Pushing masturbation and gender transforming hormones. Why the hell can't kids be fucking kids? Stop pushing these adult issues in children that have no concept of what is going on, nor should they
Wait until they come up with the argument that it isn't healthy for teenagers to experiment sexually with each other, and it would be better to have adults teach them by literally having sex with them. Then they'll create legislation that allow 'professional sex teachers' of some sort to have sex with minors, and over time adult family members will probably get that right too. Age of consent will also be lowered slowly, at least until it reaches the single digits.
The radical left has no limit when it comes to tolerance, especially sexual tolerance. Nothing is ever too far or too much for them, they'll get behind any shitty argument that seems to hold some truth on the surface. And that tolerance attracts pedos of course, which is why there are so many among the radical left.
I know it sounds like hyperbole right now, but let's talk about it again in 20 years. When acting like a human dog in fetish leather gear in public is called homosexuality, then fucking minors can be called education.
I hate how realistic your comment sounds. In 2015-2016, I would have considered this batshit insane paranoia, and written a response telling you to knock it off and stop making the right look dumb. But here in 2020, this is a realistic argument that i could see someone making unironically in the near future. I want off this planet.
Your first paragraph is as good example of how the concept of the slippery slope fallacy is often overplayed as outright gospel.
If you can lay out the steps from getting from A to B, then B to C, [as you have done here], the larger idea of how to get from A to Z isn't suddenly impossible, meaning it's not a fallacy anymore.
I completely agree. People often think the slippery slope fallacy applies to any statement that A could maybe lead to Z and Z is not the guaranteed outcome. In truth, it's only a fallacy when A cannot lead to Z at all (or at least, Z seems very implausible).
For example (for anyone still unclear about this):
"Developing nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear war" = Slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war isn't guaranteed to happen just because a nation has nuclear weapons.
"Developing nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war" = Not a slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war could indeed happen if someone has nuclear weapons.
Orwell was right about mass surveillance, media censorship, and historical revisionism. Huxley was right about the methods used to keep the masses pacified.
Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
It's shit like this that makes me see why some people were historically homophobic. Two consenting adults is one thing, grooming children is entirely another.
EVERYTHING the left does and thinks revolves around sex (and drugs). You see it with them pushing cuckoldry, pedophilia, forced hormones injections, polyamory and all this sick shit.
A thought. People from lower social groups develop quicker, so pushing this younger and younger will lead to less intelligent people having more power in society.
You wonder why kids are taught to believe in Cooties. Eventually they realize that's dumb as shit. But then you look at teaching them the opposite of Cooties and to get sexual as soon as possible and suddenly it makes sense why Cooties became a thing at all.
The WHO is pretty much made up by the same people that make up the UN. They will make a huge deal of stuff like loli and the like while they have big pedophile rings and engage in promotion of grooming behavior in other countries. Kids can learn about their bodies very well on their own WHO, stop trying to get your grubby hands on them.
They do this because some of them are too fucking lazy to actually go on those peacekeeping missions and charity tours to rape third world children. They figured they can convince us Western people to let them rape our kids.
And here I thought it was just some rich people like what happens last July of last year where Epstein was found out. Seems rich and people in power are the ones who people should be wary of.
Edit: Also, why are they fucking caring about loli or whatever other smut over what their peacekeepers have fucking done? Double standards or hypocritical much?
Well, I am just saying this because shit like these orgz raping the people they claim to help in absolute third world shitholes keeps getting uncovered.
Children introduced to masturbate + Children able to access free online pornography = children thinking about sex from a young age = argument that children can consent to sex = pedophilia legal
Forgive the long comment but this is extremely relevant and unnerving
OUTSIDE, in the garden, it was playtime. Naked in the warm June sunshine, six or seven hundred little boys and girls were running with shrill yells over the lawns, or playing ball games, or squatting silently in twos and threes among the flowering shrubs. The roses were in bloom, two nightingales soliloquized in the boskage, a cuckoo was just going out of tune among the lime trees. The air was drowsy with the murmur of bees and helicopters.
The Director and his students stood for a short time watching a game of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy. Twenty children were grouped in a circle round a chrome steel tower. A ball thrown up so as to land on the platform at the top of the tower rolled down into the interior, fell on a rapidly revolving disk, was hurled through one or other of the numerous apertures pierced in the cylindrical casing, and had to be caught.
"Strange," mused the Director, as they turned away, "strange to think that even in Our Ford's day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. It's madness. Nowadays the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games." He interrupted himself.
"That's a charming little group," he said, pointing.
In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.
"Charming, charming!" the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.
"Charming," the boys politely agreed. But their smile was rather patronizing. They had put aside similar childish amusements too recently to be able to watch them now without a touch of contempt. Charming? but it was just a pair of kids fooling about; that was all. Just kids.
"I always think," the Director was continuing in the same rather maudlin tone, when he was interrupted by a loud boo-hooing.
From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.
"What's the matter?" asked the Director.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. "Nothing much," she answered. "It's just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I'd noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now …"
"Honestly," put in the anxious-looking little girl, "I didn't mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly."
"Of course you didn't, dear," said the nurse reassuringly. "And so," she went on, turning back to the Director, "I'm taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything's at all abnormal."
"Quite right," said the Director. "Take him in. You stay here, little girl," he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. "What's your name?"
"Polly Trotsky."
"And a very good name too," said the Director. "Run away now and see if you can find some other little boy to play with."
The child scampered off into the bushes and was lost to sight.
"Exquisite little creature!" said the Director, looking after her. Then, turning to his students, *"What I'm going to tell you now," he said, "may sound incredible. But then, when you're not accustomed to history, most facts about the past do sound incredible."
He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.
A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.
"Even adolescents," the D.H.C. was saying, "even adolescents like yourselves …"
"Not possible!"
"Barring a little surreptitious auto-erotism and homosexuality–absolutely nothing."
"Nothing?"
"In most cases, till they were over twenty years old."
"Twenty years old?" echoed the students in a chorus of loud disbelief.
"Twenty," the Director repeated. "I told you that you'd find it incredible."
"But what happened?" they asked. "What were the results?"
"The results were terrible." A deep resonant voice broke startlingly into the dialogue.
They looked around. On the fringe of the little group stood a stranger–a man of middle height, black-haired, with a hooked nose, full red lips, eyes very piercing and dark. "Terrible," he repeated.
Pushing masturbation and gender transforming hormones. Why the hell can't kids be fucking kids? Stop pushing these adult issues in children that have no concept of what is going on, nor should they
Wait until they come up with the argument that it isn't healthy for teenagers to experiment sexually with each other, and it would be better to have adults teach them by literally having sex with them. Then they'll create legislation that allow 'professional sex teachers' of some sort to have sex with minors, and over time adult family members will probably get that right too. Age of consent will also be lowered slowly, at least until it reaches the single digits.
The radical left has no limit when it comes to tolerance, especially sexual tolerance. Nothing is ever too far or too much for them, they'll get behind any shitty argument that seems to hold some truth on the surface. And that tolerance attracts pedos of course, which is why there are so many among the radical left.
I know it sounds like hyperbole right now, but let's talk about it again in 20 years. When acting like a human dog in fetish leather gear in public is called homosexuality, then fucking minors can be called education.
I hate how realistic your comment sounds. In 2015-2016, I would have considered this batshit insane paranoia, and written a response telling you to knock it off and stop making the right look dumb. But here in 2020, this is a realistic argument that i could see someone making unironically in the near future. I want off this planet.
Elon, where is that bloody spaceship?
Oh plz 20 years..... Well be there in 5
Your first paragraph is as good example of how the concept of the slippery slope fallacy is often overplayed as outright gospel.
If you can lay out the steps from getting from A to B, then B to C, [as you have done here], the larger idea of how to get from A to Z isn't suddenly impossible, meaning it's not a fallacy anymore.
I completely agree. People often think the slippery slope fallacy applies to any statement that A could maybe lead to Z and Z is not the guaranteed outcome. In truth, it's only a fallacy when A cannot lead to Z at all (or at least, Z seems very implausible).
For example (for anyone still unclear about this):
"Developing nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear war" = Slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war isn't guaranteed to happen just because a nation has nuclear weapons.
"Developing nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war" = Not a slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war could indeed happen if someone has nuclear weapons.
Tbh at this point I actually think you might have a point, but at the same time, I really don't think things will genuinely get that bad.
So they never have any understanding of anything. Absolutely mindless and easily lead animals.
Kids that won't cooperate will be aborted.
Jesus. I'm starting to think Huxley had a crystal ball.
Orwell was right about mass surveillance, media censorship, and historical revisionism. Huxley was right about the methods used to keep the masses pacified.
Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
It's shit like this that makes me see why some people were historically homophobic. Two consenting adults is one thing, grooming children is entirely another.
You know that "church sex abuse" thing from a few years ago? Try to find a mainstream media report stating that 80% of the victims were male
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
And then remind yourself that the clergy is virtually all male.
Meaning virtually every pedo in the church is gay.
see I was trying to be a bit more subtle than that but yeah there it is
I do wonder what else are two unattractive aging gay men with no children of their own to raise are doing or thinking about.
EVERYTHING the left does and thinks revolves around sex (and drugs). You see it with them pushing cuckoldry, pedophilia, forced hormones injections, polyamory and all this sick shit.
Good point.
A thought. People from lower social groups develop quicker, so pushing this younger and younger will lead to less intelligent people having more power in society.
Literally Brave New World.
You wonder why kids are taught to believe in Cooties. Eventually they realize that's dumb as shit. But then you look at teaching them the opposite of Cooties and to get sexual as soon as possible and suddenly it makes sense why Cooties became a thing at all.
The publication, for those who want to read it.
The part about giving information about masturbation to children 0-4 is in the matrix on page 40.
A this point, there is almost nothing left. What the fuck.
Evil. That is all this is. Pure evil. Kids should worry about being kids. That is it. DESTROY THE WHO
The WHO is pretty much made up by the same people that make up the UN. They will make a huge deal of stuff like loli and the like while they have big pedophile rings and engage in promotion of grooming behavior in other countries. Kids can learn about their bodies very well on their own WHO, stop trying to get your grubby hands on them.
They do this because some of them are too fucking lazy to actually go on those peacekeeping missions and charity tours to rape third world children. They figured they can convince us Western people to let them rape our kids.
Wait, what? Really?
And here I thought it was just some rich people like what happens last July of last year where Epstein was found out. Seems rich and people in power are the ones who people should be wary of.
Edit: Also, why are they fucking caring about loli or whatever other smut over what their peacekeepers have fucking done? Double standards or hypocritical much?
Well, I am just saying this because shit like these orgz raping the people they claim to help in absolute third world shitholes keeps getting uncovered.
And one day...
The outcome of this is pretty predictable;
Children introduced to masturbate + Children able to access free online pornography = children thinking about sex from a young age = argument that children can consent to sex = pedophilia legal
Forgive the long comment but this is extremely relevant and unnerving
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO EMULATE A DYSTOPIA WHO!!!
Openly grooming children. Delete the W.H.O.