i tried. i really did

[BengalYankee]

(06-16-2023, 06:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The point is that adults due to intention or negligence let me and other kids view adult content.  I will say some adults I knew were a lot more "ok" with letting the boys see sexual stuff in order to "make men out of them."  We had a poster on here who was pretty right wing who talked about the tradition of taking teen sons to the strip club as a sort of tradition. 

Stuff like this is why people tried to ban the thong bikini.  Everything is sinful and sexual to Some folks. 


I will admit there were times when I'd be with my older cousin and they'd be watching something a bit racy and my ol man would be very "dont let your mom know you saw this" as he walked through the room.  

I also saw my first cinemax softcore porn when I was 13.  It was called Hung Jury.  Classic. 

I knew I liked you. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-16-2023, 07:16 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Were you a teenager in the 3rd grade???

Yes. That's why i overcompensate now by acting like a smug know it all on here.  Duh. 

[BengalYankee]

(06-16-2023, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you actually saying that performing a sexually suggestive dance, while scantily clad, within feet of a child is ok?  I don't care if the performer is male, female, gay, straight or anything else.  It's suspect as hell and I would question the morals and intentions of anyone choosing to expose a child to that.

I see nothing wrong? 

[BengalYankee]

(06-16-2023, 06:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Im ok with it. If parents take their kids to it you should call the police on the parents I guess.  Is that the plan?  When I was a kid some of us had pretty easy access to playboy or R rated movies.  Some parents let their kids be exposed to adult stuff and some don't.  It has to be impossible to shield kids from sexual stuff in the internet age. 

If exposing kids to sexual stuff is criminal we need to go after parents for granting access to adult sexual content.  Hopefully the statute of limitations has passed for my friends dad letting us rent those slasher films in 1991. 

Sicking the Authorities on you. 

[BengalYankee]

(06-16-2023, 06:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can't be the only dude here who saw that stuff before he was 18. 

[CJD]

ITT: Stubborn conservative parent cuts ties with children over fringe issues involving an extreme minority of the country that they were manipulated into being upset about by Fox News and Republican politicians that need to find something for you to be upset about in order to secure your vote and donations despite not offering you anything of value all while telling their children that they're the ones being brainwashed.

[BengalYankee]

[BengalYankee]

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2023, 07:01 PM)pally Wrote: I didn't say that...The question was why is that standard only being applied to drag performers...and not even when they are just involved in an adult performance. Tey are also being targeted for doing nothing more offensive than sitting in a chair reading to children while wearing a costume.

Yes, and I have stated repeatedly I am against that.  The problem is there are far too many people who see no issue with either, and that lumps them together for a lot of people.

Quote:We can start by stating that most truly adult drag performances, like other adult performances, are actually being performed by adults for adults.  

Sure, but we can also then state that adults performing in a sexually suggestive manner for children is wrong, regardless of how many times it happens in relation to adult only performances.

Quote:However, a man performing Dolly Parton's music while dressed up like Dolly Parton is no more "dangerous" than a woman dressing up like Dolly Parton performing Dolly Parton's music yet they are being treated differently.  So please tell me why the drag performance in this situation is "wrong" and the female performer is OK?

Are they?  If they are then it's an obvious overreaction to the types of shows I am describing.  It's very clear some people pushed this issue way too far and the backlash is, as they typically are, stronger than necessary.

Quote:Why is there no legislative scrutiny over churches where thousands of children have been documented as being physically, sexually, and emotionally abused.  How is that safer for a child that the off chance of dealing with an aggressive drag performer

You're making this about molestation.  I've not said one word about that.  Again, as plain as I can say it, adults performing in a sexually suggestive manner in front of children is wrong.  Especially when that is coupled with sexual, revealing, clothing and children giving them dollar bills.  It would be very helpful for everyone if rational adults could say that's crossing a line instead of defending everything drag related like they're all the exact same thing.  There's a line that's clearly been crossed, but many people on the left don't think that's the case.  Hence the response you're getting in some parts of the country.

[*pally*]

(06-16-2023, 09:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, and I have stated repeatedly I am against that.  The problem is there are far too many people who see no issue with either, and that lumps them together for a lot of people.



Sure, but we can also then state that adults performing in a sexually suggestive manner for children is wrong, regardless of how many times it happens in relation to adult only performances.



Are they?  If they are then it's an obvious overreaction to the types of shows I am describing.  It's very clear some people pushed this issue way too far and the backlash is, as they typically are, stronger than necessary.



You're making this about molestation.  I've not said one word about that.  Again, as plain as I can say it, adults performing in a sexually suggestive manner in front of children is wrong.  Especially when that is coupled with sexual, revealing, clothing and children giving them dollar bills.  It would be very helpful for everyone if rational adults could say that's crossing a line instead of defending everything drag related like they're all the exact same thing.  There's a line that's clearly been crossed, but many people on the left don't think that's the case.  Hence the response you're getting in some parts of the country.

I make it about molestation because the #1 conservative argument against ANY drag performer is that they are "grooming" a child while making exceptions for professions where widespread molestation and actual grooming have taken place.

This whole brouhaha about drag did not start because of supposed sexually explicit shows being performed in front of children.  it started with Drag Queen Story Hours where the performer did nothing more benign than sit there reading a story to children while wearing a costume.  The costume happened to be a dress and the performer was male but hardly what anyone, unless they were looking for a reason to be outraged,  could legitimately call a sexually explicit performance

I agree that I don't want sexually-explicit performances in front of children.  But the onus is on the parent, who takes them to the performance not the performer who may not know who is in the audience.  I hear 'parent's rights" all over the place from conservative politicians, political groups, media, etc.   The problem is that the people who want "parent's rights" only want it for like-minded people.  If they disagree with another parent's choice for their child, conservatives want to make it illegal or removed. Parents have different opinions on what constitutes sexually-explicit who gets to decide what the "do-not cross line" is?

[NUGDUKWE]

(06-16-2023, 05:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Handguns are less deadly than long guns.  Yet handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides, over 95%.  

I do think it's funny that people I talk to dislike the term "Assault Weapon". But then say they need them to protect them from the government. So if there's an assault by the government they need an assault weapon. 

[samhain]

(06-16-2023, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you actually saying that performing a sexually suggestive dance, while scantily clad, within feet of a child is ok?  I don't care if the performer is male, female, gay, straight or anything else.  It's suspect as hell and I would question the morals and intentions of anyone choosing to expose a child to that.

It's all amplified bullshit.  The religious right enjoyed having gays to beat on for decades.  Society turned on them in the last 20 years.  Now they want an "in".  

The drag queen thing is the gateway to once again demonizing all homosexuals as evil and worthy of persecution.  Whether or not I agree that exposing kids to drag shows is wrong (I wouldn't take my kid to one) is immaterial to the conversation.  

The religious right went out of style.  Their scouting report on their new approach has been out since about 2018.  If they dislike someone, they call them child molestors/groomers with zero real substance to their arguments, throwing out extreme examples as if they are the norm and unavoidable.  They are absolute disgusting, lying assholes.  

Their goal is a return to the persecution of homosexuals, period.  

Right wing Catholics and religious leaders did horrific things to kids for basically forever.  Like literal thousands of kids getting raped, abused and manipulated.  I don't see anyone trying to build political campaigns trying to ban organized religion or call persist/preachers "groomers", which some of them undoubtedly are.  

Again, I ain't taking my kid to a drag show any time soon, but also, screw the religious right.  I trust them about as far as I can throw Chris Christie's fat ass.  They just want to find a way to get back to some good ol' gay bashin' and dragging ***** behind trucks.  

[KillerGoose]

(06-16-2023, 05:47 PM)Leon Wrote: maybe this will help from the gospel center.

First and foremost, we must think of the “law of God” in terms of God. The triune God is the law because his will and nature is the moral standard of the universe. For this reason, God alone has the right and authority to determine what is right and wrong, and to hold his moral creatures, both human and angelic, accountable to whether they have perfectly obeyed his commands.



Scripture first and foremost identifies “the law of God” with God himself. God alone is the Judge of the earth (Gen. 18:25), who always acts consistently with who he is. To fail to grasp this point is to misunderstand who God is and the entire rationale for God’s glorious plan of redemption centered in the obedient life and substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ.



As Creator and Lord, God rightfully deserves and demands perfect obedience and loyal love from his moral creatures, both human and angelic. In this context, the “law of God” refers to his specific commands and demand from us. In creation, this is reflected in God’s command to Adam (Gen. 2:16-17), which is more than a one-time command. Ultimately, God’s demand on Adam, his image-bearer and covenant creature, is to perfectly obey God in a relationship of love and trust.

Thank you, but you’re also conveniently ignoring everything else I have said. Everyone, I would wager you as well, is going to selectively apply God’s word. The Bible was written in a society that was significantly different than ours and our morals have evolved. We don’t go around killing women for lying about being a virgin, for instance. That would be an example of selectively applying the word.

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(06-16-2023, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It depends on the handgun, and I could literally go on for hours.  It can all be explained by E=mc2.  The bigger the bullet, the faster it travels the more energy it's going to dump into a body when it hits.  A fast handgun velocity for a 9mm bullet is 1200 fps, the bullet weighing 125 grains, or .29 ounces.  A normal velocity for a standard AR15, or .223 Remington, round is 3200 fps for a bullet weighing 69 grains, or .16 ounces.  Again, that's a standard muzzle velocity versus a very high 9mm muzzle velocity. So the long gun round is traveling over 2.5 times the speed of a handgun round, hence it has far more energy to impart to whatever it hits.

You mean F=ma, don't you? 

Or how does the speed of light factor into such calculations of momentum and velocity?

[Dill]

(06-16-2023, 05:47 PM)Leon Wrote: maybe this will help from the gospel center.

First and foremost, we must think of the “law of God” in terms of God. The triune God is the law because his will and nature is the moral standard of the universe. For this reason, God alone has the right and authority to determine what is right and wrong, and to hold his moral creatures, both human and angelic, accountable to whether they have perfectly obeyed his commands.

Scripture first and foremost identifies “the law of God” with God himself. God alone is the Judge of the earth (Gen. 18:25), who always acts consistently with who he is. To fail to grasp this point is to misunderstand who God is and the entire rationale for God’s glorious plan of redemption centered in the obedient life and substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As Creator and Lord, God rightfully deserves and demands perfect obedience and loyal love from his moral creatures, both human and angelic. In this context, the “law of God” refers to his specific commands and demand from us. In creation, this is reflected in God’s command to Adam (Gen. 2:16-17), which is more than a one-time command. Ultimately, God’s demand on Adam, his image-bearer and covenant creature, is to perfectly obey God in a relationship of love and trust.

Couple of questions:

1. In general, Christians all agree that their God wants and deserves obedience, but when it comes to specifics they often disagree on what constitutes obedience. That's why there are so many different denominations--including some which accept and marry gays.  Do some Christians know better what God's will is? How can a non-Christian tell who has it right? Each group will justify its views first by pointing to the Bible, and then by accepting what they believe on "faith." 

2. Should government tolerate other religions and atheists? You quote Genesis above--a sacred text to Jews and Muslims as well as Christians; the Old Testament appears to say other gods and non-believers should not tolerated. But we live in a liberal democracy which "makes no law respecting the establishment of Religion." If you wanted to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., you'd have to figure out a way to do it without saying the word "Muslim."  But that secular basis seems to go against what the Christian God wants

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-19-2023, 12:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Couple of questions:

1. In general, Christians all agree that their God wants and deserves obedience, but when it comes to specifics they often disagree on what constitutes obedience. That's why there are so many different denominations--including some which accept and marry gays.  Do some Christians know better what God's will is? How can a non-Christian tell who has it right? Each group will justify its views first by pointing to the Bible, and then by accepting what they believe on "faith." 

2. Should government tolerate other religions and atheists? You quote Genesis above--a sacred text to Jews and Muslims as well as Christians; the Old Testament appears to say other gods and non-believers should not tolerated. But we live in a liberal democracy which "makes no law respecting the establishment of Religion." If you wanted to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., you'd have to figure out a way to do it without saying the word "Muslim."  But that seems to go against what the Christian God wants

Which further goes back to the point I've hammered to death: the Bible is to be read contextually and common sense is to be applied. Nothing is black and white and American Christians make it that, "you're either 100% in or nothing," as our friend has written above to me...

[Dill]

(06-19-2023, 02:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Which further goes back to the point I've hammered to death: the Bible is to be read contextually and common sense is to be applied. Nothing is black and white and American Christians make it that, "you're either 100% in or nothing," as our friend has written above to me...

All of them don't make it all or nothing. There are millions of tolerant and liberal Christians in the U.S., but they don't get the notoriety of people leading anti-military or anti-gay crusades. 

But I would like to know how the fundamentalists answer the questions I asked above--especially how they accommodate democracy when it includes non-Christians and non-believers.

No one should be afraid to defend his faith, and anyone who wants his values translated into law should not be afraid to explain to the voting public why his views should take precedence over the values of others when such values conflict. 

[Vas Deferens]

an =/= and


Let’s start THERE

[guyofthetiger]

I just have one comment. Would you do the behavior in front of Jesus? Because that is what you are doing.