And that interracial gay kiss was immediately followed by an interracial hetero kiss to send "The Message." CNN, Fox News, CBS, NBC and Hulu all showed this. https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1741690776315179244?s=20
shareSo what? Why does that bother you so much?
shareShut up, groomer.
shareNice... Why do homosexuals and interracial couples bother you so much? Do you even know any homosexual or interracial couples? You really are a dumbass.
shareShut up, heterophobe. You wouldn't have been born without hetero coupling.
shareSo you hate other Americans just because you don't like their lifestyle? Of course I wouldn't have been born without hetero coupling. What a stupid thing to say. You are obviously very stupid and frightened of people who are different from you. You must be miserable.
shareDisgust =/= "Fear"
You guys really love projecting "fear" onto people's disgust...why is that?
What is "disgusting" about it?
shareTwo dudes kissing? Beats me, but nature made most of us this way.
For a reason.
Straight women and gay men would not find that "disgusting"
shareAnd they choose a way of life where they can never reproduce and pass their DNA onto future generations.
They are doing it completely wrong.
The designer's did it intend to do things that way.
>And they choose a way of life where they can never reproduce and pass their DNA onto future generations.
Straight women chose this? Or are you referring to the gay men kissing?
So?
>They are doing it completely wrong.
Based on what?
>The designer's did it intend to do things that way.
I don't give a fuck what you think 'god' intends. I'm not a christian
You dont have to believe in god.
The way they choose to have sex is completely wrong.
That area of the body is designed as an exit for the toxic waste of the body.
It was specifically designed for things not to go in but only out.
And like I said they are choosing a lifestyle where they can never reproduce.
It's almost nature's way of stopping their DNA from passing onto future generations.
Many examples of historic family names around for multiple generations.
And because of their lifestyle, they cannot reproduce and thr family name is forever erased in history
>You dont have to believe in god.
Your position is rooted in the presupposition of a 'god' designing us for specific intent.
>The way they choose to have sex is completely wrong.
Based on what?
>That area of the body is designed as an exit for the toxic waste of the body.
You know plenty of straight men and women have anal and oral sex, right?
>And like I said they are choosing a lifestyle where they can never reproduce.
Okay. So? Although they can still have kids via surrogacy or sperm donation.
>It's almost nature's way of stopping their DNA from passing onto future generations.
Except that's not how homosexuality works.
>And because of their lifestyle, they cannot reproduce and thr family name is forever erased in history
Again: If they wanted to they could donate sperm, or do surrogacy. But what's the relevance here?
To donate sperm would require a highly intelligent society
Far from anything natural.
Science and scientist say it's an exit only toxic waste area.
In layman's terms.
Scientifically they studied natural lubrication and design and determined its exit only.
>To donate sperm would require a highly intelligent society
People literally donate sperm right now.
>Far from anything natural.
Who cares?
>Science and scientist say it's an exit only toxic waste area.
Straight people still do this.
>Scientifically they studied natural lubrication and design and determined its exit only.
In any case. Who cares?
My guy, why does not using something in its natural way for pleasure matter to you in the first place? You being on this website on a computer instead of living like a caveman is going against your evolution, yet you do it because you like it.
shareMe being on this website did not prevent my dna and family name from disappearing from earth.
Many families have been doing this for generations. And today it's very popular for people to end that. Its completely unnatural.
Dont ask me..ask entire countries like Africa, the middle east, Russia, China.
>Dont ask me..ask entire countries like Africa, the middle east, Russia, China.
Ah yes, the famous country of Africa.
It's not banned universally in Africa. Africa is a continent, not a single country. It's banned mostly in the Middle East because they are Islamists. It's somewhat restricted in China, which is a totalitarian state.
Are you proposing you support those things? Are you proposing the USA should attack LGBT peoples first amendment rights?
Ah yes, the famous country of Africa.
So what? That's such a strange reason to be against it lol, and I thought you'd like that they weren't passing on their gay genes.
There are also bi people that have kids, gay people that have had sex with the opposite gender, lesbian couples can get a sperm donor, and surrogates for male couples.
At the end of the day though, it's just something people do for happiness, and not everyone needs to have kids.
I see you edited your comment with the country bit, and I don't even know what to say lol. If those fucked up places are something you look up to for their policies, then you have greater issues than being religious.
Because it doesn't need to be forced down people throats(which the gays love to do to each other).
Forced participation is going to have grave consequences down the road.
Seeing two gay people kissing is "forcing it down people's throats"?
>(which the gays love to do to each other).
Do you think straight people don't like kissing?
That is precisely why they should keep their degeneracy, perversion and depravity in the privacy of their homes and not expose themselves to children in any way.
shareWhy should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
shareAre you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
shareNo reason to think it "confuses children" anymore than seeing a straight man and woman kiss. Loaded question. I'll ask again.
Why should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
Answer the question:
Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
THE QUESTION IS DISINGENUOUS...KNOWING AND OR SEEING THAT PEOPLE OF ALL KINDS LOVE PEOPLE OF ALL KINDS IS NOT CONFUSING...IT IS COMORTING AND NATURAL.
shareI don't accept the premise that it is "confusing children". Your question is a loaded question rooted in a false dichtonomy.
Also you ignore almost all of my question, so I see no reason why I should ever answer anything by you again.
--
Why should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
Fascist scumbag.
It is a simple Yes or No answer.
Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
I don't accept the premise that it is "confusing children". Your question is a loaded question rooted in a false dichtonomy.
Also you ignore almost all of my question, so I see no reason why I should ever answer anything by you again.
--
Why should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
Fascist scumbag.
Ignoring the fact that the question you posed is deliberately biased, and loaded, you refuse to answer many of my questions that are "yes" or "no" questions.
You piece of shit fascist hypocrite
Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
shareIgnoring the fact that the question you posed is deliberately biased, and loaded, you refuse to answer many of my questions that are "yes" or "no" questions.
You piece of shit fascist hypocrite
A simple question with a simple answer, Yes or No.
Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
Ignoring the fact that the question you posed is deliberately biased, and loaded, you refuse to answer many of my questions that are "yes" or "no" questions.
You piece of shit fascist hypocrite
Bullshit excuses and deflection.
Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?
Ignoring the fact that the question you posed is deliberately biased, and loaded, you refuse to answer many of my questions that are "yes" or "no" questions.
You piece of shit fascist hypocrite
In that case, my statement that you defend and support child groomers stands.
shareNo, it does not. Your question is loaded. Children seeing gay people doesn't necessarily "confuse" them nor is it remotely equivalent to "grooming" anymore than a child seeing an older sibling with their girlfriend is grooming. You don't seem to know what the definition of "grooming" actually is.
You fascist weirdo.
It was a simple question, your refusal to provide a simple answer is confirmation that you defend and support child groomers.
shareNo, it was a disingenuous loaded question.
"Are you OK with confusing children? Yes or No?"
Children seeing gay people doesn't necessarily "confuse" them nor is it remotely equivalent to "grooming" anymore than a child seeing an older sibling with their girlfriend is grooming. Your question is rooted in a false premise. You don't seem to know what the definition of "grooming" actually is.
Fascist.
If you or anyone else were to ask me that same question, my answer would be "No".
See how simple that is?
You refuse to answer because you don't want to admit the truth.
>If you or anyone else were to ask me that same question, my answer would be "No".
Because it's a crafted question that suits your bias.
I don't want to see children "confused" (in a general sense), but I also don't think that them being made aware that gay people exist "confuses" them.
Biased or not, it is the truth backed by convictions.
You have neither truth nor convictions.
You only have deflections and bullshit excuses.
>Biased or not, it is the truth backed by convictions.
What "truth"?
>You have neither truth nor convictions.
I literally answered your question (although noted the loaded bias in it): I don't want to see children "confused" (in a general sense), but I also don't think that them being made aware that gay people exist "confuses" them.
Bullshit, you provided deflective excuses.
shareWhat "truth" is somehow embedded in your question of "Do you want to confuse children"?
---
I literally answered your question (although noted the loaded bias in it): I don't want to see children "confused" (in a general sense), but I also don't think that them being made aware that gay people exist "confuses" them.
🤣
shareAre you disgusted by fathers having sex with their daughters or mothers with their sons? If so, why?
Assuming that they are all consenting adults it should be fine right? Nothing wrong with it, right? right????
I am. Not sure of the relevant comparison here. So because this is offputting to me, therefore gay people must inspire the same level of base squick? By this logic, premarital sex or kissing should be objected to on the same grounds.
I don't especially like to watch or gawk at men kissing each other (being straight) - but I'm failing to see what the problem is here with them doing so.
The logic is the same: If you think it's okay for gay men to have sex if they are consenting adults then you should be okay with incest if everyone is a consenting adult. After all, the only difference is that one disgusts you more then the other. And if you can't use your disgust as an argument against gays then you can't use your disgust as a reason to deny fathers having sex with their daughters. What's a matter, you're not progressive enough to defend it?
share>The logic is the same: If you think it's okay for gay men to have sex if they are consenting adults then you should be okay with incest if everyone is a consenting adult.
It's unpleasant to me but there are many issues here. Except for issues relating to childbirth where there's a much higher rate, potential of birth defects. And potential issues of power imbalance or abuse or grooming.
At a base level you can see a lot of skepticism towards relationships with extreme age gaps too (straight or gay) with allegations of grooming that can at times muddy its legality.
But in terms of gay relationships generally - all we have here otherwise is "its ick". I mean, so what?
So if a father has sex with his daughter and they are both consenting adults and they use birth control then you'd be okay with it? I mean if you are okay with queers then you should be okay with it. The only problem is the 'ick' factor, and according to you that's not a legitimate argument.
share>So if a father has sex with his daughter and they are both consenting adults and they use birth control then you'd be okay with it?
Not necessarily. (And not really at all on moral grounds). The power imbalance of the relationship has to be noted, and incest usually is a consequence of some form of abuse and grooming (especially with parents and kids).
>I mean if you are okay with queers then you should be okay with it. The only problem is the 'ick' factor, and according to you that's not a legitimate argument.
Except I've specifically raised other issues unrelated to that.
What would make for a legitimate argument against it? Power imbalances alone don’t cut it — after all, a 40-year-old dating a 20-year-old is an imbalance too, and that’s widely accepted.
share>What would make for a legitimate argument against it? Power imbalances alone don’t cut it — after all, a 40-year-old dating a 20-year-old is an imbalance too, and that’s widely accepted.
It's not necessarily. Example in the UK: Phillip Schofield. In a more general sense, people do find such age gaps to be suspect or a bit creepy with regards to the older person.
Schofield knew the person he had an affair with before he was of age - the same power imbalance or potential for abuse is obviously much more normal when it comes to relationships where one party raised the other.
The question stands: Why do we embrace relationships like those between gays and queers while dismissing incest between consenting adults? Personally, I see all these relationships as harmful to society, but it’s curious how progressives will defend some but not the other. They can’t seem to come up with a solid answer for this inconsistency.
share>The question stands: Why do we embrace relationships like those between gays and queers while dismissing incest between consenting adults?
For the reasons I've explained already. It's actually a hard question, and there are cases of sibling relationships that really harm no-one, to be clear.
>Personally, I see all these relationships as harmful to society
Then make arguments rather than going "ick".
>but it’s curious how progressives will defend some but not the other. They can’t seem to come up with a solid answer for this inconsistency.
I've already given you arguments not rooted in "ick".
And I don't 'defend' gay relationships anymore than I defend pre-marital or interracial relationships. Or open relationships. Or married relationships.
Total hypocrisy from Skavau here - ‘ick’ is illegitimate… except when he experiences it.
shareNo progressive has ever successfully countered my incest argument. If you, like me, see certain relationships as degenerate, perverted, and unnatural, it becomes easy to argue against both queer relationships and incest. But if you're progressive and defend all forms of degenerate behavior, then you must also defend incest between consenting adults. The logic applies equally to both; if you argue against one, you must argue against the other, and if you advocate for one, the same reasoning should apply. The only way to justify defending one while condemning the other is to claim that one is simply more disgusting and immoral than the other. If that's the case, then why can’t I dismiss queer relationships based solely on the same sense of disgust?
share>No progressive has ever successfully countered my incest argument.
You really are a cowardly little bitch. You reply around me rather than to me. What a little snowflake.
>If you, like me, see certain relationships as degenerate, perverted, and unnatural, it becomes easy to argue against both queer relationships and incest.
At no point did I use "unnatural" as any argument against incest in my position. You clearly can't read and are too stupid to directly reply to what I actually said, so you invent completely different arguments about what I said.
>But if you're progressive and defend all forms of degenerate behavior, then you must also defend incest between consenting adults.
Do you understand the difference between defending someone's /right/ to do something and defending the actual content of the action?
> The logic applies equally to both; if you argue against one, you must argue against the other
Actually, this doesn't necessarily follow. Some people also might "ick" to premarital heterosexual sex. Do you "ick" to all forms of sexual interaction and relationship outside of marriage?
What your argument means is that any relationship type objected to because of "ick" means someone must essentially object to *all relationship types*.
>The only way to justify defending one while condemning the other is to claim that one is simply more disgusting and immoral than the other. If that's the case, then why can’t I dismiss queer relationships based solely on the same sense of disgust?
You can dismiss them on a personal basis, but it's not an argument to actually persecute people for being in homosexual relationships.
You really are a cowardly little bitch. You reply around me rather than to me. What a little snowflake.
>You took your shot, you failed, and here you are failing again.
You didn't address my points and instead invented your own strawman argument for what you thought I was saying.
> You still haven’t given me a single coherent reason why incest between consenting adults is wrong according to your worldview.
It's not necessarily (legally). But it often (especially father-daughter, mother-son) relationships derives from grooming and upbringing abuse. Sibling relationships can be different, and are actually /legal/ in some countries.
The point is that "ick" just isn't a good basis for criminalising something.
> I didn’t bring up anyone’s ‘right’ to do it — that’s a separate argument. I want to first establish that incest itself is wrong. From a conservative view, I can lay out my reasons for why I oppose homosexuality and apply the same logic to condemn incest.
Go on then (regarding homosexuality), you cowardly little pissant.
>But you, on the other hand, can’t seem to defend homosexuality without inadvertently defending incest between consenting adults.
I absolutely do defend their right in the case of two partners where there was no issue of grooming.
>The best you managed was some nonsense about birth defects and power imbalances, both of which I’ve already refuted.
No, you have not. You claimed incorrectly that no-one bats an eyelid over power imbalances in non-incestuous relationships - and this is not always true at all. I gave you a name to look up: Phillip Schofield.
why incest between consenting adults is wrong
Skavau raised the same argument about birth defects. My response? They could just use birth control. If two consenting adults in an incestuous relationship are taking precautions, then why exactly is it wrong?
As for exploitation, I’ve covered that too. There are countless relationships with large age gaps, where the man has even known the woman since she was younger, and they get together when she’s in her twenties. People might find it unusual, but few would label it as wrong, certainly not in the way society condemns incest or even homosexuality.
So the question still stands: From a progressive point of view what makes incest wrong but homosexuality ok?
>Skavau raised the same argument about birth defects. My response? They could just use birth control. If two consenting adults in an incestuous relationship are taking precautions, then why exactly is it wrong?
I also said more than that.
>As for exploitation, I’ve covered that too. There are countless relationships with large age gaps, where the man has even known the woman since she was younger, and they get together when she’s in her twenties. People might find it unusual, but few would label it as wrong, certainly not in the way society condemns incest or even homosexuality.
Some of those relationships are considered wrong, or dodgy. It depends on when they knew each other, how they knew each other, for how long etc. This also includes homosexual relationships with big age gaps - and often those are more scrutinised (like my Phillip Schofield example that cost him his career).
I already addressed those points as well.
There is no point in arguing this with you, you're too stupid to have this conversation.
I’d much rather discuss this with FilmFlaneur — he’s more intelligent than you and more likely to make a solid counter-argument.
You can fuck off now.
>I already addressed those points as well.
And I replied to them.
>There is no point in arguing this with you, you're too stupid to have this conversation.
"No U"
>You can fuck off now.
No thanks. I'll do whatever I like.
Skavau raised the same argument about birth defects. My response? They could just use birth control.
There are countless relationships with large age gaps,
From a progressive point of view what makes incest wrong but homosexuality ok?
Once again, this isn’t an adequate counterargument, since one could simply use birth control or be infertile. My point is that, under such conditions, I don’t see any progressive argument for why it would be wrong. From a conservative standpoint, I’d call it perversion or degenerate behavior, and that would suffice. But a progressive can’t use that reasoning — if they did, it would just as easily apply to homosexuality.
shareOnce again, this isn’t an adequate counterargument
I could make the same argument for bestiality or even polygamy. But I chose incest deliberately — it’s nearly universally reviled, yet the logic holds just the same.
And while your argument might work on a large scale as a public health precaution, it still doesn’t explain why a single instance of incest between consenting adults who responsibly use birth control would be morally wrong from a progressive standpoint. Your argument addresses potential risks, not the principle itself.
And while your argument might work on a large scale
why a single instance of incest between consenting adults who responsibly use birth control would be morally wrong from a progressive standpoint.
Your argument addresses potential risks, not the principle itself.
I think you've made some valid points, but, unfortunately, I don’t believe you've addressed the core of my argument. Your approach essentially skirts the main issue, focusing instead on matters like public policy or preventive measures against birth defects. This is somewhat like debating abortion regulations rather than addressing whether abortion itself is justified or morally defensible.
My question here is straightforward: is there, from a progressive perspective, anything inherently wrong with incest in principle? Imagine all precautions are taken, and all the necessary boxes are checked — under those circumstances, would you see it as acceptable?
You brought up the analogy of justified homicide, and I agree — homicide can be justified in various situations. So, can incest ever be justified in a similar way? Is there any instance, from a progressive standpoint, where incest is acceptable? If not, why? If, as a progressive, you believe people are free to engage in degeneracy and other forms of deviant behavior, then on what basis do you deem incest inherently wrong?
My question here is straightforward: is there, from a progressive perspective, anything inherently wrong with incest in principle?
Imagine all precautions are taken, and all the necessary boxes are checked
homicide can be justified in various situations. So, can incest ever be justified in a similar way?
If, as a progressive, you believe people are free to engage in degeneracy and other forms of deviant behavior, then on what basis do you deem incest inherently wrong?For the reasons I have already given. Unlike many other proscribed sexual acts, incest has clear biological disadvantages and is often associated with mental health issues (especially of any especially young partners). It might also be argued, as I said above already, that those most willing to engage in aberrant behaviour are least likely to do so responsibly in the first place since they are already happy to ignore possible consequences and, typically, hide from opprobrium.
Also, while one can approve of incest (as it seems you do) you have yet to justify it - a different emphasis, but which would be needed in this comparison.
Why would you say something like that? That’s disingenuous. I've clearly stated that I hold conservative views, so to me, such behavior is a perversion — degenerate, wrong, and immoral.
As for your arguments, I previously mentioned that I wasn't interested in legalities, jurisprudence, or public policy; I was simply exploring the morality of incest from a progressive standpoint. It seems you've finally addressed my point: if I understand correctly, you argue that incest can be morally justified, provided all precautions are taken—such as sterilization — and everything is handled responsibly. I doubt that most people would subscribe to this view. Many progressives don't have coherent beliefs and fail to see that the logical arguments supporting homosexuality could also apply to incest. Those who do apply this logic consistently, as you have, would also find themselves justifying incest. Therefore, I conclude that progressive ideology can lead to this kind of perversion and degeneracy, which is part of why I no longer identify as a progressive.
QED
Not speaking for filmflaneur here, but saying something should or could be legally permitted is not the same thing as saying it should be encouraged, or considered socially acceptable.
shareWhy would you say something like that?
such behavior is a perversion — degenerate, wrong, and immoral.
you argue that incest can be morally justified, provided all precautions are taken—such as sterilization
Many progressives don't have coherent beliefs and fail to see that the logical arguments supporting homosexuality could also apply to incest.
Those who do apply this logic consistently, as you have, would also find themselves justifying incestA good job I have, and don't, then. I don't even recommend it, and have give two main reasons. I have others.
I conclude that progressive ideology can lead to this kind of perversion and degeneracy, which is part of why I no longer identify as a progressive.
Why do you think such behaviour is wrong, if my reasons for arguing so you think not sufficient? I might agree with you, although biblical reasons will not persuade.
Although I appreciate you don't say either way, incest does actually occur in nature.
https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2018/12/20/incest-in-nature/
Moreover limited inbreeding in the animal population, particularly when combined with similar-but-healthier methods such as crossbreeding, can be used to increase the prevalence of a favorable trait in that species’ population.
It’s a deviation from what I consider normal behavior.. a mistake
I largely agree with your observations in the first few paragraphs regarding incest as it occurs in nature. I'm aware that incest has been more common in various societies throughout history, including some that still exist today. I really enjoyed our discussion and found this topic engaging and thought-provoking, as it allowed me to explore and refine my arguments.
Regarding the topic of religion, I completely understand where you're coming from. I've been in similar discussions myself. I became an atheist around 2005, and shortly after, Richard Dawkins ignited the 'Great Debate' when he published The God Delusion. For the next couple years I spent many nights engaging in debates online about God, evolution, and skepticism. It was an exhilarating experience, intellectually stimulating, though it could get frustrating arguing with those who refuse to see reason.
Over the years, my views on atheism have mellowed. I’ve transitioned from being an anti-theist to someone who respects religion. Now, I identify as a cultural Christian (Catholic), although I still haven't encountered a convincing argument for the existence of God. But I am working on it — I am very much open to the idea.
Anyway, thank you for a thought provoking discussion. 'Till next time.
Except my argument has nothing to do with "ick". You clearly cannot read.
shareSo you hate other Americans just because you don't like their lifestyle?
Maybe its a conspiracy to stop people from watching tv at new years eve and do something fun ?
shareIts banned in Russia, banned in Africa, banned in the middle east, banned in China.
In the u.s. they make up maybe 5% of the population. And the elite in Hollywood are pushing this narrative that 95% of the population dont want to see
>Its banned in Russia, banned in Africa, banned in the middle east, banned in China.
It's not banned universally in Africa. Africa is a continent, not a single country. It's banned mostly in the Middle East because they are Islamists. It's somewhat restricted in China, which is a totalitarian state.
Are you proposing you support those things? Are you proposing the USA should attack LGBT peoples first amendment rights?
>In the u.s. they make up maybe 5% of the population. And the elite in Hollywood are pushing this narrative that 95% of the population dont want to see
What "narrative" is this? Do you think everyone who isn't LGBT objects to seeing LGBT people depicted?
American TV is pretty gay, so what did you expect? Degeneracy is the order of the day now...
shareYou think being gay is in itself "degenerate"?
shareIt's not an opinion.
shareWhat makes it "degenerate"? What is your working understanding of the word "degenerate"?
shareShoving your penis up a dudes poop-chute is fucking gross, and unnatural. It's also the least sexiest thing you can show on TV. I didn't even turn on my TV last night because I'd knew they'd be shoving something political down everyone's throats, and I was right lol.
share>Shoving your penis up a dudes poop-chute is fucking gross, and unnatural.
Who gives a fuck? Is anyone making you do this? Straight women have a different opinion on this.
>It's also the least sexiest thing you can show on TV.
Is this something you think is regularly show on TV, or something?
They showed a kiss, not anal sex.
America Today :
Gay Couple ✅
Black man with white woman ✅
And is there something wrong with those things?
shareIn a vacuum? No.
As a tool to subvert culture with a clear agenda via mass media and government? Yes.
>As a tool to subvert culture with a clear agenda via mass media and government? Yes.
And how is it being used in that way? What's the end goal here exactly, in your mind?
"You will own nothing and be happy."
shareI've heard that, but I have no idea what this has to do with "LGBT propaganda"
shareBlack vs White , Man vs Woman , Republican vs Democrat , LGBT vs Regular people. They use these things to keep us distracted and divided.
share"You will own nothing and be happy" is in relation to rent culture, and people not owning any media but instead subscribing to it. Not sure what it has to do with anything you're talking about here.
shareYou can't handle the end goal, so I will not waste my time typing it out.
Those in the know, know what I'm talking about.
So no, you have no idea and you are again just making shit up.
shareHe isn't making anything up , he's mentioning EXACTLY what I brought up to you before.
share"You will own nothing and be happy" has nothing to do with LGBT issues at all
shareHonestly you lack the knowledge for this discussion.
"You will own nothing and be happy" has to do with EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING.
EVERYTHING.
>"You will own nothing and be happy" has to do with EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING.
It doesn't relate to the supposed conspiracy theory proposed here by many regarding LGBT rights in public life.
Of course the leftoids are clueless, especially since they are going along with it.
shareGoing along with what? Gay people having the temerity, the audacity to exist in public?
shareThey should keep their unnatural perversions in the privacy of their homes and not expose it to children in any way.
Stop defending groomers.
>They should keep their unnatural perversions in the privacy of their homes and not expose it to children in any way.
Why should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
>Stop defending groomers.
When did I support child groomers? When did I support pedophiles?
Or are you implying that all LGBT people are inherently child groomers and pedophiles?
Fascist scumbag
Once again, because it is an unnatural perversion and they should stay away from kids.
Stop defending groomers.
>Once again, because it is an unnatural perversion and they should stay away from kids.
Why should they do that? Who gives a fuck if it's supposedly "unnatural" There's nothing wrong with two gay men kissing. Just as there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual couple kissing. It's no different than kids seeing their parents kiss, or their random people in the street kiss.
>Stop defending groomers.
When did I support child groomers? When did I support pedophiles?
Or are you implying that all LGBT people are inherently child groomers and pedophiles?
Fascist scumbag
Heterosexual couple kissing = Natural
Gay couple kissing = Unnatural Perversion
Stop defending and protecting child groomers.
Leave the Kids alone.
>Heterosexual couple kissing = Natural
Gay couple kissing = Unnatural Perversion
Heterosexual couple kissing = natural
Gay couple kissing = natural
It's less common but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, anymore than there's anything wrong with being left-handed.
>Stop defending and protecting child groomers.
When did I support child groomers? When did I support pedophiles?
Or are you implying that all LGBT people are inherently child groomers and pedophiles?
Fascist scumbag
It is apparent that you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by other perverts.
Stay away from kids.
>It is apparent that you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by other perverts.
When did I support child groomers? When did I support pedophiles?
Or are you implying that all LGBT people are inherently child groomers and pedophiles?
Fascist scumbag
Skavau will never get it. He's autistic. He's doesn't notice. He's definitely not a noticer.
shareAnd what will I "never get" exactly?
shareDo you notice?
shareI notice lots of things. It's also not clear what your above comment is replying to based on the amount of comments in between it.
shareNah, you haven’t noticed. If you had noticed, you’d be in the know like B1ckSurn. But you’re not, and with your autism, you’ll never notice. Maybe if you spent time in far-right circles, kept your mouth shut, and your eyes and ears open, then maybe you’d notice too. Maybe then you’d be in the know.
shareWhat is he "in the know about" exactly? Dude is one of the biggest nutty conspiracists on here excluding tvfan.
And what post are you even replying to here?
I'm simply letting B1ckSurn know that I know what he's talking about. It's like the Freemasons signaling other Freemasons that they are in the club. I know the secret handshake and you don't.
shareDude, "getting it" isn't singular. You're a dyed in the wool leftist, which is irrational, so you will never "get" rationalism.
shareHow am I not getting rationalism, exactly?
Also, how do you know what my specific beliefs are?
You can't honestly think I'm going to waste my time going back and forth with you until the thread is one word per line, like you love. Talking to a wall is more productive than talking to you. You're a leftist through and through. You know it and so does everyone else. Leftists can't be reached.
shareWhat’s your evidence that he wants to keep posting until it’s a one word line? You better provide a link.
Where’s your link that he wants to waste your time?
How do you know talking to a wall is more productive?
Where’s your evidence that he’s a lefty?
How do you know leftist can’t be reached? Link??
"How dare people ask for evidence when people make outrageous claims"
I've never seen such a collection of whiny little manchildren who throw their toys out of the pram when asked to substantiate and back up their ridiculous, often conspiratorial claims. From the absurdity of Michelle Obama being a man, to the notion that the Democrats make hurricanes and attack Florida with them, to the claim that Obamacare was a front for child trafficking. To just bog-standard holocaust denial.
I'm being a big meany and should just let people make unevidenced claims, right?
>You can't honestly think I'm going to waste my time going back and forth with you until the thread is one word per line, like you love.
I really could not give a flying fuck. You reply to me, and I answer. It really is that simple.
>Talking to a wall is more productive than talking to you. You're a leftist through and through. You know it and so does everyone else. Leftists can't be reached.
So why in the fuck did you even reply to me?
And again, this just demonstrates a point I made to /u/itsbananas2024. I am purely hated on here just because I am a a leftist. That's it. The content of my arguments, good or bad simply doesn't matter to most people on here. I'm the out-group.
You're hated because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit who constantly gaslights on behalf of an evil regime, and because you’re a fascistic little fuck who censors wrongthink… and you know it.
shareName the lies I supposedly tell. Name things I gaslight about. Name this "regime" that I supposedly act on behalf of. You won't be able to do it.
>because you’re a fascistic little fuck who censors wrongthink… and you know it.
*I* don't censor (by which you mean remove posts) anything. The moderators choose to do that. I reported your posts for spam. Do you think spam should be removed on the forum?
That post is a perfect example of why you’re hated.
Now make a load of predictable pathetic excuses, featuring more of the same shit people hate you for 👇🏻
Anything I do according to you is a "perfect example" of anything negative you can think of. The content of what I say long ceased to matter to you. You still can't answer my points here though. You can't resolve the absurdity of your position.
>Now make a load of predictable pathetic excuses, featuring more of the same shit people hate you for 👇🏻
Same old copy and paste response.
No surprise but I'd be surprised if any of those programs had decent ratings. I'm going to say no. I really do hate New Year's as a Holiday.
shareGreat! Good for them.. Only one small hair in the soup though with their assumption of this: No one cares whether they choose to make out in Public or not, it's the shoving their ideology down everyone's throats who don't agree with it is what grows tiresome..
shareDude, you literally regard anything that depicts a white-woman, black-man relationship as "shoving their ideology down everyone's throats" based on your racist idea that all black men like to have "house parties" and "love hip hop" whilst all white people, apparently hate those things and can't possibly be with someone who does.
shareMethinks thou dost protest too much! Here are some resources to help you discover your true self...
https://www.hrc.org/resources/coming-out
https://www.glsen.org/activity/coming-out-resource-lgbtq-students
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/guide/the-coming-out-handbook/