Western Pride Marches - From Acceptance to Sexual Degeneracy Towards Children

[Kale100]

"SOMEONE" That someone was me.

Entering the thread and lecturing me with Bible verses is not productive.

Alright then, what can I do to help you and Ordinary Christian establish mutual respect, so that your thus far unproductive discussion can become productive?

 

[BPPLEE]

Not scared of naked people so you will need to provide an actual reason that parents should not determine if this is appropriate for their kids or not.

When they’re chanting “We’re here, we’re queer and we’re coming for your children “ I believe them

 

[Ceallaigh]

Of course it is. You keep talking about bars, night clubs and strip clubs. The topic is about Pride marches.

The topic is what's inappropriate for minors. Your argument is that it's up to parents and not the law to make that decision. My counter argument is that there are already laws that supercede a parent's decision regarding what's inappropriate for minors and gave examples. Which clearly is neither a red herring nor off topic.

 

[Larniavc]

LGBTQ activists defend 'We're coming for your children' chant​

Is that from the most renowned liars within the sphere of entertainment known as Fox News? The entertainment channel that has previous stated that no reasonable person actually believes what the presenters say?
"Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawyer

Or is it from the Entertainment Channel known for having to pay billions because of lying to it's viewers. Is it that Fox News entertainment program that even they claim is not factual and used the obvious of that fact as a legal defense?

 

[JustOneWay]

Alright then, what can I do to help you and Ordinary Christian establish mutual respect, so that your thus far unproductive discussion can become productive?

What? Are you a mediator or a moderator? I never asked for your help

But if you insist, tell the other poster to stop posting red herrings...

 

[BPPLEE]

Is that from the most renowned liars within the sphere of entertainment known as Fox News? The entertainment channel that has previous stated that no reasonable person actually believes what the presenters say?
"Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawyer

Or is it from the Entertainment Channel known for having to pay billions because of lying to it's viewers. Is it that Fox News entertainment program that even they claim is not factual and used the obvious of that fact as a legal defense?

You can find videos of it on YouTube

 

[Larniavc]

What about when it's two people wearing leather bondage gear on top while being mostly nude from the waist down, and one has a whip and the other one is wearing a ball-gag? You don't think there's any sexual connotations to that?

Where did that happen? That does sound a bit much in a parade.

 

[JustOneWay]

The topic is what's inappropriate for minors. Your argument is that it's up to parents and not the law to make that decision. My counter argument is that there are already laws that supercede a parent's decision regarding what's inappropriate for minors and gave examples. Which clearly is neither a red herring nor off topic.

That is my argument. Apparently you do not want parents to be in control of their children.

 

[Larniavc]

If adults are exposing themselves, then it's no more appropriate for kids to be there than for them to be in strip club. Prejudice has nothing to do with that. Calling that prejudice is just a red herring and a buzzword.

What will happen if a child sees a naked person? Will their heads explode? Will they turn to murder and hard drugs? What will happen? When I take my family to the sea side we often see naked people. He's 8. Just what exactly do you think will happen to him?

 

[Kale100]

What? Are you a mediator or a moderator? I never asked for your help

But if you insist, tell the other poster to stop posting red herrings...

That's ok, I'm happy to help. Anyways, I apologize if I'm mistaken, but it appears you don't want to establish mutual respect? So want do you seek to gain out of this dialogue?

 

[Ceallaigh]

That is my argument. Apparently you do not want parents to be in control of their children.

Apparently you don't want to acknowledge that there are existing laws that prevent parents and guardians from doing whatever they want with their children, so instead you repeatedly made false claims of me presenting red herrings and being off topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can find videos of it on YouTube

If there's one thing I'm sure of, if it is on the internet it has to be true.

And definitely not satire designed to show how out of touch the people who think it is might be.

 

[Larniavc]

You can find videos of it on YouTube

Yeah, I not going to risk my algorithm. Where at the Pride march did this happen?

Edit: so I did click on it. Some guy selling stuff? That's your evidence?

 

[JustOneWay]

Apparently you don't want to acknowledge that there are existing laws that prevent parents and guardians from doing whatever they want with their children, so instead you repeatedly made false claims of me presenting red herrings and being off topic.

They were red herrings. I even posted a definition to help you understand.

Please post the LAWS stating parents are prevented from taking their children to a Pride parade.

 

[Ceallaigh]

What will happen if a child sees a naked person? Will their heads explode? Will they turn to murder and hard drugs? What will happen? When I take my family to the sea side we often see naked people. He's 8. Just what exactly do you think will happen to him?

You along with others are just arguing in favor of indecent exposure and exibitionism in front of children.

 

[JustOneWay]

You along with others are just arguing in favor of indecent exposure and exibitionism in front of children.

WOW. That is a serious flame against others here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They were red herrings. I even posted a definition to help you understand.

Please post the LAWS stating parents are prevented from taking their children to a Pride parade.

The haven't written them yet.

 

[Ceallaigh]

If there's one thing I'm sure of, if it is on the internet it has to be true.

And definitely not satire designed to show how out of touch the people who think it is might be.

Saying it's all a joke to them, doesn't help them any.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF

Additional information: By staff consensus, this thread will remain closed.​