Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Legalizing "pedophilia"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    I am guessing that some irony has escaped the lefty fools on the forum. The whole moral, ethical, and legal premise upon which anti-pedophilia (and statutory rape) laws are built is that under a certain age, individuals simply lack the knowledge, maturity, and mental ability to give meaningful consent to certain things (it is also why you can't enter into legally binding contracts without the consent of a parent or legal guardian). This is absolutely correct, children are not adults.

    Yet, there are people in our society who want to ignore this reality and let children vote!
    And have sex with them TOO !

    Which tells us all we need to know about where the liberal mind is.

    ?


    • #32
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      And have sex with them TOO !

      Which tells us all we need to know about where the liberal mind is.
      Yeah, this is the crowd that has defended (and celebrated) the likes of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen

      ?


      • #33
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
        And have sex with them TOO !
        Which tells us all we need to know about where the liberal mind is.
        Yeah, and it an't a pretty nor rational place, this place where the liberal mind is.
        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
        Yeah, this is the crowd that has defended (and celebrated) the likes of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen
        Indeed, which only shows that the liberal mind has been on this road for many a years already.

        ?


        • #34
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          It is.

          It's not the governments job to mandate who or what we can and can't love.

          They've a great record of making these 'issues' worse by trying to do so.
          Why don't you and eohernburger argue this point, now that you've agreed that liberals have just recently invented the perversion of law regarding children?

          ?


          • #35
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post

            Why don't you and eohernburger argue this point, now that you've agreed that liberals have just recently invented the perversion of law regarding children?
            Perversions with children have been with mankind since the beginning. With the advent of civilization and law, it was recognized as being damaging to the children and outlawed in most societies.

            Now, it seems, the left is looking for acceptance of those perversions, their normalization, and acceptance as part of normal life in society, and you are expecting everyone to simply nod their heads and agree?

            ?


            • #36
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post

              Why don't you and eohernburger argue this point, now that you've agreed that liberals have just recently invented the perversion of law regarding children?



              Rover said;

              I just saw that the govorner of Kentucky has just out lawed sex with animals. Don't despair the Kavanaugh court will probably find the law unconstitutional.Too bad Trump can't veto it.

              https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...374#post561374

              And I answered;

              It is.

              It's not the governments job to mandate who or what we can and can't love.

              They've a great record of making these 'issues' worse by trying to do so.



              You ask;
              "Why don't you and eohernburger argue this point now that you've agreed that liberals have just recently invented the perversion of law regarding children?"

              Liberals haven't recently invented the perversion of law. Regarding children, or anything else. Mankind has perverted all things on a regular basis over time.

              No one has invented anything, none of these perverse sexual practices are new. What's new is that we have people wanting to make them acceptable and legal practices in our culture.

              That liberals want to manipulate public attitudes & laws to make all manners of perversions acceptable and "normal," isn't up for debate.

              It has and is happening.

              ?


              • #37
                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                Perversions with children have been with mankind since the beginning. With the advent of civilization and law, it was recognized as being damaging to the children and outlawed in most societies.

                Now, it seems, the left is looking for acceptance of those perversions, their normalization, and acceptance as part of normal life in society, and you are expecting everyone to simply nod their heads and agree?
                If by "advent of civilization and law", you mean the last few decades, that's faint praise for timing. Conservatives and liberals alike usually dropped the ball on protecting children from perverse, arranged marriages up until the last few decades. "Decades" should have been "centuries" in a decent world.

                There is no credible connection between most liberal political officials and legalizing perversion between adults and children. -That particular category of perversion is reserved for a small group on the margin, whether in any political party or society at large. In short, they are a very small number that can fit under a rock, where they belong.

                As for laying blame on liberals for moral corruption, that argument should be reserved for the latest resurgence of moral decay which has surfaced at various times throughout the last several centuries. Once again, the shame of governance during a given phase of moral corruption fell upon the range of political practice, rather than restrict itself to liberals. From monarchs to republics. Now that I have established the limits on what could be rationally argued -a legal recognition of moral decay between consenting adults- you may continue with your argument that liberals have gone too far...

                -If moral decay was de facto not prosecuted (generally ignored) on occasion over the last few centuries, then your argument is for the enforcement of laws based on moral -sexual- conduct? Between consenting adults?

                ?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  If by "advent of civilization and law", you mean the last few decades, that's faint praise for timing. Conservatives and liberals alike usually dropped the ball on protecting children from perverse, arranged marriages up until the last few decades. "Decades" should have been "centuries" in a decent world.

                  There is no credible connection between most liberal political officials and legalizing perversion between adults and children. -That particular category of perversion is reserved for a small group on the margin, whether in any political party or society at large. In short, they are a very small number that can fit under a rock, where they belong.
                  Which would have been - was likely - said of issues like transgenderism and gays that wanted to "get married."

                  ".... they are a very small number that can fit under a rock, where they belong."

                  The "slippery slope" argument, that was so regularly laughed at & dismissed, is showing us that it was and is true.

                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  As for laying blame on liberals for moral corruption, that argument should be reserved for the latest resurgence of moral decay which has surfaced at various times throughout the last several centuries. Once again, the shame of governance during a given phase of moral corruption fell upon the range of political practice, rather than restrict itself to liberals. From monarchs to republics. Now that I have established the limits on what could be rationally argued -a legal recognition of moral decay between consenting adults- you may continue with your argument that liberals have gone too far...

                  -If moral decay was de facto not prosecuted (generally ignored) on occasion over the last few centuries, then your argument is for the enforcement of laws based on moral -sexual- conduct? Between consenting adults?
                  Good points you make.

                  Good points are also made in the following article concerning "sexual freedoms" and government involvement and their unforeseen/unintended consequences.

                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Are Moral Values Subjective?

                  We are told, by the Left, that matters of right and wrong are situational.

                  They change with the times, with cultures, or with other conditions.

                  They reject the idea that there are eternal, objective standards to which we are all obliged to conform, regardless of our personal opinions or preferences.

                  I recall having seen online a videotaped debate on this between two teams of participants. One of them included a prominent atheist (either Hitchens or Dawkins), while the other team was composed of recognized advocates of religious values.

                  The reason I was searching for the video is because I remember that, throughout the debate, the atheist side of it centered on claims that they are supported by science, not by opinion and not by faith.

                  Then a curious thing happened. Near the end of his presentation, one of the supposedly scientific atheists launched into a tirade against people who oppose same-sex "marriage." This was one of the same people who had been asserting that questions of morality are entirely subjective, with no basis in science.

                  Obviously, this esteemed scientific atheist did not really believe his own pronouncements. He did not disbelieve in morality; he simply believed in his own version of it. As do so many others on the social Left, he seemed to believe that his standards should be enforced on the rest of us.

                  Judging from this, most people seem to intuitively believe that there really is such a thing as morality. We just disagree on which standards, if any, to uphold. So the question becomes more important: is there an objective, perhaps scientific, standard of morality independent of our personal opinions?

                  Modern science is underpinned by a philosophy called by various names, including "physicalism." That philosophy says that nothing objectively exists except that which is explained in terms of physics. It rejects any notions of spirit, soul, or God. That rejection is well and fine for a philosophy, but it is entirely unscientific. A purely physicalist view of reality has no place for notions of good or evil, right or wrong, justice or injustice. It is entirely neutral, neither preferring nor disdaining either side.

                  Therefore, to assert that there is an objective standard of morality is not unscientific; it is merely non-physicalist.

                  Is there, then, some way to prove the matter, one way or the other?

                  Yes, there is, but society is so complex, the human mind so inscrutable, that it takes years, even centuries, for a social experiment to produce verifiable results.

                  Oftentimes, the outcomes of social policies are completely opposite those predicted by the experts.

                  The following bit of recent history provides an example.

                  Up until the 1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in most segments of society was very small, despite there being no reliable contraceptives available.

                  One overwhelming reason for the low incidence of premarital pregnancy was social opprobrium. For a young, unmarried woman to be known not to be a virgin was considered shameful. For her to become pregnant was scandalous. The prospect of being humiliated was a powerful inducement, for women, to delay sexual intercourse until marriage.

                  The advent of the birth control pill changed all that, and as history shows, the incidence of out-of-wedlock motherhood, which was supposed to have been dramatically reduced, instead increased, and did so intensely. Why?

                  The birth control pill helped to reduce the stigma of losing one's virginity before marriage. This, in turn, indirectly reduced the stigma of premarital pregnancy. This, in turn, reduced the perceived need for the birth control pill. Once the initial phase of these events had occurred, the flood gates were opened, and what quickly followed was what is called the Sexual Revolution.

                  This revolution was supposed to free women from the injustice of sexual repression.

                  Instead, it led to millions of women becoming pregnant and abandoned, left on their own, to raise their fatherless children. Many of them were, as a result, raised in poverty and amid crime. The welfare state sought to correct this mistake by subsidizing single motherhood. This, in turn, predictably increased what it subsidized.

                  Today, the harm wrought by the abandonment of sexual morality has left us with a society that cannot even recognize the good and natural differences between the sexes, even to the point of denying that there are two complementary sexes, and certainly denying that they are a naturally ordained partnership, one without which society suffers consequences so pervasive that many people call them good.

                  The illusion is now deeply ingrained that sexual morality is an antiquated notion and that its violations have no harmful consequence.

                  Worse yet, casual acceptance of homosexuality and transsexuality has morphed from one of mere tolerance to the present state of enforcement.

                  Small, confused children can be subjected to the radical procedure of so-called transitioning from their birth sex to a chosen sex.
                  See next article

                  This can be done in opposition to the parents' wishes, as, indeed, pregnant teenage girls can have their pregnancies aborted with neither the knowledge nor consent of her parents.

                  To interfere is to be accused of child abuse. Even to openly advocate Judeo-Christian standards of morality can bring about significant penalties.

                  We are now at the point where pedophilia itself is gaining traction as a so-called sexual orientation.

                  Where will all this end? The experts say, a Utopian society. When have they been right?


                  https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ubjective.html

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                  8-year-old grilled about gender, parents sue school


                  A school district in Oregon is being sued after a teacher repeatedly grilled an 8-year-old student about whether he thought he is a girl, gave him videos on transgenderism to watch and provided instructional books.

                  Oddly enough, that type of behavior likely will be standard practice soon in California.

                  KPTV-TV reported the parents of a student in Woodburn, Oregon, filed a complaint alleging their son was held back from recess by the teacher for multiple one-on-one conversations about his gender identity.

                  The parents were not told what the teacher was doing, they said.

                  The mother and father in Woodburn are now suing a school district for nearly a million dollars after they say a second-grade teacher singled out their son by asking him if he was transgender. The parents say the teacher had inappropriate conversations with the child at school without their permission, the station reported.

                  Neither the son nor the parents are revealing their identities, to protect the childs privacy.


                  But the mother told the station: He feels different now, he feels confused. To hear your son say that on a couch talking to a therapist, holding back tears its very heartbreaking.

                  The 8-year-old is a student at Nellie Muir Elementary School.

                  The parents said the teacher asked their son if he thought he was a girl multiple times. They say the teacher held the boy back from recess several times to watch videos and read books about being transgender. The parents say the teacher got those materials from one of her transgender friends. The parents say they had no idea these conversations were taking place in April of 2018, the report said.

                  The parents only found out what was going on when their son brought home one of the books.

                  They say the situation was triggered because of a medical condition their son had, for which he asked to use a staff restroom rather than the boys room.

                  Now 9, the boy is taking anxiety medication and going to therapy, the parents explain.


                  The complaint alleges negligence, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

                  Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, pointed out in a Daily Signal column that the new guidelines for students and teachers in California schools include such questioning.

                  The guidelines even encourage kindergartners to think about whether they might identify with another gender, the report said.

                  Are you kidding? At that age, they dont even know what gender is, Perkins said. The goal, officials say, is to create an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.'

                  The state intends to ban opt-out choices for the LGBT lessons.


                  Now were teaching kids how to have a robust sex life? Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment, California Family Councils Greg Burt said in response to the plan.

                  Perkins wrote: Some of you may roll your eyes and dismiss this as just California. Dont be fooled. This same extremism is coming to a classroom near you and parents need to be equipped and ready to mobilize like these families have.



                  https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/8-year-o...ts-sue-school/

                  ?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    If by "advent of civilization and law", you mean the last few decades, that's faint praise for timing. Conservatives and liberals alike usually dropped the ball on protecting children from perverse, arranged marriages up until the last few decades. "Decades" should have been "centuries" in a decent world.
                    Norms have changes as time progresses. Back awhile, when life was much shorter, people started their lives much earlier, at least 15 years earlier. This included the major events such as marriage, children, homesteading, etc. as well as being considered full fledged adults at a much younger age.

                    There is no credible connection between most liberal political officials and legalizing perversion between adults and children. -That particular category of perversion is reserved for a small group on the margin, whether in any political party or society at large. In short, they are a very small number that can fit under a rock, where they belong.
                    Belong under a rock, agreed. Yet, you can see the start of the left movements wishing to decriminalize such adult / child sexual relationships. As the what used to be considered as curiosities, abnormal, now wish to mainstream and normalize those behaviors. Slippery slope and all that. When and where does it stop? Given enough time, won't it get there?

                    As for laying blame on liberals for moral corruption, that argument should be reserved for the latest resurgence of moral decay which has surfaced at various times throughout the last several centuries. Once again, the shame of governance during a given phase of moral corruption fell upon the range of political practice, rather than restrict itself to liberals. From monarchs to republics. Now that I have established the limits on what could be rationally argued -a legal recognition of moral decay between consenting adults- you may continue with your argument that liberals have gone too far...
                    Witness the 'if it feels good, do it' hedonism, and how far the progress it has made. <*shrug*>

                    -If moral decay was de facto not prosecuted (generally ignored) on occasion over the last few centuries, then your argument is for the enforcement of laws based on moral -sexual- conduct? Between consenting adults?
                    Pretty much that between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes not much is out of bounds. The State should stop at the outside of the front door. Out in public, that's an entirely different matter. One would hope that good judgment would prevail.

                    ?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                      Norms have changes as time progresses. Back awhile, when life was much shorter, people started their lives much earlier, at least 15 years earlier. This included the major events such as marriage, children, homesteading, etc. as well as being considered full fledged adults at a much younger age.



                      Belong under a rock, agreed. Yet, you can see the start of the left movements wishing to decriminalize such adult / child sexual relationships. As the what used to be considered as curiosities, abnormal, now wish to mainstream and normalize those behaviors. Slippery slope and all that. When and where does it stop? Given enough time, won't it get there?



                      Witness the 'if it feels good, do it' hedonism, and how far the progress it has made. <*shrug*>



                      Pretty much that between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes not much is out of bounds. The State should stop at the outside of the front door. Out in public, that's an entirely different matter. One would hope that good judgment would prevail.
                      Please source your claim, "...the start of the left movements wishing to decriminalize such adult/child relationships." Like NAMBLA? They are? (were) a marginal group then, and still are if they still exist. Link:
                      Gays reacted with anger--and with a struggle over the politically correct stance. Many emphasize that NAMBLA's First Amendment rights should be respected. But they also consider the group's philosophy to be indefensible. Long before the uproar in San Francisco, NAMBLA was banned from meeting in a gay community center in New York and barred from the annual gay pride parade in Los Angeles. (Later reports by KRON somewhat mollified gays by emphasizing that a large majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.)
                      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...721-story.html

                      Maybe you didn't get the memo. Back in 1992. Or maybe that's changed, and the left's sexual misfits are now revving up their next step to re-legalize adult/child sexual relationships. Or maybe you are grasping at straws. We'll wait for your links to back a counter argument. If you have evidence that enforcement of public lewdness (or similar) laws are less enforced for homosexual than heterosexual behavior, please include that as well. It would help support a claim that "feel good hedonism" is monopolized by the left.

                      The claim that people married children apparently dates to places that suffered borderline extinction events, like the various European hellish events (fe black plague, countless wars big and small). The US was different -aside from periods of land grabbing or widespread warfare. Link: https://www.theclassroom.com/age-mar...00s-23174.html -The average age of marriage was around 21 for women during the 1800's. The age of legal independence -adulthood- has been at or above 21 for the US.
                      Last edited by radcentr; 4 weeks ago. Reason: space

                      ?


                      • #41

                        There are a lot of links offered at this writing;

                        This is quite a bit bigger than NAMBLA now.....

                        https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...699#post561699

                        As has been shown, one still can "marry" a teenager in America..... now we're just working on lowering the age even more & redefining the meanings of more words.

                        ?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                          There are a lot of links offered at this writing;

                          This is quite a bit bigger than NAMBLA now.....

                          https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...699#post561699

                          As has been shown, one still can "marry" a teenager in America..... now we're just working on lowering the age even more & redefining the meanings of more words.
                          From one of your links:
                          Just as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) re-classified gender identity disorder to gender identity dysphoria, it also tinkered with classifying pedophilia in its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V.) As the psycho-bible of mental disorders, the DSM has always been the go-to source for making the sexual revolution the law of the land. Its reclassifications of homosexuality and transgenderism are really just the beginning.
                          https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-hou...193115341.html If (probably never will get to "when") the APA accepts adults having sex with children, we'll be in a post-civilization stage. In short, children and adults having sex will be on par with cannibalism -aka survival mode in complete anarchy. The APA (former) members will be like everyone else: On the dinner menu if they aren't the cooks. See "european hellish events", above.

                          The other "proof" that your sources claim the mainstream left is pushing for pedophilia? It rests on hollywood and related media pablum. That "news" is older than my 1992 reference to San Francisco's NAMBLA scandal. I was still a student -leftist- and it was commonly accepted by most (left to right) back then that hollywood was basically a nauseating mix of cinematic talent and utter moral decay that dated back to the silent film era. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Bab.../dp/0440153255

                          Difference between now and then: Back in the early 80's, the right didn't try to claim the left originated moral rot -other than the hippies doing too many drugs and acting accordingly. That's because the right knew they shared gov't. and other social responsibilities throughout the period, and "Hollywood Babylon" was the most famous example of how far back that goes in the modern era. Maybe your side's claim that the left has a monopoly on moral decay has it's origins in Ronald Reagan's first major career choice. Best to cover that up, Hollywood style.

                          ?


                          • #43
                            These same kinds of arguments would have been used in the past to dismiss the possibility of where we are today, with "gay marriage" and "transgender" rights etc

                            Start accepting perversity, the push for accepting more will never stop.

                            It's what we are seeing happening. Yes, there ARE groups and people pushing to normalize sexual relations with children.

                            Just as there were groups and people pushing to normalize sexual relations between same sex partners.

                            Just as there were groups and people pushing to normalize cross dressing and even calling oneself the opposite SEX !

                            Remember the Rocky Horror Picture show ?

                            http://www.rockyhorror.com/

                            ?


                            • #44
                              Your slippery slope -with transvestites and other sexual misfits- maybe started way back in 1959. Is it true, Tony Curtis was trying to twist the only decent way to pair up when I was still enjoying diapers and mashed carrots? Link:
                              https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/ha...it-hot-214585/

                              Or maybe it started back when my great-great (etc.) grandfather was just a twinkle in his father's eye. Shakespeare's plays were a big thing a few centuries back, which used young men/boys as actors who cross-dressed. How far back does perversion (conservatively defined as sexual relations outside procreation) go? It goes back forever, and it is impossible to gauge whether it was more or less common than it is today. Link:
                              Martin Ingram has quite rightly observed that To try to gauge the incidence of abuse in the distant past poses such insuperable problems as to be fruitless.24 Any estimates about either the incidence of rape generally, and of the rape of children more specifically should be treated with a great deal of caution as any conclusions drawn about trends over time cannot be relied upon to be accurate.25
                              https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4375676

                              In short, your slippery slope is more like the rolling hills of Tennessee. It goes up and down depending on a given history and the integrity of it's culture and government at that moment. Do you want to keep the lewd behavior indoors? (assuming you won't foot the bill for a morality cop under every bed). -Then enforce public lewdness laws, equally between heterosexual behavior and other types. Never give up the principle of legal protection for children from predatory adults, which has advanced over the last few decades (despite some claim otherwise). That's about the best you can do, and almost all lefties are going to either remain neutral or back your efforts. Other than the two strategies (equal enforcement of public behavior laws, child protection), what other methods would you suggest?

                              ?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Your slippery slope -with transvestites and other sexual misfits- maybe started way back in 1959. Is it true, Tony Curtis was trying to twist the only decent way to pair up when I was still enjoying diapers and mashed carrots? Link:
                                https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/ha...it-hot-214585/

                                Or maybe it started back when my great-great (etc.) grandfather was just a twinkle in his father's eye. Shakespeare's plays were a big thing a few centuries back, which used young men/boys as actors who cross-dressed. How far back does perversion (conservatively defined as sexual relations outside procreation) go? It goes back forever, and it is impossible to gauge whether it was more or less common than it is today. Link:
                                https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4375676

                                In short, your slippery slope is more like the rolling hills of Tennessee. It goes up and down depending on a given history and the integrity of it's culture and government at that moment. Do you want to keep the lewd behavior indoors? (assuming you won't foot the bill for a morality cop under every bed). -Then enforce public lewdness laws, equally between heterosexual behavior and other types. Never give up the principle of legal protection for children from predatory adults, which has advanced over the last few decades (despite some claim otherwise). That's about the best you can do, and almost all lefties are going to either remain neutral or back your efforts. Other than the two strategies (equal enforcement of public behavior laws, child protection), what other methods would you suggest?
                                That's a good question

                                People need controls put in place for their sexual urges

                                Without them we get problems

                                WITH them we get problems LOL

                                People most assuredly DO need controls put in place to help control their sexual urges ! ....

                                Like this one... I pointed out.. from one of our great immigrants here illegally ... to do work "Americans won't do"

                                Illegal Alien Convicted of Raping Dog to Death Released by Sanctuary State

                                ............


                                https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...295#post563295

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X