How dare schools promote dangerous heterosexual thinking! Won't somebody think of the children!
I don't want schoolchildren taught anything about heterosexuality than the bare minimum of reproduction. I don't want schools teaching "how to please your boyfriend in bed 101" to girls.
wrt "society trending toward degeneracy", that requires defining what one means by that.
I seek a return to tradition.
I don't think it's some sort of horrible, cancel-worthy offense. It's a minor nothing that is blown out of proportion. Keep in mind, the movie "White Chicks".
I think a lot of these end up being strawman arguments; is there really a sizable section of the population that wants to override pedagogy and teach school-age children about gender dysphoria? Noisy outliers exist anywhere, so someone’s stupid twitter opinions don’t really count.
I thought the Dutch used windmills for farming, not tilting.
I mean, some schools in the US bring "drag queens" into the classroom to read to school children.
The following quotes come from a different thread, that had a moderator ask for that to stay on topic, so I will respond to them here, instead.
One last thing: equality is part of many religions including Christianity and Islam, two of the largest religions in the world. To embrace equality is to be religious.
Islam teaches that "infidels" should be second-class citizens, it's called dhimmitude.
It's funny about whether or not PMs are a unifying figure. Trudeau's detractors are very quick to wail that he "embarrassed ALL Canadians" whenever he says or does something they disapprove of, like singing a couple of days before the Queen's funeral.
Such detractors can speak for themselves. They do not speak for me. The singing in question happened two days before the funeral, was not at an official function, and was during the PM's downtime. And as singing Prime Ministers go, he's a hell of a lot better at it than Stephen Harper (don't get me started on Harper or the thread will be well and truly hijacked). So no, I was not embarrassed.
As for politically neutral... hello, the PM is the leader of a political party. Of course they favor that party. The good PMs don't let that get to the point where they pass laws that blatantly favor their own party/the general demographic that makes up their party. That's why my own province is in such a mess - the United Corruption Party is pretty open about how much contempt they have for people who are not like them.
Trudeau supports feminism and multiculturalism, ergo, I don't support Trudeau (even though I'm the furthest thing from Canadian).
Are you sure about that?
I have a rule in my home: Nobody with more than 4 legs is welcome. I spent most of the summer killing insects that sneaked in without my permission.
An insect is not someone. Someone = people (and in my opinion, dogs, I love dogs).
Political dynasties aren't the same as royal dynasties. Justin Trudeau's original profession was teaching math, science, and French in a school in British Columbia. His detractors dismiss him as a "part-time drama teacher" but my understanding is that drama at that school was an extracurricular activity, not a regular subject. I could be wrong about that - but even so, the arts are important to students having a well-rounded education.
It's funny that someone with a name like Trudeau was teaching in a school in BRITISH Columbia.
Justin mentioned floating the idea of going into politics while Pierre was still alive, saying they discussed it. I don't recall the rest of the article, but the fact is that nobody really speculated about it until they witnessed Justin giving the eulogy at his father's funeral. As it turned out, he did go into politics - first running for a seat and winning it, spending time in the backbenches (never had a shadow cabinet position), then running for party leader and winning, and then winning the election of 2015 (it was refreshing to have a PM who didn't have to cheat to win, as Harper did). It's been a rocky time over the past 7 years, and it would be great if his detractors just stopped the childish nonsense. Criticize him on what he's done or failed to do, not on his hair, socks, or who his father was. Pierre Trudeau is dead and has been for close to 22 years. Just give it a rest already.
Dr. Verwoerd has been dead for 56 years, and people still criticize him.
Here's a hint in case you missed it: Who STARTED the racial violence when Europeans first encountered the people of the region of South Africa (I'm sure that part of the world originally had different borders and a different name)?
The local tribes often were quote aggressive to the proto-Afrikaners. Very mean and nasty.
Okay.
Yeah, I realize you wouldn't like a TV show that focuses partly on pointing out that people all over have the same basic wants and needs, both physical and social, and that respect for sentience is important no matter what a lifeform's exterior looks like. I'm reminded of trying to explain IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination), a Vulcan philosophy of tolerance and respect of all lifeforms, to my Mormon Ed. Psych instructor in college (he said it sounded "chaotic" and the actual point whooshed right over his head).
I don't care for science fiction. I prefer musicals, comedy, mysteries, dramedy, etc...spaceships and stuff are for children.
You made several cracks about "lifestyle" and you've consistently pretended that transgender people don't exist. So please don't deny what we all saw you post.
Lifestyle was a reference to a gender-divergent lifestyle. I have nothing against people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
So you'd rather people die from diseases and conditions that could be cured or at least alleviated? I wonder how different history might have been if people had understood that prayer doesn't cure pandemics or plagues, or if certain monarchs' medical conditions had been recognized and treated. The Black Death changed everything for some regions of Europe as whole families were wiped out and inheritances, land, and influence that would have belonged to one family ended up going to another.
Modern medicine doesn't need to bring modern society...look at South Africa in the olden days...Dr. Barnard still made great surgical advancements without liberal democracy.
Henry VIII's quest for a legitimate male heir resulted in quite an upheaval in the social order of England, and history would have been very different if he'd just been grateful for the healthy daughter he did get from Catherine of Aragon and worked toward giving her the education and resources she would need to succeed him, once he realized that Catherine was past childbearing. Or I suppose he could have legitimized his bastard son, but then Henry Fitzroy died young as well. Hmm... that branch of the family didn't do very well, did it?
Like I said, being monarch is something a woman can do just as well as a man, if not better. You'll never get a better queen than Her Majesty Elizabeth II, RIP.
And vice-versa.
Do you even know what Gilead means in the context of my post? Try googling "The Handmaid's Tale". It's a novel by Margaret Atwood that's been adapted to a movie, ballet, and TV show.
I know what Gilead means, it's still better than living under Malema. Do you know who Malema is?
The attitude displayed in your posts contradict this assertion.
Find one post where I said anything homophobic. I was very clear - the lifestyle I disapprove of is transsexualism, not homosexuality/bisexuality. It's fine to be LGB, but T is biology denial.
As someone else pointed out, a woman was head of state centuries earlier. But of course there were still detractors who fretted that women would be too weak, too frail, too delicate, and not intellectually capable of ruling a kingdom. I was actually thinking of still-earlier instances under the Plantagenets, when the default reaction to a woman being Queen regnant was to get rid of her. Mind you, there were those who thought the same of the Tudor queens, incessantly badgering Elizabeth to marry, and complaining about who Victoria chose.
But those detractors didn't stop Victoria or either Elizabeth from being Queen.
So only women who reproduce are worth anything and the rest of us don't count. Okay, gotcha. You realize that your antipathy toward the "left" is matched by others' antipathy toward the "right", right? The right-wing party that's currently running my province despises people like me, because people in my demographic (disabled) don't usually vote for right-wing parties - we know better than to expect any meaningful help or even compassion from them (mostly; I will admit that one right-wing premier of Alberta, Alison Redford, kept her promise to the disabled and boosted the benefit by a meaningful amount that made all the difference to us being able to keep a roof over our heads and being homeless).
Well, lots of left-wing parties (i.e. EFF) despise people like me, and sing songs about killing people like me. So don't be surprised that I have come to hate the world, this world that always hated me. Take an eye for an eye, turn your heart into stone. This is all I have lived for, this is all I have known...
I don't know what "radical" feminism means to you. I do know that people on this very forum have accused me of hating men because I identify as a feminist. My response is this: I've belonged to CFC for 17 years. My first few years here were mostly spent in the Civ forums because that's why I came here - to learn more about the game (it was a woman who taught me how to play it, btw). Then I meandered down to the Colosseum and joined in the OT discussions. I still love the game, but honestly... does it make sense for me to spend 17 YEARS on a discussion forum populated mostly by guys if I hate men (there was a period of several years when I was the only woman who was regularly posting in OT)?
Radical feminism = anything beyond the early stuff (i.e. a woman's right to vote is the last feminist idea I agreed with).
Personal threads are generally frowned upon on these boards.
Well, I was told that to make a different thread to discuss this stuff, since it was clogging up other threads about other things.
I hate to say it, but society is going to move towards progressive ideals. The world turning into Tumblir is just a fevered dream of an alt-righter.
I may not be able to turn back the clock, but at least I can slow the winds of change if I try.
So you don’t give a flying crap about black face? Interesting
Have you heard of the movie "White Chicks"? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sounds like an advocacy for an ethostate my guy. What sort of “heritage” is being destroyed when you allow immigrants migrate in and assimilate into a country when said immigrants are coming to the country for economic opportunities and/or escaping a tyrannical regime.
Ah, yes, very assimilated!
Well Valka and I are giving you a heads up before you tread into hot water with a few posters here that would end up in a flame war. I’d say you’re lucky that Valka and I spoke up in civility rather than leave it to chance to withness seeing you get flamed on by marginalized posters whom you’re bigoted against.
There is no need for a flame war, you'll notice that I'm not flinging insults at people, rather I am expressing my views in an articulate but sometimes feisty manner.
To whom transgender people are harming when they are using pronouns that corresponds to their gender identity? The answer is no one.
They are trying to get me to play along with their delusions, which I will not do.
Again the use of “lifestyle” is no different than the arguments made against gays and lesbians in the past. Saying that transgender people’s lifestyle is abhorrent is just a rehash of the same arguments used against gays and lesbians.
When did gay people demand we call them something they biologically were not?
It’s more complicated than simple biology and genetics.
It really isn't. XY = male, XX = female
If I had 1pac for every gender, I would have 2pac.
I have two videos that best describes this by Professor Dave (one of which is a response video to Matt Walsh). He does a good job at explaining the issue (hell even made a compelling argument that swayed some conservatives in the comment section).
And his response to Matt Walsh:
Walsh is right, Dave is wrong.
No one, except for the weirdos on Tumblir and Twitter (and likely TicTok), are calling for whites to be accountable for the sins of their forefathers.
In South Africa, they want to take our land without compensation
In the US, they want whites to pay them reparations
Given you’ve commented on “lifestyle” and that you put down and deny the existence of transgender people in your previous post contradicts the assertion that you have nothing against “LGB people”.
LGB =/= transsexual
There’s an expectation in society to be polite and not be a jerk towards other people.
Unless you are a Boer, in which case
it's considered perfectly fine to sing songs about murdering you, according to an "Equality Court". Imagine the uproar if some US politician sang a song about murdering black people.
That’s going to have to be a hard disagreement on this one. Presently I have the freedom not to be harassed if I wanted to date a Latino women or a black woman, in the 1950s I wouldn’t have that ability because of anti-miscegenation laws that punishes interracial relationships and marriages up until the ruling by
Loving v. Virginia).
Well, I value the continuity of my group, so I wouldn't marry out, but I don't think others should be forbidden from marrying out. But I'd never do it.
Society wasn’t all flowers and sunshine in the past, especially with regards to marginalized peoples.
I thought we had established that I didn't care about that.
Circling back to feminism, women
are free to be stay at home mothers just as much as they have the freedom to hold a job and have a career and a family. Same with men that they too are free to be stay at home fathers (
though dual income households are more common, at least here in the US). It’s a
freedom of choice if a woman wants to be a stay at home mother or persue a career.
But when too many people are making choices that are bad for the long-term survival and continuity of their nation...
But given that you said society was better off years ago. My hunch is that you would be more likely to support making interracial relationships illegal.
Traditionally, most people have preferred to marry within their own group...look at Orthodox Jews, for example. They value the continuity of their group, so they wish to marry within it. That said, I don't support criminalizing mixed marriages.
People who care about freedom to chose? People who care about having as fair of a playing field as possible? Pray tell what is this “larger goal” you are referring to? The statement rings to me as hostility towards individuality and more towards collectivism.
The larger goal is ensuring national continuity. This cannot be done with sub-replacement fertility.
LGBTQ is not a lifestyle. It is how someone is born. And you are flat out lying to claim that transexualism is being promoted in schools.
Trying to live as the opposite sex is a lifestyle choice. LGB is fine, I have nothing against it. Schools are now promoting that transsexualism is a valid lifestyle.
Which is to say, you are intentionally spitting in God's face by rejecting God's commandments by bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Bear false witness = falsely incriminate someone under oath. A man who is 189 cm claiming to be 190 cm isn't bearing false witness.
And it's true that alternative gender lifestyles are being promoted in schools.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is a lifestyle choice. Conservatives have made the lifestyle choice to reject God. And as such, all conservatism should be banned from schools.
There are far more atheists and agnostics who vote for liberal parties than for conservative parties.
