Religious Person v. drag person charged with sex crimes against children.

[Lukaris]

Not at all. That is the Christian way. I’m surprised you are unaware of this.

Mark 7:20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

As long as someone does not act on their thoughts I happy for people to sit and seethe, ruminating for hours on end about their hate towards people their religion tells them they are bad.

Really? I didn’t know that totalitarian regimes like China, Iran, N. Korea are part of the “Christian way”? Seeing disagreement with one’s smugness does not mean it is hatred.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Remember we are not just concerned about sexual assault.

This thread has a topic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What’s even more odd is the folks who want to curtail and regulate or get rid of drag shows, drag story time, etc. under the auspices of “government has a responsibility to step in to protect the children” are the loudest advocates and champions for government doing absolutely nothing to curtail or regulate the number one killer of children.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t about any universal, moral desire to protect children from actual things that cause them demonstrable harm.

This is about “ewww that’s icky and makes me feel yucky when I think about people doing it… therefore big government MUST step in, protect my hurt feelings and make it go away”

I assume you're referring to guns here.

While I'm in favor of measures to rein in the gun culture a bit, and have better checks in place for purchasing said guns (I've long been an advocate for the Czech Republic model of gun control)...it's not necessarily a great talking point for the reasons I'll highlight below.

1) "Gun are the number one killer of children" is a misleading statistic, as it's attempting to convey the false notion that "the number one cause of innocent little kids who are minding their own business and end up dying is getting mowed down by a random gunman" That's not actually the reality (which is why even left-leaning fact check outlets made it a point to correct Chuck Schumer's original quote that spawned that notion).

The study that notion was rooted in was one done by the CDC, where where they classified "children" as anyone from ages 1 through 19. And made no distinction between the behaviors the "children" were engaging in at the time they were shot (putting aside the glaringly obvious flaw being that 18 & 19 year olds aren't "children"). There's a big difference between an 8 year who gets shot by a maniac school shooter, and a 16-19 year old who, themselves, are engaging in some sort of criminal/gang activity at the time they're shot (presumably by another person engaging in the same said activity)


2) The types of firearm related deaths impacting innocent children (operative word: "innocent") largely aren't the ones that would be addressed by the types of legislation prominent democrats want everyone to go along with. Given that I've yet to hear any viable democrat propose a blanket gun ban (and some plan for the removal of the 300 million guns already in circulation), saying "you can't claim to be for protecting children unless you go along with our agenda on this other unrelated thing" is but a weak attempt at emotional manipulation.


3) How the intent relates to the outcome. And this is the main one. I know people on both extremes of the gun debate. I've yet to encounter any die-hard pro-gun people who say the reason they want the guns around is specifically because they want kids to get shot. On the other hand, the groups that are facilitating Drag Story Hours are very open about the fact that what they're doing is for the intended purpose of the thing the other side is concerned about.

 

[rjs330]

As long as someone does not act on their thoughts I happy for people to sit and seethe, ruminating for hours on end about their hate towards people their religion tells them they are bad.

You mean like not wanting drag queens to teach kids to experiment sexually, experiment with their gender, dance suggestively, and choose drag names? Or teachers teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. That boys should use the boys locker rooms and showers instead of using the girls locker rooms and showers? That makes should not be participating in women's sports and that parents should not be threatened with losing their children if they don't support them being trans?

Things like that?

 

[Lukaris]

Why do children need 'Drag Queen Story Hour'?

Drag is adult entertainment, so why are parents, teachers, and librarians forcing it on kids?

www.feministcurrent.com

 

[RileyG]

Sounds good to me. Anyone who has gatherings with the intent to indoctrinate kids into experimenting sexually, testing out their genders dancing provocatively and grooming them into areas where they can be abused sexually and/or mentally and/or medically should absolutely be prevented from doing so. Including pastors.

AMEN

 

[RileyG]

Why do children need 'Drag Queen Story Hour'?

Drag is adult entertainment, so why are parents, teachers, and librarians forcing it on kids?

www.feministcurrent.com

Agreed. It's so unnecessary.

 

[RileyG]

Read. This. Thread. From. The. Start.

Smh

Am I not allowed to have a different opinion from you?

 

[Larniavc]

Remember we are not just concerned about sexual assault. There are other ways to abuse children besides a physical assault.

Rubbish. This whole thread is another example of the right crying ‘paedophile!’ at people they don’t like.

 

[Larniavc]

as it's attempting to convey the false notion that "the number one cause of innocent little kids who are minding their own business and end up dying is getting mowed down by a random gunman"

To be read in the voice is Sir David Attenborough.

“An here, we see, in it’s natural environment the invasive and now endemic ‘victim blaming’ species of rhetoric, crouching in the undergrowth, desperately trying to avoid discovery by any one of the large, more refined and robust rhetorical species in the world today”.

 

[Larniavc]

You mean like not wanting drag queens to teach kids to experiment sexually, experiment with their gender, dance suggestively, and choose drag names? Or teachers teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. That boys should use the boys locker rooms and showers instead of using the girls locker rooms and showers? That makes should not be participating in women's sports and that parents should not be threatened with losing their children if they don't support them being trans?

Things like that?

Are they better or worse than being systematically abused by an institution of neutral evil clerics?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To be read in the voice is Sir David Attenborough.

“An here, we see, in it’s natural environment the invasive and now endemic ‘victim blaming’ species of rhetoric, crouching in the undergrowth, desperately trying to avoid discovery by any one of the large, more refined and robust rhetorical species in the world today”.

How is it victim blaming?

In looking at firearm death or violent crime statistics, isn't it quite pertinent to consider the types of activities the person was engaging to see if something is a single-threaded problem or if perhaps there are some other extraneous factors at play?

There's a difference between a little 8 year old kid riding their bike, minding their own business, and getting shot, and a 17-19 year old who's engaging in gang activity isn't there? The CDC study that people cite to say "guns are the leading cause of death among kids" makes no distinction between the two when there should be.

It's very reminiscent of some of the "war on drugs" kind of talk we used to hear from conservatives in the past. Where they would leverage vague and context-lacking statistics like "Drugs are responsible for X number deaths per year" (while making no distinction between the types of drugs used, the nature and frequency of the usage) and use that for the pretext of saying "and that's why we need to remain tough on marijuana"


A teenager opting to get themselves involved in gang activity (and getting shot while doing so), or making the choice to take their own life (which combined, represents the majority of gun deaths in this age cohort) - while a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection on some of our other institutions - shouldn't be leveraged as a reason to limit everyone else's privileges.

And certainly shouldn't be used as leverage for this topic (meaning, saying "well if you don't support removal of gun freedoms, then you can't say you want to protect children and you have no place criticizing this other thing" is disingenuous)

 

[rjs330]

Rubbish. This whole thread is another example of the right crying ‘paedophile!’ at people they don’t like.

I disagree.

 

[rjs330]

Are they better or worse than being systematically abused by an institution of neutral evil clerics?

I would argue worse because it's more pervasive. You have far fewer children being abused by pastors committing evil acts than an entire society with the power of schools, the medical field, television, media all pushing these things and damaging the childrens bodies, emotions and minds.

Neither should be taking place. Both are evil. Yet we have no one supporting or defending one evil while we have many supporting and defending the other. And you want to keep.pointing out the evil that NO ONE supports or defends?

 

[parousia70]

3) How the intent relates to the outcome. And this is the main one. I know people on both extremes of the gun debate. I've yet to encounter any die-hard pro-gun people who say the reason they want the guns around is specifically because they want kids to get shot. On the other hand, the groups that are facilitating Drag Story Hours are very open about the fact that what they're doing is for the intended purpose of the thing the other side is concerned about.

At what point does the "more guns makes us safer" curve start to take effect?

If anyone could show demonstrable harm to kids from Drag story time, they would have by now.

I stand by my assertion. This is about "What these other people are doing is icky and makes me feel yucky when I think about them doing it, so government needs to step in, protect my fragile feelings and make them stop."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

At what point does the "more guns makes us safer" curve start to take effect?

There isn't a curve, it's a random scatterplot in terms of ownership rates and gun death rates.

If anyone could show demonstrable harm to kids from Drag story time, they would have by now.

I stand by my assertion. This is about "What these other people are doing is icky and makes me feel yucky when I think about them doing it, so government needs to step in, protect my fragile feelings and make them stop."

As noted, that's why I said the original gun reference (I can't remember if you was you or the other poster who originally brought it up) wasn't a great comparative exercise for this one.

A) The entire premise is based on a logical fallacy "if you don't go along with my proposal for ABC which I deem is necessary to accomplish XYZ, then you can't claim to be in favor of XYZ in any other facet"

An example of the inverse would be if a staunch conservative suggested that "if you don't go along with what the police lobby wants and support their agenda unconditionally, then all of your claims about wanting to increase public safety are hollow" --that would obviously be untrue and I'd be the first to criticize a right wing person making that fallacious argument.

B) The concerns about drag story hour aren't rooted in fears of physical harm like the concerns about guns, they're rooted in ideological conflict pertaining to the reading material and instruction that goes on at them, and how certain ideas (that they may disagree with) easily spread outside of that venue to other kids whose parents maybe don't want them hearing that at such a young age.

For instance, if a library in your area started having "MAGA story hour" or "Conspiracy Theory Story Hour", and several parents in the area voluntarily took their kids to those events, and then, in turn, those kids started going to school and repeating those things to your kids, and now you have to deal with your kids coming home talking about "build a wall" or some other random conspiracies about vaccines or George Soros "because Timmy told me he learned that at the library" (and we know kids are influenced more by other kids than they are their parents at certain ages)

...I would have to assume you'd have some serious objections to that like many parents would, correct?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is where you are wrong. It is not their mission. You keep saying it is because that is what the right does to people they don’t like: call them paedophiles.

We've already gone over what books they read. We know what they're teaching children.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You said they were paedophiles. Let's not move the discussion until you substantiated this point. That would be moving the goal posts.

Here's an article published for educators on Drag Queen Story Hour not long ago that explicitly lays out their purpose.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621?needAccess=true

I don't expect you to read it....so I'll just lay out the clear points it makes.

• We propose that DQSH offers a particular kind of queer framework – what we call drag pedagogy – for teaching and learning that extends beyond traditional approaches to LGBT curricular inclusion.

• We emphasize that drag pedagogy … artfully invites children into building communities that are more hospitable to queer knowledge and experience.

In other words...this is not for the benefit of children. It's for the benefit of the queer community. Odd they would target children.

• At many events, organizers invite kids to create their own drag name…
• We argue that [DQSH] creates a pathway into the imaginative, messy, and rule-breaking aspects of drag for children without necessarily watering down queer cultures.
• Though there are many layers to drag, its most immediate process of denaturalizing gender and culture happens on the surface…

• Building in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education.

And …

• In turn, drag queen teachers have much to learn from interactions with children: many queens reflect that DQSH allows them to build relationships with young people that otherwise would not be possible.

They openly admit to wanting to destabilize the normative function of schooling, encourage children to adopt queer personas and lifestyles, so they can build relationships with children that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

I don't claim any expertise....but that sounds like lot of words that amount to grooming.

 

[Larniavc]

I would argue worse because it's more pervasive.

This is all in your mind. This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory sub fora.

 

[Larniavc]

In other words...this is not for the benefit of children. It's for the benefit of the queer community. Odd they would target children.

Yeah, because no kid has been bullied for wanting to play dress up in the ‘wrong’ clothes. What is wrong with dress up in non ‘normal’ clothes?