What are your thoughts on this?

[BPPLEE]

The hoax is they only want to teach kids to be more accepting of others. And also they have to be the ones to do it, because everyone else is failing miserably. So you know, they're out to rescue the children from everyone else, and take them under their wing.

That's about as pedophile as it gets.

The problem is when you call them pedophiles or say they are grooming children they use that against you and say you are a bigot who thinks all LGBTQ people are pedophiles. I think grooming actually describes what is going on but I don’t use that word because they turn it around.
Pointing out what is going on is sufficient.

 

[ozso]

The problem is when you call them pedophiles or say they are grooming children they use that against you and say you are a bigot who thinks all LGBTQ people are pedophiles. I think grooming actually describes what is going on but I don’t use that word because they turn it around.
Pointing out what is going on is sufficient.

They shouldn't quack like ducks if they don't want to be called ducks.

*quack* "We're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" *quack*

 

[rjs330]

How is it you cant figure a simple dictionary
entry, but you understand more science than
any scientist on Earth?

Don't run off leaving me wondering.

I still have no idea what you are talking about with the whole dictionary routine. You are not explaining at all how it applies to your case.

And you still didn't answer my questions. So there is no reason to answer yours.

 

[rjs330]

To cite a couple of egregious books is to make
the stopped clock argument.

As I said you admitted there were egregious books. YOU said they were egregious.

When you say something is egregious you are admitting they are egregious.

Let's put it another way. If there were a couple of incidents of white people beating up black people cause they are black and I said "to cite a couple of egregious acts is to make the stopped clock argument" am I admitting those acts are egregious or not?

When you said "a couple of egregious books" were you stating the books were egregious or were you not?

 

[BPPLEE]

As I said you admitted there were egregious books. YOU said they were egregious.

When you say something is egregious you are admitting they are egregious.

Let's put it another way. If there were a couple of incidents of white people beating up black people cause they are black and I said "to cite a couple of egregious acts is to make the stopped clock argument" am I admitting those acts are egregious or not?

When you said "a couple of egregious books" were you stating the books were egregious or were you not?

There are more than a couple

 

[Astrid]

As I said you admitted there were egregious books. YOU said they were egregious.

When you say something is egregious you are admitting they are egregious.

Let's put it another way. If there were a couple of incidents of white people beating up black people cause they are black and I said "to cite a couple of egregious acts is to make the stopped clock argument" am I admitting those acts are egregious or not?

When you said "a couple of egregious books" were you stating the books were egregious or were you not?

I know what you said.

Are you a yec or similar species of fundamentalist?

 

[BPPLEE]

I know what you said.

Are you a yec or similar species of fundamentalist?

What does that have to do with LGBTQ people coming for the children or egregious books in school libraries?

 

[Astrid]

What does that have to do with LGBTQ people coming for the children or egregious books in school libraries?

It has everything to do with how / what people think.
Some see perversion and doom. Others see someting
quite different .

Some people. Ike facts, others just do ideology.



Your pal there says he can't see why I reject the
word "admit" .

Its so dictionary - obvious, and I patiently explained a yway.

But, no, " cant" see it, cant admit ( see
how that would beca reluctant confession ) that
i have a resson not to call ready agreement a confession.

Now to fundy

I've observed that once a yec or ilk has taken
position, that's it. Never ever back down no
matter what, Who knows why; that's just how it is.

I can be wrong, no prob. But ive never,seen a yec
give a inch. On anything.

So I asked if that's his problem.

It would explain much. And I need inquire no further.



Isn't all this just news of the obvious and well known?

 

[BPPLEE]

It has everything to do with how / what people think.
Some see perversion and doom. Others see someting
quite different .

Some people. Ike facts, others just do ideology.



Your pal there says he can't see why I reject the
word "admit" .

Its so dictionary - obvious, and I patiently explained a yway.

But, no, " cant" see it, cant admit ( see
how that would beca reluctant confession ) that
i have a resson not to call ready agreement a confession.

Now to fundy

I've observed that once a yec or ilk has taken
position, that's it. Never ever back down no
matter what, Who knows why; that's just how it is.

I can be wrong, no prob. But ive never,seen a yec
give a inch. On anything.

So I asked if that's his problem.

It would explain much. And I need inquire no further.



Isn't all this just news of the obvious and well known?

If people think children shouldn’t be sexualized, that some subjects shouldn’t be taught until children are older and that egregious books have no place in a school library, those are not religious objections.
But if you can label them a YEC and therefore ignorant you think that invalidates their opinion.
Kind of a lazy way to win an argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now to fundy

I've observed that once a yec or ilk has taken position, that's it. Never ever back down no matter what, Who knows why; that's just how it is.

I can be wrong, no prob. But I've never, seen a yec give an inch. On anything.

Perhaps we "fundies" know something (or Someone) you don't?

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is when you call them pedophiles or say they are grooming children they use that against you and say you are a bigot who thinks all LGBTQ people are pedophiles.

But that is what's being said. Comments like that are bigoted because they are used in reference to all gay people. Gay people in general. There was a comment a few days ago that compared homosexuality to bestiality for heaven's sake.

How is it possible to have a reasonable conversation about genuine concerns when comments like this are so common? People who use terms like that are excluding themselves from any possibility of a constructive debate. It's simply not possible to talk to someone who repeats these comments like a mantra, post after post after post.

 

[rjs330]

I know what you said.

Are you a yec or similar species of fundamentalist?

I told you I'm not interested in discussing evolution. This is an LGBTQ agenda thread.

 

[rjs330]

It has everything to do with how / what people think.
Some see perversion and doom. Others see someting
quite different .

Some people. Ike facts, others just do ideology.



Your pal there says he can't see why I reject the
word "admit" .

Its so dictionary - obvious, and I patiently explained a yway.

But, no, " cant" see it, cant admit ( see
how that would beca reluctant confession ) that
i have a resson not to call ready agreement a confession.

Now to fundy

I've observed that once a yec or ilk has taken
position, that's it. Never ever back down no
matter what, Who knows why; that's just how it is.

I can be wrong, no prob. But ive never,seen a yec
give a inch. On anything.

So I asked if that's his problem.

It would explain much. And I need inquire no further.



Isn't all this just news of the obvious and well known?

See you refuse to acknowledge what you said and refuse to answer the question. And you accuse me of not giving an inch. Are those egregious books or not. Just answer the question.

If you don't want to answer it tell us why. If you won't tell us why then at least tell us why you called them egregious.

 

[Astrid]

If people think children shouldn’t be sexualized, that some subjects shouldn’t be taught until children are older and that egregious books have no place in a school library, those are not religious objections.
But if you can label them a YEC and therefore ignorant you think that invalidates their opinion.
Kind of a lazy way to win an argument.

Talk about lazy you made zero effort to
read what I said. Because that's not remotely
what I said.
No, you make up an insulting falsehood and
call me lazy.


Good lesson though in how pointless it is to
respond to you.

But that is what's being said. Comments like that are bigoted because they are used in reference to all gay people. Gay people in general. There was a comment a few days ago that compared homosexuality to inappropriate behavior with animals for heaven's sake.

How is it possible to have a reasonable conversation about genuine concerns when comments like this are so common? People who use terms like that are excluding themselves from any possibility of a constructive debate. It's simply not possible to talk to someone who repeats these comments like a mantra, post after post after post.

Certainly for a " gay" such as myself.
the ignorant mean spirited bigotry drilping
from this thread is real obvious.

 

[Astrid]

I told you I'm not interested in discussing evolution. This is an LGBTQ agenda thread.

I asked to see if you might have the capacity to
ever admit to being wrong about anything.
Yes or no would tell me.

It's not " talking about evolution" and never was.

 

[Astrid]

See you refuse to acknowledge what you said and refuse to answer the question. And you accuse me of not giving an inch. Are those egregious books or not. Just answer the question.

If you don't want to answer it tell us why. If you won't tell us why then at least tell us why you called them egregious.

There now see, you used the word " acknowledge" .
Is that moving 1/8 inch?*
So easy;to,use correct vocabulary esp
when it's given to you.
No need to make up things as in the above.

Ask your question properly with " acknowledge "
or "agree" and no prob. Ask me if I admit, and no,
I don't admit anything, there's nothing to admit. Nothing
to reluctantly confess. It's totally false and cisrespectful
to ask if i "admit".

I wont have it. Last go round.
What's it to be.

*I wont give a inch?

Not when I'm right

That's the difference

You wont move when you're wrong.





















"

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly for a "gay" such as myself, the ignorant mean spirited bigotry dripping from this thread is real obvious.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

 

[rjs330]

I asked to see if you might have the capacity to
ever admit to being wrong about anything.
Yes or no would tell me.

It's not " talking about evolution" and never was.

Funny coming from someone who won't say yes or no.

 

[rjs330]

There now see, you used the word " acknowledge" .
Is that moving 1/8 inch?*
So easy;to,use correct vocabulary esp
when it's given to you.
No need to make up things as in the above.

Ask your question properly with " acknowledge "
or "agree" and no prob. Ask me if I admit, and no,
I don't admit anything, there's nothing to admit. Nothing
to reluctantly confess. It's totally false and cisrespectful
to ask if i "admit".

I wont have it. Last go round.
What's it to be.

*I wont give a inch?

Not when I'm right

That's the difference

You wont move when you're wrong.





















"

Yup, I quoted what you said. I asked you to clarify and you have refused to do so many times now. So there is no point in discussing this any further. You are doing what so many leftists do. Say something and then when it's pointed out claim, "nuh uh. I didn't say that."

I quoted you saying that. But you won't budge an inch. Instead you go into some random word game trying to get out of what you said. Whatever. I'm done.

 

[BPPLEE]

Talk about lazy you made zero effort to
read what I said. Because that's not remotely
what I said.
No, you make up an insulting falsehood and
call me lazy.


Good lesson though in how pointless it is to
respond to you.

Certainly for a " gay" such as myself.
the ignorant mean spirited bigotry drilping
from this thread is real obvious.

You said if someone is a YEC or fundamentalist they can’t admit that they are wrong and you have repeatedly said anyone who doesn’t accept evolution is ignorant. But you refuse to admit that you called books in school libraries egregious.
You are offended that people don’t want LGBTQ lifestyle taught to young children but you have no problem offending people who don’t fully accept evolution.
I don’t want to offend you I just think some subjects shouldn’t be taught until children are in the 6th or 7th grade and egregious books have no place in a school library.