If that's how you feel....what possible good would it do to tell you I read the article? It covers a wide range of what it considers sexualization....from media to education, including early education.
All you're telling me here is you aren't interested in any evidence that won't support your preconceived conclusions.
No, you just aren't understanding what I'm saying.
No that's a fact. He came across some monstrous pedophiles and covered for them....it's possible these people were making up tales of abuse but I don't find that particularly ethical or endearing.
And yes....it would be an ad hominem if the one thing had nothing to do with the other. At a certain threshold though....it seems foolish to ignore the people who make up the members of a group. If there's a large number of pedophiles in a group advocating for free babysitting that they are willing to provide....it's not an ad hominem to point that out. If there's an alarming number of Marxists in your revolutionary political party....it's not an ad hominem to question its goals.
If these things were irrelevant....you'd be correct. The number of Marxists in my baking class is inconsequential.
It throws his conclusions into question.
If you really want to discuss the methodological problems with the Kinsey study though....we can do that too.
No, it doesn't -- particularly the point I referenced which had nothing to do with pedophilia. And methodological problems with which Kinsey study, there are far more than just one? I personally don't care for Kinsey at all and I do have issues with various studies he did. This particular thing, though, seems to be supported by more recent research.
I'm asking out of genuine confusion.....and a slight suspicion that Matt Walsh is stealing my arguments lol.
I pointed out many couldn't define woman (along with a lot of other terms) about a year before Walsh made his video. I pointed out nobody actually knows the trans youth suicide rate on a thread months ago...and just week or so ago he's testifying in front of a state legislature making the same point.
Walsh if you're reading this....I'm ideologically uncommitted and cheaply bought. You can have all my best arguments, and easiest arguments, exclusively for cheap....for or against nearly anything.....for a year. I'll sign a NDA. PM me.
I have nothing against trans or gay people. I argued in the past, on this forum, that equality under the law meant marriage under the law....not a civil union....because if the legal aspects were the same, then there was no need in changing the name of the union except for purposes of discrimination.
It's not that I like or dislike gay or trans people....I'm indifferent. I don't like this method of advocacy. I don't like it so much...that even though a state passed a law recently (Tennessee I think) pushing the age of consent for trans medical treatment to 25...something I don't agree with...I wouldn't actually argue against it.
That's because I don't want help a group that uses their tactics.
You don't want to have a discussion. I have an honest concern about harm being done to children. I'm sure you're aware these things have happened in the past....
No, I have an issue with it being called "child abuse." To me, it demeans what is being done by actual predators that prey on children.
True...I don't think I'd make such arguments for adults. They can argue for themselves. Children however, require protection. The possibility that they require protection from the state or a doctor is a rare, but very real and unfortunate reality. Scientists don't always get it right.
You may have heard of eugenics before....and it involved the mass sterilization of children in many places based on what was considered the best scientific consensus at the time. This program has a lot of very similar features from relatively weak research....to serious ethical considerations that have been ignored....as well as an influential advocacy group politically driving the agenda.
The fact that you don't actually know what harm this is supposed to prevent....what good is supposed to come of it....but I'm somehow dishonest for expressing concern for the safety of children that are being sexualized in the classroom is bizarre to me.
Sorry no....the harm to children is the main point of contention I have here....even the methods of this advocacy group are secondary to that. I won't just drop it because you doubt my sincerity.
Again, you've misunderstood my points. I agree, children need to be protected and there is information they don't need until they are older. At the same time, it isn't abuse (not by my definitions) even though giving information too soon or the wrong way can be harmful and shouldn't be done.
The fact that the same psychologists who are saying that a little boy can decide to start being little girl and consent to irreversible medical treatment procedures....also recommends getting some of his sperm frozen in case he changes his mind about wanting children as an adult should be cause for alarm.
And, as a general rule, I'm against those psychologists -- though, to be honest, my experience is that they are an extremely small minority in the profession. What I tend to support are the standards of care, the ones that don't allow "irreversible" (which tends to be surgical) treatment in minors.
Whenever I bring this up...nobody ever has any explanation for why we're doing this to children. Occasionally, someone admits we're doing it for gay and trans people....because they are groups that large swaths of society either discriminates against or dislikes. I don't see why that justifies indoctrination. There's tons of groups hated or disliked by large numbers of people. Incels are generally disliked....but we don't teach little girls to be nice to them.
It's largely because it is a dishonest discussion -- it isn't being done to children. There are some examples but extremely few. That is the reason why Kim Petras (who is currently in right wing news for her Grammy performance) is famous for being the youngest to get sex reassignment surgery at 16, and note that it did not occur in the US.
Why not? Is this about reducing suicide and bullying and discrimination? Or is it a blatantly self serving political indoctrination that seeks to eliminate political opposition in the least honest and most potentially harmful way?
What exactly do you think this is over?
How can you not know what you're advocating for and call me dishonest? Have you seen any if these books? Any curriculum materials? Listened to any experiences of students that parents are upset about?
I don't expect you to have a comprehensive knowledge of everything every school is teaching. I don't know how you can possibly judge this without even glancing at the evidence.....unless you don't care about evidence.
I'm sorry....it seemed like you were against these measures taken in Florida to remove certain inappropriate content from K-3rd grade classrooms.
I'm against the law, though largely not the part about K-3rd grade other than the ways it could prevent anti-bullying campaigns, such as against a child that has two same sex parents. I'm against how a single parent objecting can prevent any comments about homosexuality, based on this law, through high school. I recently saw a bit of debate from the Tennessee legislature, where a copycat law has been proposed, and the point was made the law would prevent teaching about Eleanor Roosevelt as the wife of President Franklin Roosevelt's wife -- because that would be "discussing/teaching sexual orientation."
But, yes, you've pointed out why they do it that way -- then you can claim that all the people that are against the law are in favor of "abusing" children.
Is that not the case?
Because you really should know what that content is if you want it in classrooms, right? How irresponsible would it be to advocate for children to be exposed to something without knowing anything about it?
I'm not stating a scare tactic. I'm stating I think this is harmful to children....based on evidence. It definitely seems helpful to people who aren't children in public schools....and that's not a good reason for it. Children in public schools aren't the problem you seem concerned about....so it's hard to imagine how they might be a solution.
Except, again, you are -- just not intentionally -- you are buying into the Right Wing's distortion of what these laws actually do; particularly how they are largely a backhanded way of preventing any discussion of sex in public schools prior to college. I'm guessing we are far more in agreement than disagreement, I just see the deceptive things being done by the Right. Granted, I'm not much happier about many on the Left.
