@jj-adams saidIf the parents of the children who take them to these shows don't have a problem with them being exposed to such "entertainment", what's the big deal? Aren't they the appropriate judge of what is good or isn't good for their own kids?
This ain't story hour in the video like they claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0lT2l1Z5EA
22 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidThey are. Further, I don't care what they do. You see, I have said time and time again 'what has so-and-so got to do with me?' What has a pregnant girl got to do with me? What has a rich guy with 2 yachts got to do with me? How does the rearing of a child by Mr Smith have anything to do with me?
If the parents of the children who take them to these shows don't have a problem with them being exposed to such "entertainment", what's the big deal? Aren't they the appropriate judge of what is good or isn't good for their own kids?
Why will you not ever answer these simple questions, I ask them time and time again .
@soothfast saidSouthfast is trying to mess with you, looking for some definitions. I suggest, since he prob has found some definitions which don't quite relay your point, I suggest you look at many synonyms and get a few words which better explain your view of these....entertainers?
"Sick and perverted" in what way?
These men are lost, to put it bluntly. You could synonym that, or, just say that.
22 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidDid you suddenly discover what its got to do with you?
Southfast is trying to mess with you, looking for some definitions. I suggest, since he prob has found some definitions which don't quite relay your point, I suggest you look at many synonyms and get a few words which better explain your view of these....entertainers?
These men are lost, to put it bluntly. You could synonym that, or, just say that.
@soothfast saidAbsolutely everything in shows can be considered "norm violating"
It occurs to me that dressing in bizarre or "norm violating" garb for the express purpose of entertaining children goes back centuries. The obvious example is the clown, who may be male but will be wearing feminine-like clothing items such as wigs, flowers, and also pants and shirts with patterns on them more typically found worn by women.
This whole drag queen flap is ...[text shortened]... their entertainment value for children is every bit as valid and wholesome.
Loosen up, snowflake.
We don't dress as wolves or trees or whatever in our day to day lives. These fukers just don't like drag queens, pure and simple.
The fukhead didn't mention one thing about what the drag show was really about. Just that drag queens exist and they do shows.
The hate is the actual point of these people, the same people that want to make it easier for underage girls to be married, the ones who want them to have children at the ripe age of 12, the ones that want to make it easier for children to work in mines and factories.
These fukers don't want to protect children. They just want to hate on gays. And women. And trans. And whatever other category of people it suits them.
22 Mar 23
4 edits
@no1marauder saidThere'd be no line for you No1 Miss Representor?
If the parents of the children who take them to these shows don't have a problem with them being exposed to such "entertainment", what's the big deal? Aren't they the appropriate judge of what is good or isn't good for their own kids?
Genitalia?
Dry humping?
Torture?
Scat?
Urination?
The age of consent is a grey area for libertarians, I avoid it, there's enough of a battle against the state worshippers and their inability to grasp the concept of 'consent' in the context of adults. So just curious, would you have a line for your kids and would that line be different from what you'd like to set for everyone else?
Why the quote marks on entertainment? Do you not regard a man flashing his bits at children entertainment? Are these scare quote marks?
One thing I think we can all agree on, people have the right to protest against this child abuse.
If you're opposed to the sexualisation of children and there's an event in your area you should make the effort to go to that venue and let it peacefully be known, this aint right.
22 Mar 23
@wajoma saidThere's really no gray area for actual libertarians on whether parents should be able to decide what their children can or cannot view.
There'd be no line for you No1 Miss Representor?
Genitalia?
Dry humping?
Torture?
Scat?
Urination?
The age of consent is a grey area for libertarians, I avoid it, there's enough of a battle against the state worshippers and their inability to grasp the concept of 'consent' in the context of adults. So just curious, would you have a line for your kids and would that ...[text shortened]...
One thing I think we can all agree on people have the right to protest against this child abuse.
Calling it "child abuse" just shows your authoritarian side when something offends your puritanical views; then you want the State to intervene.
@no1marauder saidNo line for No1, parents can drag their kids along to a show of two men taking a dump on each other, and eating it.
There's really no gray area for actual libertarians on whether parents should be able to decide what their children can or cannot view.
Calling it "child abuse" just shows your authoritarian side when something offends your puritanical views; then you want the State to intervene.
22 Mar 23
" Clearly, libertarian doctrine suggests that parents should have the right to make decisions about their children rather than other adults or the state."
"However, inasmuch as libertarians embrace the view that the burden of proof for intervention in the affairs of individuals rests with the state, it follows that there is a presumption that parents have both the knowledge and incentive to do what is right for their children."
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/family
22 Mar 23
@wajoma saidWhy are you or the State a better judge of what children can see than their parents?
No line for No1, parents can drag their kids along to a show of two men taking a dump on each other, and eating it.
22 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidIt's an area like abortion where I believe there is a line.
Why are you or the State a better judge of what children can see than their parents?
You don't think so, you've made that clear, we all get a clearer picture of who No1 is.
22 Mar 23
@wajoma saidSomeone who actually believes in libertarian principles.
It's an area like abortion where I believe there is a line.
You don't think so, you've made that clear, we all get a clearer picture of who No1 is.
Unlike you.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
22 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidBecause some parents are screwed up in the head and their children need to be protected from them.
Why are you or the State a better judge of what children can see than their parents?
22 Mar 23
1 edit
@jj-adams saidLike those who would take their kids to a white supremacist meeting?
Because some parents are screwed up in the head and their children need to be protected from them.
Be careful what you wish for or you might find yourself on the wrong side of a US Guidance Patrol.
22 Mar 23
@suzianne saidYeah, what happened to "I don't care what they do"...? AvJoe's brain bounces around in his skull like a jellybean in a boxcar, assuming diametrically opposite stances within as little as 5 minutes. Sometimes in the same post.
Did you suddenly discover what its got to do with you?