TLHLIM

sturg33 said:
Leftists continue to normalize this ****

[TW]1480917521326919683[/TW]
Click to expand...

I’m not subscribed to be able to read this, but the first couple of paragraphs are incredibly reasonable. What is your objection to trying to understand and potentially treat someone for having an attraction to minors that they don’t act upon? As long as we don’t normalize the behavior of acting upon these impulses, I still fail to see how this isn’t a helpful conversation. It’s akin to labeling someone a rapist for merely wanting to have sex with someone that isn’t interested.
 
sturg33 said:
This de evolution was inevitable

[Tw]1478827519004479489[/tw]
Click to expand...

You can point to this in 10 years if I’m wrong, but this is a super fringe view, bordering on the level of Flat Earthers. I’m all aboard the Gender is a Construct bandwagon, but there remain some objective differences.
 
mqt said:
I’m not subscribed to be able to read this, but the first couple of paragraphs are incredibly reasonable. What is your objection to trying to understand and potentially treat someone for having an attraction to minors that they don’t act upon? As long as we don’t normalize the behavior of acting upon these impulses, I still fail to see how this isn’t a helpful conversation. It’s akin to labeling someone a rapist for merely wanting to have sex with someone that isn’t interested.
Click to expand...

Sympathizing with child abusers is normalizing and enabling.

Stop finding your self on the defense of child rapists
 
sturg33 said:
Sympathizing with child abusers is normalizing and enabling.

Stop finding your self on the defense of child rapists
Click to expand...

Did the rest of the article sympathize with child abusers, or did it continue to distinguish between child abusers and people attracted to children that know it’s wrong and don’t abuse them? I’m not signing up for USA Today to determine this myself.
 
sturg33 said:
no. and it is real

https://news.yahoo.com/column-california-abolish-parenthood-name-181725030.html
Click to expand...

Now, I recognize that some naysayers will dismiss such a policy as ghastly, even totalitarian. But my proposal is quite modest, a fusion of traditional philosophy and today’s most common political obsessions.

In his “Republic,” Plato adopted Socrates’ sage advice — that children “be possessed in common, so that no parent will know his own offspring or any child his parents” — in order to defeat nepotism, and create citizens loyal not to their sons but to society.

Today, a policy of universal orphanhood aligns with powerful social trends that point to less interest in family. Californians are slower to marry, and are having fewer children — our birth rate is at an all-time low.

My proposal also should be politically unifying, fitting hand-in-glove with the most cherished policies of progressives and Trumpians alike.
Click to expand...

Methinks someone is pulling a Jonathan Swift.
 
I'm seeing similar trends at my SF based tech company... not as bad as this but we are less mature

My friends AWS tell me similar stories

[tw]1481797871389351936[/tw]
 
Imagine clai my ing that not mandating every employer inject every employee with a drug that doesn't work is "radicalism"

But you'll be shocked to learn that the solution is to add... Four new justices!

[Tw]1481741511775735810[/tw]
 
Around 4 years until you defend Trump adding justices. He doesnt see justices as left or right, he sees them as loyal to him or disloyal to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top