Coreece
-
Content
9,608 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6 -
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by Coreece
-
-
On 5/28/2024 at 1:53 PM, billvon said:On 5/28/2024 at 1:24 AM, Coreece said:"I condemn the antisemitic protests"
So do I. They exist.
So why didn't you just say that the first time instead of acting like you didn't know what I was talking about?
On 5/28/2024 at 1:53 PM, billvon said:They are not the same as pro-Palestinian protests, no matter how tightly you crank down your blinders.
Never said they were. But nice job slipping that in there.
As if you would ever make that distinction when it's one of the isolated incidents of conservative antisemitism. But when the largest widespread surge of antisemitism is coming from the left, you effectively say "I don't know how you get "antisemitic" from all this.
-
On 5/28/2024 at 9:07 AM, gowlerk said:Childhood marriage is a conservative and largely a religious based belief. . .
. . .It is a problem of the extreme right. . .
Ok, so a 15 year old girl in a non-abusive relationship can claim that she is a homosexual boy, consent to having her breasts removed, legally have sex with her 25 year old boyfriend, abort their unwanted baby without parental consent and keep it all a secret with her teacher, but you have a problem with them getting married. . .because it's extreme?
-
On 5/28/2024 at 1:05 PM, billvon said:On 5/28/2024 at 12:52 AM, Coreece said:Ok, so let's test that. If parents at the beach were upset because some known creep was biting his lip and gawking at someone's daughter frolicking on the splash pad, you'd say/think "who cares, leave the poor guy alone, he can't help it, he was born that way, he's doing nothing wrong, it's all in his head. He'll never be able to live as his true self, have some compassion for Christ's sake?"
Great test. And my answer depends on the definiton of "some known creep."
Is he a "known creep" because he's black, and you know those people? Is he a "known creep" because he's 60, and why is he at the beach with kids if he's 60? Is he a "known creep" because you know he has a younger girlfriend who likes to dress like an anime schoolgirl? Is he a "known creep" because he's a liberal, or he was a swinger when he was younger, or he once gave a talk on consent, or he dresses up in women's clothes at DZ parties because he thinks it's funny?
Then yes, I'd think he did not deserve to be attacked.
Is he "some known creep" because another parent caught him with child porn? Because he raped someone? Because he was on a sex offender list? Because he was stalking a kid online?
Then I'd be on the side of the parents.
Again, see if you can determine the fundamental difference between the two general cases above.
No, that would obviously give us just cause to forcibly remove him from the situation.
Let's say that because of destigmatization he got help before it was too late and never physically offended anyone. He still fantasies about all that stuff, but he never acts on it. Maybe he heard you talking about how you don't care what's in the heads of people like him, or that it even matters. So one day he gets drunk at a community mixer and tells everyone what's really on his mind. Then a couple weeks later you see him by himself at that splash pad gawking at the little girl and doing that creepy lip thing.
Still don't care?
Hopefully you'd at least politely ask him to leave, and he'd probably snap out of it and go to therapy.
But what if he didn't. What if he gets all pissed off and says "Damn it, I knew this distigmatization stuff was a crock. They lied and now everyone hates me. Well f-you, f-all of you. I was born this way, I'm not hurting anyone. I'm coming for your children!"
A couple weeks later you see him at the local library dressed like a clown whore teaching kids how to twerk.
Not sure if they still think background checks are unnecessary for these events, but apparently a few sex offenders slipped through. Wouldn't matter for this guy tho, it's all in his head.
Still don't care? Doesn't matter?
-
On 5/28/2024 at 5:58 AM, olofscience said:only leftists are trying to destigmatize pedophilia?
I don't know that, nor did I say that. I simply posted what was being said and you got all defensive because it was coming from the left.
Their main argument for destigmatization is that it would create an environment where pedos would feel more comfortable coming out to seek the help they need.
Why do you think that's a bad thing?
On 5/28/2024 at 5:58 AM, olofscience said:Is that why you're so obsessed thinking about what homosexual people do
Again, I'm not the one that brought it up. Someone asked a question and I answered.
You on the other hand felt the need to publicly and voluntarily make an unbidden declaration that you are against pedophilia. . . .
-
On 5/23/2024 at 3:39 PM, billvon said:I'm not sure how you got from "anti-genocide" and "pro-palestinian" to "antisemitic."
It should come naturally to you. Just envision them as conservative protesters. Soon enough, numerous threads would emerge, each boasting lengthy posts, drawing various parallels to Nazis. You wouldn't be acknowledging any of the 'very fine people' caught up in the surge of antisemitism as you are now.
If that doesn't work, I guess you could just take Biden's word for it:
"I condemn the antisemitic protests"
"we've seen harassment and calls for violence against Jews. This blatant antisemitism is reprehensible and dangerous - and it has absolutely no place on college campuses, or anywhere in our country"
From the BBC:
The White House has condemned "blatantly antisemitic" statements during ongoing student protests against the war in Gaza.
"While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous," the statement read.From NYT:
"People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.” Antisemitism, he added, “has no place” in America.
“Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It’s against the law,” the president said. “Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations — none of this is a peaceful protest. Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others. . .From NPR:
"We've seen a ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world," Biden said.
He described Jewish students facing harassment, and posters and slogans "calling for the annihilation of Israel" as well as efforts by some to deny what happened on Oct. 7.
"But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech, or threats of violence or any kind"
If you're like many in the country that don't take what Biden says too seriously, then you can take a look at the ADL's Campus Antisemitism Report Card, filterable by school, letter grade, state, etc:https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card
BTW, both of our Alma Maters scored a failing grade:
MIT - it was reported that university leadership exhibited open hostility toward Jews, student groups issued statements justifying Hamas' terrorism and Jewish students were targeted with death threats.
MSU - Image of Hitler displayed on the jumbotron at a football game.
On 5/23/2024 at 3:39 PM, billvon said:During the 60's, lots of conservatives looked at the anti-Vietnam-war protests and assumed the protesters were filthy, America-hating communists, since the communists were on the other side. That was just as wrong. They were protesting the war, not supporting communism.
While I can appreciate your ongoing attempt to draw parallels to the past, it's just more presentism that reeks of cultural bias and selective memory - It's irrelevant.
In 2024, with recording devices ubiquitous and readily available, practically every major event is captured and disseminated across various platforms in near real-time. The unfiltered truth is easily within reach for those who seek it. Even decades from now, attempts to twist these protests as a good thing will be futile given the abundance of evidence against them. So what makes you think you can do so today?
-
On 5/23/2024 at 2:10 PM, gowlerk said:They are protesting the extreme collective punishment and the blatant attempt at ethnic cleansing being meted out by Israel at the moment.
Protests against Israel erupted worldwide from day one before the blood even dried, with some chanting "gas the Jews." Student groups swiftly justified Hamas' actions, while certain professors described them as exhilarating. Some of the same individuals who openly called for the death of Jews were leading student protests. They were inevitable regardless of any questionable tactics employed by the IDF.
-
On 5/26/2024 at 10:27 PM, kallend said:P.S. Sorry for the misspelling.
Not quite Skitt's Law, but close. . .
-
On 5/26/2024 at 1:31 PM, kallend said:Insulters can't even spell. In the United States, there is a 58 to 42 preference for "worshipper" over "worshiper".
In the United States, we put the period before the quotation mark.
-
On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:hat 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
Ok, so let's test that. If parents at the beach were upset because some known creep was biting his lip and gawking at someone's daughter frolicking on the splash pad, you'd say/think "who cares, leave the poor guy alone, he can't help it, he was born that way, he's doing nothing wrong, it's all in his head. He'll never be able to live as his true self, have some compassion for Christ's sake?"
On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:morality has to do with how you treat other people, not what's in your head.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
This speaks to an element of immorality in our thought life.
We can't really arrest people for thought crimes, but if we value personal development and self control, it might be wise to take heed and get a grip on that as soon as possible. It all starts in the mind, so ya, it matters.
On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:Starting to sense a pattern here?
Originally, I didn't really offer any commentary on the issue other than to list what's being said and where it's coming from.
The point was that if they're trying to destigmatize pedophilia, then is it really a stretch to think that one day they would allow minors of child bearing age to have sex with whomever they wanted, including men of any age?When I brought this up in the past, people on both side would say things like "we make the laws. . .not children, we would never let that happen, children are impressionable, they can't consent, we need to protect them."
But do people still really feel that way? Will they feel that way in the near/distant future?
It varies by state, but I think many of us generally assumed 17-18 was the age of consent for sex.
Then it was like, ok, maybe 15 but only with a 3 year age difference.
Then it was 5 years difference.Nowadays people say things like "children are individuals with their own agency. They should be able to make decisions about their their own body, their own sexuality, their own sexual orientation, etc. They should be able to hide it from their parents and share secrets with their teachers if they want. They should even be able to have abortions and gender affirming care without a parent's consent."
Starting to sense a pattern here?
Now we find out that 15 year old girls can legally have sex with 25 year old men in Colorado.
You can almost hear people saying "screw it, at this point what's the difference between a 25 and a 40 year old? He might even be better for her than some horny 25 year old punk."
Is it really that much of a stretch to see this being allowed one day? Maybe not in our lifetime, but what will these desensitized kids think when they're older, having grown up in a hypersexualized society where degeneracy is normalized?
They might say something like, "our parents were ignorant and couldn't handle it, but we're educated! They fought for us to have books in elementary school with vivid imagery and stories of sex acts between 9-year olds. We had online pornography "where no on gets choked" at our finger tips whenever we wanted. We learned how to live with it responsibly."
"Who could ever forget Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey who taught us all how to twerk when we were 7 years old at the local library's drag hour? And look, we're fine! Nothing bad happened to us. We will teach our kids even better. Sex is natural and happy relationships reduce suicide. You don't want people killing themselves, do you? Sexually mature girls are wise beyond their years and have the right to choose their lover. If nature says they can have babies, it's their choice. What business is it of OURS!"
-
On 5/24/2024 at 8:59 AM, olofscience said:you're trying really, really hard to paint the left with a broad brush. . .
FYI, I'm leftist and I'm very against all forms of pedophilia and sexual abuse.
You're kind of proving the point that I was trying to make.
Bill and Gowlerk were talking about moral shifts. Some Issues that society viewed as immoral in the past, no longer consider them to be a moral issue today.
My argument to that was, so what? Just because society suddenly decides one day that something isn't immoral anymore, doesn't mean that you would/should change your personal view on morality. And I used 'pedophilia' as an example, mainly because that's how Gowlerk defined immorality, and most people would agree that it is.
So how is it broadbrushing when the entire premise of my point rests on the assumption that people living right now in the present find it immoral to begin with?
The ideas about destigmatization were just a few examples of how these societal moral shifts might actually begin. If you bothered to familiarize yourself with the issue rather than getting all triggered and defensive, you'd see I wasn't trying to pose a sweeping statement as an absolute truth.
It's not my fault that your confidence in the left is so low that you fear reasonable people might readily accept the notion that even a slight minority would condone pedophilia.
-
Personally it's hard to take seriously the nazi claims by the left, especially with all the antisemitic protests/encampments at universities across the country. I haven't seen much posted in here about it, but I haven't really looked. I have a feeling tho that if it was conservatives protesting, I wouldn't have to look for it.
In defense of the college students, it's doubtful most of them even know what they're protesting.
-
On 5/21/2024 at 12:18 PM, olofscience said:I was joking, I was referring to the debate some time ago when the Trump campaign emblem looked like the Nazi eagle and Coreece defended it very vigourously.
lmao, this again. Ya, that's the thread where you publicly admitted you were a troll.
-
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.
-
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.
-
On 5/17/2024 at 5:01 AM, olofscience said:On 5/17/2024 at 1:27 AM, Coreece said:liberal activists are even trying to destigmatize pedophilia, calling for compassion since these individuals are unable to embrace their authentic selves
Nice broad brush you're carrying there. Paedophilia will ALWAYS be stigmatized and those who want to destigmatize it (like some conservatives do) will always be in the minority.
Like who, and how?
-
15 hours ago, jakee said:Every church in the world caters to the vice of having sex. It's one of the central pillars of what they do.
What do you mean?
-
On 4/29/2024 at 5:35 PM, SkyDekker said:On 4/23/2024 at 10:27 PM, Coreece said:Dekker's irrelevant nonsense about brothels.
It was a joke, I am sorry it flew over your head, even after given hints.
Not quite. In order for that joke to work, it needs to convey an element of truth found in the story ( or elsewhere for that matter) But unfortunately for your comedy career, it doesn't.
You just assumed they started a brothel, which they didn't. And I already explained how the story has nothing to do with climate change.
All it's really about is how sex workers are leaving the sex trade for legitimate businesses. The story itself ultimately contradicted every imaginary limitation on sex workers it initially posed.
-
On 4/24/2024 at 11:45 AM, gowlerk said:On 4/24/2024 at 9:38 AM, Coreece said:As for the last one, I wouldn't necessarily just single out homosexual sex as it's a subset of sexual immorality in general.
Homosexual sex is not immoral.
You're entitled to your opinion, but bilvon wanted to change the subject to christianity, so that's what we were talking about. I mean, if merely objectifying women sexually in our heart (soul, mind, emotion, human will, conscience, etc) is immoral, then that would extend to men as well, let alone physically acting out that sexual objectification. I'm sure you could find a church that will cater to your every vice, but personally I don't really need any help with that.
On 4/24/2024 at 11:45 AM, gowlerk said:Sexual immorality is just a construct. The only immorality would be if someone is taking advantage of a child or a person otherwise not able to give informed consent.
Even laws governing consent are social constructs. If one day the law allowed sexually mature minors of any age to have sex with any man they wanted, I'm sure (in most cases) you'd still find it immoral for an older man to do that, regardless of what the law says, or if people falsely started calling you a pedophobe.
And it's already happening. In Colorado a 15 year old girl can have sex with a 25 year old man, and liberal activists are even trying to destigmatize pedophilia, calling for compassion since these individuals are unable to embrace their authentic selves - constrained from living freely.
Generally speaking, natural human inhibitions persist, yet as time progresses, society tends to become jaded and constructs ideals to normalize these inhibitions.
-
11 minutes ago, jakee said:11 hours ago, Coreece said: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...
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.
-
10 hours ago, billvon said:10 hours ago, Coreece said:I offered a story with a few of the left's favorite things, (Climate change, Trans People and religious conservatives)
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.
-
21 hours ago, billvon said:Or . . . . not.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, billvon said:21 minutes ago, Coreece said:According to Bill, that would make you a Type 3 Denier - Believing that the effects of climate change would be good.
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.
-
9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:On 4/20/2024 at 11:27 PM, Coreece said: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.
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)
9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:another clear win for Climate Change.
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.
-
On 4/14/2024 at 7:32 AM, lippy said:process the larger message of the story: climate change is going to have the biggest affect on those with the fewest resources.
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.
-
1
-
The Continent’s Consensus on Climate?……Crumbling
in Speakers Corner
It's not that. I just thought I asked a pretty simple question, but you let your imagination run away with it and provide all sorts of colorful imagery. (Not complaining BTW, I can appreciate it even if I don't agree with some of it.)
I'll work on my framing of rhetorical questions in the future. . .
Reduction would imply a still functioning breast, but that's not what I was talking about. It's all beside the point anyway and I'll save my thoughts for the proper thread. (you're welcome)
I agree it's unbelievable, but the parts about the twerking/sex offenders were based on true stories and inspired by Bill's comments about the sizable phalli of color.