YouFound_Lxam

Have you learned about "sets" and "subsets" yet? The kind of show you're talking about is a subset of adult entertainment. There aren't any strip clubs appropriate for 8 year olds, drag queens are immaterial to the proposition. You yourself have pointed out you wouldn't argue that a child should be at a woman-performed strip show. 

You're responding to something I didn't say. I didn't say 'helping' anyone 'find' their sexuality. Read it again. Telling a sexually maturing kid that their sexuality and gender identity is their business and no one else's, and that even if you're in the minority, you're not alone and support exists for you, that's not 'pushing' anyone to do anything.

Agree...but it is not exclusive or in any way prevalent in the transgender community. You've yet to show otherwise. Are kids who find their dad's porno stash being groomed?

THis response is a non-sequitur and I have looked at what you've laid out, it's rather thin. Feel free to try to buttress it, but again I'm not going to click on strange youtube links or an infowars story, so you will just have to express yourself with your own words I'm afraid. 

What's the alternative to heaven? Can you describe it a little? Like if I don't believe in god, and I don't get into the kingdom of heaven, what will happen?

Actually, no. There is a good amount of farmers choosing pasture over factory farm.

The production rates arent significantly different.

We need less than 800 million cows to get enough cow milk for all humans. Currently, we have over 1 billion due to meat demand.

We have multiplied the cows too much. There is too many of them. Since we dont need them all, we can set free those who are surplus.

Of course, people becoming vegetarians would make farmers focus on milk production. Also, buying milk that comes from pasture farms would help too.

Since vegetables usually produce at least double the amount of food per acre than cows, we will not be in any food deficit. We will end up in surplus if we convert more land to vegetable farming as opposed to cow farming.

 I figured could only apply to shows that have content appropriate for children (i.e. the drag queen story hours I mentioned, or breakfast hours with drag queens, etc.). I'm not really in the habit of clicking on links from teenage strangers on the internet, but your excerpt that ends with this:

What's the objection you have? Why would a woman sell a set of breast forms, and why would children be there? Curious though...if a woman did those things, would cry GROOMING?

You are really obsessed with one drag show in Texas, huh? I'd say that I don't think it's appropriate to bring children to adult themed shows, or have minors in clubs that serve alcohol, full stop. That has nothing to do with drag queens, though

We are talking about two different things. Strip clubs, male or female, trans or cis, are not for children. But let's talk about the word "grooming." This is an extremely dangerous idea. What do you think it means? I think, for example, that it's entirely probable that the people using this term are uncomfortable with a young person (think 16 not 8) discovering their sexuality, and discovering that it isn't like most people's sexuality.

 That drag queens aren't grooming (does this mean 'recruiting'?) anyone, but what they may be doing is encouraging that 16 year old (IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER) to just be comfortable with whatever they are, and demonstrating that there's a community of people just like them, or potentially even weirder and more ludicrous (this is how I would describe every drag queen at any show:

My advice is to just go to a drag show and see if you actually think it is what your facebook feed is telling you. I've been to them, I'm not gay, I have kids, no one tried to sell me a butt plug, the shows are fun. As is to be expected from someone your age, you have a lot of life to experience and make your own judgements on

 So the issue at hand isn't the act of killing, but not helping with survival, even if the help is necessary.

. Laws are not developed through courts. What would the court case be? Do you mean that abortion laws and comprehensive sex ed laws should be up to legislators, or are you talking about a specific instance of courts?

. Laws are supposed to be universal. If a law is unjust to some, and doesn't have a exemption or statute to rectify that, then it is a bad law. If your argument is that the law is fair to 99% of people (which it isn't, but that's the core of the the first part, so I won't cross apply it) then I would demand a plan to solve for the last 1%. This would just look like mandating a federal comprehensive sexual education course to graduate high school and allowing abortion for minors. 

Then you need to re-read your scripture.  

Do we not have to believe in him as a condition of his love and entry into heaven? And what about fearing him? Is this not also a condition?

But in order to mass produce eggs, we would have to imprison chickens, and they have rights too, don't they?

Actually, chickens dont need to be imprisoned in a factory. There is this thing called pasture. Just let them walk around on a grassland eating insects and wild edibles. No need to imprison them.

And also, for milk, and cheese, we would have to have a lot of cows.........in factory's..........producing milk.

Cows dont need to be imprisoned in a factory to produce milk. Pasture is better. It is like setting them free, but still getting milk from them.

Actually, we wont have a shortage of protein. Vegetables, nuts, grains, insects, milk, eggs - they all have protein.

If a cow dies, it is not a waste. It can be converted into fertilizer or fed to wild animals.

Surplus in cows can be controlled by separating males from females on pasture farms from time to time, and in nature it is controlled by predators.

I think that its due to the difference in brain size. Insects have much much smaller brain. If I had to choose between cows and insects, I would go for insects. 

That being said, we need to divide the land between ourselves and animals. Currently, plenty of land is used on animals to produce meat from them. If that land is transformed into pasture for milk and eggs, and some of it for plant production, and some of it being free and given to animals, that would be great.

1. So can a woman remove the fetus/baby and just let it go out in the world? Not kill it, just let it survive?

2. I don't think you get to make that assumption. What a literal child is and isn't aware of is all wonky and assumptions about that aren't helpful. What I'm saying is, despite the fact we're not policymakers, I maybe willing to horse trade agreement to comprehensive sex education nationwide for agreement to abortion bans.

. Yeah, but there are tons of things I think are immoral (not holding the door for someone) that I wouldn't make illegal. I'm saying, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive. Your disproving of the exact analogy I gave of the squatter doesn't answer the fundamental question, and I won't go down the rabbit hole of the analogy. 

 There are pregnant 12 year olds. I'm exactly saying that children don't know how safe sex works (not to mention the lack of perfect effectiveness).

What proof do you have that there is increased crime?

Who invited your family to come to this country? Do they deserve to be here? All I know is they produced one ignorant 16 yo turd. This country has too much white trash. Maybe you should all go back to where you came from. I would think any one coming across the border today is worth 3 of your people.

Do you have a problem with a skyrocketing economy?

But, regardless of my answer, the baby/fetus is still existing in a womb that isn't there's. Should a woman be required to carry the fetus/baby? To what extent does another person have a LEGAL responsibility to help another person survive? Should someone get manslaughter for evicting a squatter from their house if they freeze outside?

Should someone get manslaughter for evicting a squatter from their house if they freeze outside?

Saying that a woman is responsible for her actions, however, how responsible can people be? You don't get to assume how knowledgeable someone is, especially when, in the United States, only 38 states and DC mandate sex education. On top of this, 350,000 teen pregnancies a year in the United States with 82% of them unintentional have no way to hold children accountable for knowing where babies come from.

Hormone blockers have permanent effects? I've always heard they didn't.

There's no reason to narrow a definition that has historically only expanded over time. I predict that at least one species of animal (dolphins and chimps are some of the strongest candidates) will be afforded legal rights (i.e., can be represented in courts, similar to how a corporation is legally a person, etc.) before 2040.

So, the question is "is it appropriate for women to perform in front of children?" As the question stands, obviously yes. 

Yes, I'm not mad that you think I'm a dick for wanting people to feel like they can have their freedom of expression. COmpletely comfortable. 

You can live on "plants and eggs" or "plants and milk" or "plants and insects" or "plants and cheese".

Personally, I chose to live on "plants, milk, cheese, and eggs".

That being said, I dont have anything against eating insects. They are the best in terms of nutrition. But its looked down upon and I cant buy them anywhere, and going around with a net catching them would label me as crazy.

I could of course be wrong, maybe he did go on to explain all of this. Don’t know, don’t care enough to watch the next 53 minutes. If Ben were here to discuss the issue with I’d watch it, but he isn’t here. You are. So if you want to have a conversation on this topic feel free to present words that you typed so we can have a dialog.

So the argument here is that the basic concepts CRT is founded on are “being taught” in class, and they gathered data on this by asking students of they’ve heard this concept and from where.

First off, no where in this article do they find that the material students are “being taught” is part of any curriculum anywhere. That’s already remarkable, because to claim a subject is being taught in schools requires that at bare minimum.

Essentially, if a teacher tells the class their opinion on any of these questions, that would qualify as “being taught”.  But what is most remarkable about this entire study is that it took place from August 18th-23rd 2022. In other words, they asked students if they heard about or had teachers tell them their opinion about an issue which republicans catapulted to the forefront of the national dialog. An issue that is literally vilifying teachers nationwide.

Teachers and students are going to talk about what’s going on in the world. In 2022 CRT was everywhere, so of course teachers are going to comment on it. That doesn’t mean CRT is “being taught” in classrooms.

So when you advocate for banning CRT in classrooms, a subject that isn’t in any curriculum anywhere, what you’re actually advocating for is for teachers to not be allowed to talk about race. That is amazingly stupid and remarkably hypocritical coming from the “free speech” crowd.

I brought up two subjects and how those two subjects would likely impact politics. You then characterized them as political subjects.

In a new paper entitled “Optical gravity in a graviton spacetime” (Optik, Volume 260, June 2022), Mathew Edwards puts forward a novel theory of gravity based on past observations which have hinted at there being an optical medium of spacetime that not only serves as an analog for the observable effects of gravity, but which could also provide a physical means that might potentially help account for it. Such observations include the way light is deflected as it passes by mass, which as Edwards notes is “mathematically equivalent to the refraction of light in an optical medium with a density gradient.” This is not mere happenstance to Edwards, who further argues that the explicit correlation between these two observations has proven useful in recent explorations of things like gravitational lensing, the effect where light is bent as a result of the distribution of matter between an observer and a far distant light source.

It has nothing to do with being a furry. If we are visited by an alien civilization, would you say that those individuals shouldn't be afforded the same value as humans?

"Useful" is highly questionable.

We already know that we can live without meat.

Further, cows produce much less food per acre than plants.

So if you were elected to Congress, lol, you would no longer be one of the people?

No, let’s not since it is completely redundant to the definitions I already provided (and to wit you clearly ignored)!

No, it was and remains a completely and utterly stupid question. I mean really, the answer is within the question itself and from that which was already provided in/by the definitions given. Tripling + down on this stupid question is unremarkable. 

Wrong! A debate can always be between more than two people. And as evidenced by all the threads, more than two people get involved. If no one is supporting either one of us it is clearly because they know one of us is correct and the other is not and nothing more need be said. It’s all up to the reader to decide. That being said, you have not debunked any of my argued factually accurate and easily verifiable positions. 

NO! I provide fact based rebuttals to your nonsensical uneducated drivel, and when you repeat that drivel it becomes patently clear engaging you on this subject it futile. It’s tantamount to beating the proverbial dead horse. And you ARE the dead horse in this scenario. Own it. 

Can you see gravity? No

Do you know where it comes from? No

Gravity my not be visible but it's scientifically verifiable. Not the same thing.

I know Santa to exist because of the effects it has on me, and 4 billion other people on this earth. 

Now I know you're a troll.

I can demonstrate it, I can use it in equations that work, and it comes from the earth's mass. Come on dude. Maybe quit being on the internet on your phone and start paying attention in the classes you're taking. 

So if I understood you correctly, you say: "Pain of a cow doesnt matter".

I know Santa to exist because of the effects it has on me, and 4 billion other people on this earth. 

I can't see him.

I don't fully understand him.

But I see his effects on everyone, and everything. And I saw his sleigh in the night. It was just 2 dots but I

know it was him.

Wild animals that are meat eaters cant claim land due to their low number. 

No. I literally claimed the opposite. What I claimed was "wild animals that are meat eaters wont be a problem due to their low number."

Are you unaware of the fact that humans have already killed great majority of meat eating animals and already reduced their numbers greatly?

A relationship with a deity is the same as a relationship with a person it is all internal processes. Yes I know other people are visible so therefore there's some sort of reality place on that. But having an experience where you encounter a deity to the point where you begin worshiping that deity or incorporate some type of work for that deity and your daily life is as real as the person standing next to you. I don't expect anyone else to base their life on that experience of mine but they should at least be able to understand that that's what's happened without calling me mentally deficient, untrustworthy, a bad parent or stupid. Now if they're using that deity to force bad things onto other people without their consent of course there's a problem. But there should be some kind of understanding that because enough people over the course of history have had them to warrant that it might actually be a human experience. 

Which is what , exactly?

You sound paranoid.

Please provide the substantiation, but this time please make sure it applies to GRADE SCHOOL. 

And this time read the article. I'm not going to do your homework again. 

There is nothing about the claim "humans have killed most of meat eater animals" that says "meat eater animals should be killed".

What about Lions, Tigers, and Bears OH MY!!

They can defend claims of land.

"Wild animals attacking animals" is not a big problem. Humans already killed most of those.

This is a very strange claim. You admit that animals feel depression, just not in the same way as you. However, "not human" does not equal to "no depression". Humans always try to make themselves special, and make their pain more special than the pain of others. The reality is, "the pain of animals" matters irrelevant of if it is the "same pain as yours" or "half as yours".

So one could say that your claim of "difference in pain" is irrelevant even if correct.

So now it's not just talking about curriculum: "heard from adults" is distinct here from "taught in class". The entire paragraph that follows this one uses the phrase "XX% report being taught OR HEARING." And it's not limited to CRT, either. Among the questions, "America was built on stolen land," which I find interesting, as this could theoretically include the respondent's interpretation that there were people here before there was America, and the people that made America took the land from them in one way or another. So if you recognize that native Americans were here when European settlers first arrived, you might think the land was stolen, without having a teacher phrase it this way in the curriculum. Here's another portion I'd think requires more interrogation:

I didn't say anywhere that meat eaters should be killed.

These claims dont prove the claim "Animals feel pain" to be wrong.

Further, anyone who observed a cat losing her kitten could tell you that cat in that situation acts similar to a depressed human.

It is interesting how you were quick to assume that animals dont feel depression. 

 You can believe, absolutely, whatever you want. If I find whatever that belief is abhorrent, I am within my rights to say "you're a dick." This is what you're actually objecting to: society deciding you're a dick. By all means believe whatever you like, but own whatever it is fully and understand that you aren't insulated in any way from others deciding you're an unpleasant douche because of it. After all, it's ALL beliefs. 

I would respond that I think it's important to demonstrate to my kids that humans are a diverse group, but they're all humans. Plus they're reading Horton Hears a Who, that's their favorite story.

My advice is to just start here: shut the fuck up about it then from the start, because whatever anyone says to you is pointless, you have your position calcified and you can live your life just fine without ever going to a drag show, or worrying who's taking their kids to drag queen story hour. Then I don't even have to know you're an unpleasant douche. See how it works?

I disagree based on personal experience, however let us assume you're right. What then would make three people with the same principles and beliefs worse for a child's upbringing than two parents who don't share the same principles and beliefs.

Not true. I had a wide range of beliefs, opinions and ideas to base my beliefs off of. I was never confused by this. I knew my mother had her beliefs, I knew my dad didn't share them and I knew members of my family had yet different beliefs.

This assumes that there's only one way to be a man or a woman. In my experience people learn to be men or women through their experiences. A good role model is great, but a bad role model can be far worse than none at all. Ultimately it's an individual who makes themself a man or woman usually with a lot of support from those around them.

Chopping  babies in half as they are being born.

Is that common practice in the US?

I don't think we do it over here.

Or was that just a teeny weeny bit of an emotional over-statement?

Imagine if your child's teacher forced your children to accept ...DONALD TRUMP.

Boom headshot!

Should the same prohibition apply to churches? 

Let's play pretend, okay? You and I are having a discussion, you ask me what I'm doing this weekend, and I say I'm taking my seven year old to drag queen story hour Saturday morning, the one at the library, and I checked, no one is showing their butthole or giving out gift bags with butt plugs in them, or whatever else you're really worried about deep down, it's a straightforward story hour. Given your statement above, please make your argument to convince me I should NOT be doing this. 

We should be teaching our children that unless whatever someone is doing directly affects their lives in some measurable way (i.e. not "It's gross! I wouldn't do that!"), that to be an American means to shrug your shoulders and understand that even if you disagree with what they're doing, even if you'd never do it, that everyone has a right to their own identity. It's not hard to understand. 

Humans did evolve to be able to eat meat. However, it is more beneficial not to at this point.

"They serve no purpose to any ecosystem" does not lead us to conclusion that "we should torture and kill them".

I have no interest in forcing anyone.

Its difficult for children who dont like meat, since they are usually forced to eat it as soon as they reach a certain age where they can eat it.

"Kids in Africa being treated better" is not the result of "You eating meat".

In fact, we can safely say that you eating meat has no positive effect on children in africa.

Further, "giving rights to animals" does not lead to "rights being taken away from kids in africa". This is especially true since "you eating meat" does not "help children in africa".

However, giving rights to animals could cause a high increase in food production. It could also cause a decrease in violence among humans.

This is a bit off topic, but vegetarians are much less violent than meat eaters. It is common sense that if you consume suffering, and slaughter animals and justify their killing, you are more likely to justify the killing of humans.

"Wild animals attacking animals" is not a big problem. Humans already killed most of those. Besides, animals being hunted by animals is different from animals being farmed in a crowded room by humans and then killed. We can see that with factory farming, suffering and killing happens at much greater level. It is not just the killed animals that suffer. In factory farming, suffering is omnipresent for all animals.

"They have no documents" is a correct statement. "They have no rights" is incorrect. Animals have rights. Since they can feel pain, it is their right to be alive and protected from pain. If not completely, then partially.

I wouldnt say that this is true for humans or animals.

In fact, vegetable farming, foraging and insect farming are much more effective than animal farming.

People are not living only on meat.

I dont know why do you think that animals were created for human consumption. It is not true that "humans need to eat animals in order to survive", and it is not true that "eating animals" has any more benefit than "eating insects" or "drinking milk" or "eating eggs".

Now, you ask: "what are they going to do with life?". However, what are you saying with this question?

You are saying that "to live in a very crowded room, to be tortured and have your babies separated from yoy and killed in great majority of cases" is equal to "living on a grassland with lots of space, where you are not tortured so much as you are tortured in factory farm, and where your babies live with you much longer, and where your babies are not killed so much as they are in factory farm".

Obviously, if we consider torture to be bad and if we seek to decrease it, those two are not equal.

So the answer to your question is that animals will enjoy life more and suffer less when they are on grassland than in factory farm.

The point of rights is to benefit animals, at least some of them. The claim "animals wont understand it" does not negate this.

To demonstrate that no matter how someone identifies their own gender, they are not an inherent threat to anyone or anything, they don't impinge on society in some way, they're not to be feared, they're just people like everyone else. The idea is not TOLERANCE, it's ACCEPTANCE. This country is about your freedom to do as you please, provided "as you please" doesn't illegally encroach on "as I please." If that "as you please" included identifying and living your life as a gender other than the one you were born with, then who cares, literally, at all. Demonstrating this to children helps them understand that a person = a person. It's not to show your butthole to a child or somehow "pedophilia" which is a category error. A show is a show. A "philia" is an affinity or desire or compulsion.

I promise you, though, per capita more children have been abused by clergy in the last year than have been abused at drag shows in the last hundred. Do you also get equally disgusted by priests and churches? Should we, as a society, ban children from going to church, because of how much abuse, DOCUMENTED and legally adjudicated, there has been over the last let's just take 50 years?

All living (braindead is iffy, and obviously pre-birth is controversial) humans are people, but not all people are necessarily human.

Technically and biological reality is one viable fetus is pending birth, which upon birth (full extraction or expulsion from the womb (outside of her body), would be [a] person (singular).

There’s already a thing called animal rights. But you think it shouldn’t exist at all? 

We don't explain advanced quantum mechanics to kids for a reason. Neither can kids understand this. We don't need to explain it to them.

Do you have any evidence that this kind of behavior is anything remotely prevalent at drag shows? Or did you just find one clip on YouTube of one drag queen engaging is such behavior and decided that you had all you needed to vilify the entire community?

If I provided you a list of people who dressed up as Santa Clause who were later found to be pedophiles would you support banning all children from sitting on Santa Clause’s lap everywhere? Would you actively speak out against the entire industry as if it were built on pedophilia?

Have you ever been to a drag show? Do you know anything about drag that you didn’t learn on Fox News or from some angry pastors rant at church?