GOP Hypocrisy

ZappasGuitar said:
"Sexualized" in what way?
Click to expand...

In whatever way. My point was, and is, that is a possibility. Are you claiming that drag queens showing up for one of these events wouldn't sexualize it?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-...dren-maryland-library-hosts-interactive-event
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour

The oddity of this one is it indirectly admits these story hours are sexualized but tries to argue that it's in a good way
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...tic-code/201901/drag-queen-storytime-children

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-says-drag-queens-sexualized-shouldnt-perform-kids-podcast-1781701

So, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that drag queen story hours can and often are sexualized and therefore not something children should be exposed to. That is a reasonable argument, whether you agree or disagree with it.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
They are both a part of the Bill of Rights, maybe you've heard of it?

The GOP cares so very much for #2, but they just can't seem to get behind supporting the right of free speech.
Click to expand...

The bill of writes is not one single document like the Declaration of Independence it is a collection of completely separate issues unrelated to each other

They each stand on their own merits
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In whatever way. My point was, and is, that is a possibility. Are you claiming that drag queens showing up for one of these events wouldn't sexualize it?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-...dren-maryland-library-hosts-interactive-event
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour

The oddity of this one is it indirectly admits these story hours are sexualized but tries to argue that it's in a good way
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...tic-code/201901/drag-queen-storytime-children

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-says-drag-queens-sexualized-shouldnt-perform-kids-podcast-1781701

So, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that drag queen story hours can and often are sexualized and therefore not something children should be exposed to. That is a reasonable argument, whether you agree or disagree with it.
Click to expand...

And my point is guns killed FAR MORE CHILDREN than any Drag Queen Story Hour last year, or any year for that matter.

If the GOP cares so much about "protecting the children", then why don't they do something to address the thousands of gun related deaths that occur every year?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The bill of writes is not one single document like the Declaration of Independence it is a collection of completely separate issues unrelated to each other

They each stand on their own merits
Click to expand...

The GOP loves to point out that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct and "shall not be infringed upon".

When will they show the same support for the 1st Amendment?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And my point is guns killed FAR MORE CHILDREN than any Drag Queen Story Hour last year, or any year for that matter.

If the GOP cares so much about "protecting the children", then why don't they do something to address the thousands of gun related deaths that occur every year?
Click to expand...

Okay, I can give you that. Is that the only thing you think children should be protected from, being shot?

As far as Drag Queen story hours go, I don't care if a clown pretending to be 'female' reads a book to a kid--straight or gay clown btw--so long as they don't also sexualize the setting in some way.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay, I can give you that. Is that the only thing you think children should be protected from, being shot?

As far as Drag Queen story hours go, I don't care if a clown pretending to be 'female' reads a book to a kid--straight or gay clown btw--so long as they don't also sexualize the setting in some way.
Click to expand...

I think the people who like to make a big deal about "protecting the children" should start by addressing and doing something about the leading cause of death among children, and work their way down the list of "dangerous activities".

Dozens of people were killed by gunfire last weekend. How many people did drag queens kill over the same weekend?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I think the people who like to make a big deal about "protecting the children" should start by addressing and doing something about the leading cause of death among children, and work their way down the list of "dangerous activities".

Dozens of people were killed by gunfire last weekend. How many people did drag queens kill over the same weekend?
Click to expand...

Auto accidents are something we can only mitigate, not eliminate. With the number of firearms in the US, the same thing goes there. I don't particularly care that criminals and gangsters shoot each other even if they aren't adults. Saves the trouble of dropping them in the wood chipper in my opinion. Yes, there are needless deaths of children related to firearms. I think parents are the first line of defense in that.

Same goes with this drag queen crap. You don't want your kid involved, don't involve your kid.

As for your last sentence, that's something of a logical fallacy. Okay gunfire killed dozens of people. How many were children, and how many died because of accidental misuse of a firearm? As for drag queens, how many tried to sexualize the kids they were with in some way?
These are two separate problems. In the first, trying to stop criminals from using firearms is likely impossible. In the second, trying to stop adults from sexualizing your kids is likely something reasonably easy to achieve.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
What the hell does the second amendment have to do with the first amendment?
Click to expand...

A not stupid person can see he is speaking about the consistency of the logic.

The thing you hear Republiclowns argue the most is their logic for why they cannot do anything to protect children from gun deaths is that it would be wrong to, in any way, reduce the rights of the 2nd amendment. That fucking with the consistutiom is wrong, even to 'save children'.


When it comes to the 1st amendment the same politician says' whatabout kids lives? Of course we can fuck with the 1st amendment and limit it.. if it is to save children'.


What that is called in logic is 'no consistency of a logical underpinning' to their argument.

If they believe you can indeed fuck with any amendment to 'protect children' then be consistent. If you believe you cannot fuck with any do not fuck with any. But you cannot push a position that fucking with some are ok, but others not, unless you can give a reason why some Amendments are sacrosanct and others are not.
 
QP! said:
A not stupid person can see he is speaking about the consistency of the logic.

The thing you hear Republiclowns argue the most is their logic for why they cannot do anything to protect children from gun deaths is that it would be wrong to, in any way, reduce the rights of the 2nd amendment. That fucking with the consistutiom is wrong, even to 'save children'.


When it comes to the 1st amendment the same politician says' whatabout kids lives? Of course we can fuck with the 1st amendment and limit it.. if it is to save children'.


What that is called in logic is 'no consistency of a logical underpinning' to their argument.

If they believe you can indeed fuck with any amendment to 'protect children' then be consistent. If you believe you cannot fuck with any do not fuck with any. But you cannot push a position that fucking with some are ok, but others not, unless you can give a reason why some Amendments are sacrosanct and others are not.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!

Sometimes I get off topic and don't quite get my point across the way I'd like, but you summed it up perfectly!
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Auto accidents are something we can only mitigate, not eliminate. With the number of firearms in the US, the same thing goes there. I don't particularly care that criminals and gangsters shoot each other even if they aren't adults. Saves the trouble of dropping them in the wood chipper in my opinion. Yes, there are needless deaths of children related to firearms. I think parents are the first line of defense in that.

Same goes with this drag queen crap. You don't want your kid involved, don't involve your kid.

As for your last sentence, that's something of a logical fallacy. Okay gunfire killed dozens of people. How many were children, and how many died because of accidental misuse of a firearm? As for drag queens, how many tried to sexualize the kids they were with in some way?
These are two separate problems. In the first, trying to stop criminals from using firearms is likely impossible. In the second, trying to stop adults from sexualizing your kids is likely something reasonably easy to achieve.
Click to expand...

On one point I agree...if you believe children are being sexualized by drag queens, then DON'T SEND YOUR KIDS TO DRAG SHOWS.

However, stop trying to tell others how to live their lives.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
On one point I agree...if you believe children are being sexualized by drag queens, then DON'T SEND YOUR KIDS TO DRAG SHOWS.

However, stop trying to tell others how to live their lives.
Click to expand...

And what we know is that the number one place kids, and especially young boys are likely to get sexualized and abused is... the Church.

Sports, by groomers like Jim Jordan, is not that far behind.

Do you think these MagaDerps would be happy to close either of those down to 'save the children'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top