said she was lonely and afraid when I was gone, but she was also advanced in age (30 years) so we decided I'd become a pioneer as a stay at home dad so she can focus on her career. (and we'd be together everyday) It was the greatest experience of my life and I appreciated every moment of it. (except that one time when she was upset that I didn't have dinner ready, lmao) Just doing my part to narrow the gender wage gap, I guess. Beats bitching about some imaginary misogynistic patriarchy holding women down. A while later, I landed my dream job traveling as a photographer/editor, primarily for the Outdoor channel. As time went by she wanted to move to California to start her own business. I was happy where I was at, but was up for the adventure. Again, just doing my part to narrow the wage gap, I guess. But I suppose I would've had to draw the line somewhere. If my 5yr old son had said he wanted to be a pirate, I doubt I would pluck his eye out, give him a patch and dress him in a silly outfit with a sword. Not that any of that would actually make him a pirate of course. He'd still be just a little boy, but without an eye and dressed in a silly outfit - all because I "respected his independence" so much that I let some shill convince me to abuse him in this way so as not to kill himself.

Absolutely, 100% yes it was. Honestly right, when you said this “oh wait, making a sex tape with an underage minor is perfectly legal?“ did you seriously think people would understand that you actually meant any of what you said above? well if you're asking me to be honest. You'll see that I actually went to edit it because I agree it's a bit confusing, but opted to leave it in and see what happens. I also added a question mark. ; ) I figured someone might rush in to tell me how wrong I was, to which I might reply - "well he wasn't charged for making the sex tape, so how do you know?" And then perhaps we could have a discussion on it, who knows. I also thought it was possible that some might get distracted by the plan parenthood comment and not even notice - which is why I made that comment to Joe. Anyway, my bad. No, much easier to just spit it out. Thanks.

But you're laughing at the damage. I need to emphasise: you're laughing at the damage. You're not laughing at just the progressives any more. You delight in the damage. You've got serious problems, man. You'd have a point it he started a thread with a giant photo of a pile of trash without any other context, and said "BWHAHAHAHAHA!" He already told you who he's "laughing" at and why, and it's not the damage, you know he's not and everyone else knows he's not, so stop acting like a typical gen z tik-toker and get over it.

Says to take care of your own backyard first, then immediately proceeds to tell Brent how his family can take care of their own backyard, first. Typical liberal.

Then what in the actual fuck was your point? There were several links posted to headlines about criminal charges and a sex tape. A couple posters emphasized that the sex tape involved an underage female minor. One of the stories acknowledges that the sex tape has nothing to do with the criminal charges. The other story doesn't seem to make an effort to clarify that fact. It's still unclear to me that if sex between an 18 and 16 year old is consensual and legal, would the sex tape legal also be legal? I was also taken back by the fact that in Colorado, a 24 year old man can have sex with a 15 year old girl. And as an aside, it kind of blew my mind that he can sexually ravage her, but it wouldn't be considered contributing to her delinquency unless of course he was trying to be romantic and offered a sip of wine. Was that really so hard to parse?

Well he at least acknowledged that my points were valid, so perhaps you're just ill informed and can connect the dots. In the future, feel free to ask for help. And if someone rather ask irrelevant questions about my personal sexuality rather than discuss the valid points with which they actually agree, then I don't see the point in posting at all, which apparently is a common theme with Weber.