The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:27 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:18 am
murphy_p_t wrote:
Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:49 am
Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?
What are the consequences to not washing your hands versus the consequences of being in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt?
I'd argue there's a stronger case for the hypothetical hand-washing law: you can make other people sick with your bad choice in that department.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:40 am

Xan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:27 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:18 am

murphy_p_t wrote:
Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:49 am

Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?


What are the consequences to not washing your hands versus the consequences of being in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt?


I'd argue there's a stronger case for the hypothetical hand-washing law: you can make other people sick with your bad choice in that department.


Again how sick compared to how much injury could be suffered by not wearing a seat belt? What about the other occupants in your car who also choose to exercise their freedom to not wear a seat belt?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:02 am

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:48 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:20 am

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:47 am

vnatale wrote:
Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:00 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:55 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:19 pm

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.


But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."


I always wanted to wear seat belts but never could motivate myself to do so. Once it became the law I became 100%. Now when I get out of my car to go to my mail box across from my driveway that seat belt goes right back on to just drive across the street into my driveway.

Yes, I could have already done it on my own. But I had NEVER once prior done it. The law resulted in a super great habit for my life.


Would you be in favor of a law that mandated that you had to eat a certain amount of vegetables, fruits, fiber etc. each day? Or a limit to how much sugar you could eat? How about mandatory exercise?

I envision we all live in a world like the old Prisoner tv series where people watch us 24/7 and a voice comes thru your house speaker each day instructing you that is is time to do your daily exercises and if you slack off they yell at you thru the speaker...then they tell you the car is here to take you to the mess hall to eat the food they have prepared.

Once you agree to the thought that government has a duty to keep you safe from your own choices then you have lost the true meaning of individual freedom and you have opened a Pandora's box that has no limits. See the residents of 2 blocks in Melbourne who were forbidden to leave their apartments for 14 days after 1 resident in an apartment building tested positive for Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/worl ... kdown.html


I can play the same game that so far two of you have played. Would you be in favor of anyone of any age being able drive a car with no age limits and no licensing requirements, including passing a driving test?

Your statement does not meet my qualification.


Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:17 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:02 am
Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.
I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:32 am

Xan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:17 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:02 am

Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.


I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)


Because the law is a good one.

I know I am a lot older than you. At the time the laws were enacted ...almost no one ever worn one. It was far from the norm. Therefore by your characterization just about all the occupants in this country were "really stupid".

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom

The 1980s battle over safety belt laws reflected widespread ambivalence over the role and value of government regulation.

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.



Finally is part of the philosophy of not requiring one to wear seat belts because it harms no one but yourself include .... having NO laws governing the sale to and the use by anyone over 18 for tobacco products, alcohol, and prescription drugs?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:36 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:32 am
Xan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:17 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:02 am
Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.
I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)
Because the law is a good one.

I know I am a lot older than you. At the time the laws were enacted ...almost no one ever worn one. It was far from the norm. Therefore by your characterization just about all the occupants in this country were "really stupid".

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom

The 1980s battle over safety belt laws reflected widespread ambivalence over the role and value of government regulation.

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.



Finally is part of the philosophy of not requiring one to wear seat belts because it harms no one but yourself include .... having NO laws governing the sale to and the use by anyone over 18 for tobacco products, alcohol, and prescription drugs?
My great-uncle back in the '60s rigged an airplane harness to his car's seat so that he could have a seatbelt.

But your point is well taken: there are probably things that I do that my grandchildren will think are really stupid.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:56 am

Xan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:36 am

My great-uncle back in the '60s rigged an airplane harness to his car's seat so that he could have a seatbelt.
.

Ha. That brought back a memory. I put seat belts in a 1953 Buick and a 1966 VW Beetle. I totaled the Beetle and the seat belt probably saved my life. I did not need laws to convince me seat belts were a good idea. I had an uncle who was a fighter pilot in WWII that convinced me - with a story about how a student in his flight class forgot to fasten his seat belt. When the instructor inverted the open cockpit bi-plane, the student fell out of the plane and was killed.

.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by jalanlong » Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:39 pm

[quote=vnatale post_id=238694 time=1646841726 user_id=3123

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

[/quote]

Actually seat belts are probably the worst issue you could possibly have hung your hat on in a freedom debate as they are one of the most egregious examples of a law that only exists to protect the individual from their own choice with little to no downstream effect.

As for your statement about people not protesting it, I fail to see what popular opinion has to do with whether a law is moral or constitutional. I’m sure you can go back in history and figure out horrible laws that would have passed public consensus at the time.

Yes, I am guilty of having a strict ideological view of Freedom. I do so because inherent in the entire concept is that it does not depend on giving politicians or other citizens the choices for my life. Saying someone has a strict ideology of freedom is like saying i have a narrow view of what a tree is. It is what it is, not what others agree it is.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:47 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:39 pm

[quote=vnatale post_id=238694 time=1646841726 user_id=3123

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.



Actually seat belts are probably the worst issue you could possibly have hung your hat on in a freedom debate as they are one of the most egregious examples of a law that only exists to protect the individual from their own choice with little to no downstream effect.

As for your statement about people not protesting it, I fail to see what popular opinion has to do with whether a law is moral or constitutional. I’m sure you can go back in history and figure out horrible laws that would have passed public consensus at the time.

Yes, I am guilty of having a strict ideological view of Freedom. I do so because inherent in the entire concept is that it does not depend on giving politicians or other citizens the choices for my life. Saying someone has a strict ideology of freedom is like saying i have a narrow view of what a tree is. It is what it is, not what others agree it is.
[/quote]

It's a major difference in world view between us. When I am frustrated in trying to achieve something I never have hung in on to me not being allowed my freedoms. Instead, I always think it was because of some deficiency in me. Which is a sure sign of a neurotic who blames her- or himself for failings as opposed to psychotics who will blame their failings on others.

In other words I believe myself to have an extreme high level of control over my own life, rarely think of how the government or any similar authority impedes my life, and accept great responsibility and consequences for all the actions / choices I make (or, correspondingly, neglect to do so).
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by jalanlong » Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:28 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:47 pm


It's a major difference in world view between us. When I am frustrated in trying to achieve something I never have hung in on to me not being allowed my freedoms. Instead, I always think it was because of some deficiency in me. Which is a sure sign of a neurotic who blames her- or himself for failings as opposed to psychotics who will blame their failings on others.

In other words I believe myself to have an extreme high level of control over my own life, rarely think of how the government or any similar authority impedes my life, and accept great responsibility and consequences for all the actions / choices I make (or, correspondingly, neglect to do so).
All of what you just wrote completely contradicts your earlier statement that you never wore a seat belt until compelled by authority to do so and therefore such compulsion is a good thing.

In any case, that is a huge stretch to imply that because I am opposed to a central authority requiring me to wear seat belts that I am "blaming" others for some sort of failure on my part and then go on to say that psychotics (ie. me) blame their failures on others. In fact it is quite the opposite. I prefer a world where I can decide what risks I will and will not take and then suffer the benefits or consequences of my decisions. When I fail or someone I know fails, I never ever think "there should be a law to fix that" which is the ultimate in not taking responsibility.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:54 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:28 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:47 pm



It's a major difference in world view between us. When I am frustrated in trying to achieve something I never have hung in on to me not being allowed my freedoms. Instead, I always think it was because of some deficiency in me. Which is a sure sign of a neurotic who blames her- or himself for failings as opposed to psychotics who will blame their failings on others.

In other words I believe myself to have an extreme high level of control over my own life, rarely think of how the government or any similar authority impedes my life, and accept great responsibility and consequences for all the actions / choices I make (or, correspondingly, neglect to do so).


All of what you just wrote completely contradicts your earlier statement that you never wore a seat belt until compelled by authority to do so and therefore such compulsion is a good thing.

In any case, that is a huge stretch to imply that because I am opposed to a central authority requiring me to wear seat belts that I am "blaming" others for some sort of failure on my part and then go on to say that psychotics (ie. me) blame their failures on others. In fact it is quite the opposite. I prefer a world where I can decide what risks I will and will not take and then suffer the benefits or consequences of my decisions. When I fail or someone I know fails, I never ever think "there should be a law to fix that" which is the ultimate in not taking responsibility.


Because the law regarding seat belts turned out to be a fabulous outcome for me should not be generalized into thinking that I can only do things if forced to by some entity outside of myself. To the contrary I fairly much lead my life the way I want to: In many aspects outside the norms of society.

I was describing myself as a neurotic. I was also describing psychotics but leaving it up to you to decide if it fit you.

I do agree with all the rest of your paragraph after the first sentence.

I cannot think of any other law, though, for me that had such a positive impact as the seat belt law. Getting me to do something I wanted to go but just could not sufficiently self-motivate myself to do so. It inculcated such a good habit that when I started riding motorcyles, I was looking for my seat belt!
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:15 pm

I'm curious what you would say, Vinny, if the seatbelt law folks wanted to ban motorcycles.

a) you can't wear a seat belt on a motorcycle
b) such a law would save a lot of lives
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:29 pm

Restaurants Are Now Adding ‘Equity’ Charges to Customers’ Checks to Fight Oppression
https://fee.org/articles/restaurants-ar ... ppression/
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:41 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:15 pm

I'm curious what you would say, Vinny, if the seatbelt law folks wanted to ban motorcycles.

a) you can't wear a seat belt on a motorcycle
b) such a law would save a lot of lives


It is too unrealistic a hypothetical to ponder.

The law would pass nowhere.

Again, because of one law that had a highly positive effect on my life I'm being characterized overall as something I am not.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:07 am

I found this article on the Florian Jaeger case at U of Rochester to be fascinating.

https://reason.com/2022/03/14/how-an-ac ... too-panic/
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Wed Mar 16, 2022 11:35 am

more BLM-related fraud
That all officially unraveled Tuesday morning with Cannon-Grant’s arrest. Her husband had been indicted a few weeks ago, on mortgage fraud charges, though he faces a slew of new charges in the indictment unsealed Tuesday.

It’s all shocking. Though also not. It wasn’t a big secret that Violence In Boston was all Monica, that there wasn’t a huge amount of fiscal oversight or accountability.

The truth is, Monica Cannon-Grant’s meteoric rise never got the scrutiny it should have. When people asked what Violence in Boston really did with its money, people shrugged. When some raised questions about whether she was really equipped to handle the windfall her organization was reaping, those questions were dismissed as tasteless, rude, and possibly racist and sexist.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/15/ ... verberate/
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:39 pm

It's like George Constanza's The People Fund. Honestly what a great scam.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:32 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:39 pm
It's like George Constanza's The People Fund. Honestly what a great scam.
O0 The Human Fund - Money for People O0

On a serious note, imagine all the honest people working to improve the Black community. They’re collateral damage from this shit.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:57 pm

San Francisco is boycotting 28 U.S. states 😂
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-san-fra ... 1647385763

SF is now boycotting most of the United States,” says a headline at San Francisco’s news site Mission Local. Reporter Joe Eskenazi, who seems to support the spirit of the boycotts, nevertheless explains why the sanctions regime presents a challenge for the city:
San Francisco can’t forge the parts it needs to keep its buses running, fix its buildings or run its computers. It has to buy things, lots of things, from elsewhere.


But…those boycotts.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:06 pm

dualstow wrote:
Wed Mar 16, 2022 11:35 am

more BLM-related fraud

That all officially unraveled Tuesday morning with Cannon-Grant’s arrest. Her husband had been indicted a few weeks ago, on mortgage fraud charges, though he faces a slew of new charges in the indictment unsealed Tuesday.

It’s all shocking. Though also not. It wasn’t a big secret that Violence In Boston was all Monica, that there wasn’t a huge amount of fiscal oversight or accountability.


The truth is, Monica Cannon-Grant’s meteoric rise never got the scrutiny it should have. When people asked what Violence in Boston really did with its money, people shrugged. When some raised questions about whether she was really equipped to handle the windfall her organization was reaping, those questions were dismissed as tasteless, rude, and possibly racist and sexist.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/15/ ... verberate/


From having worked for a non-profit for many years I'm wary of donating money to anything without thoroughly scrutinizing their operations and where the money goes.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:35 am

Disney Parks’ diversity and inclusion manager, Vivian Ware, (says) the company has “removed all of the gendered greetings” at its theme parks. No more “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.” No longer will a little girl in a gown be greeted with a “Hello, princess!”
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney-is ... y-to-kids/
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:34 pm

dualstow wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:35 am
Disney Parks’ diversity and inclusion manager, Vivian Ware, (says) the company has “removed all of the gendered greetings” at its theme parks. No more “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.” No longer will a little girl in a gown be greeted with a “Hello, princess!”
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney-is ... y-to-kids/
Oh for Christ’s sake.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:43 pm

Then there's this:
Disney exec vows more gay characters amid huge inclusivity push
A Disney executive vowed more inclusivity in its productions — as the entertainment giant works to make underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and the LGBTQ community, account for at least 50 percent of its regular characters by the end of the year.
“I’m here as a mother of two queer children, actually,” Burke said on the call. “One transgender child and one pansexual child, and also as a leader.”

It's fairly horrifying to hear a child described as anything-sexual, but I suppose we don't know how old this "child" is.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if she had said "I and everyone I know are the product of a male/female sexual union. My children only date people of the opposite sex. We need to have massively outsized representation of heteronormativity."

It seems to be the case that younger people have hugely higher rates of, let's say, alternative sexuality than people from older generations. Doesn't one have to conclude that the difference is a result of all the marketing about how awesome homosexuality is?

Interestingly, I think that makes (let's say for example) the church's traditionalist position on sexuality more palatable. In a world where less than 1% of people are homosexual (and are really devoted to it), the church could have the appearance of persecuting a helpless minority. In a world where 25% of people identify as something other than heterosexual, then the church is calling on people to voluntarily restrict their actions for their own good and that of their neighbors.

Restrict your thoughts to not coveting. (9th and 10th commandments)
Restrict your speaking to the truth, or the best construction on ambiguity. (8th commandment)
Restrict your actions to not stealing or murdering (or even anger). (7th and 5th commandments)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Matthew 7:12)
Trust only in Jesus for salvation, not anything else. (John 14:6)

In a list like that (and other religions would have similar things), this one fits right in:
Restrict your sexuality to one member of the opposite sex. (6th commandment)
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by flyingpylon » Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:31 am

Xan wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:43 pm

It seems to be the case that younger people have hugely higher rates of, let's say, alternative sexuality than people from older generations. Doesn't one have to conclude that the difference is a result of all the marketing about how awesome homosexuality is?
THIS. Adolescence and teen life can be rough, and there has always been an “alt” crowd or a variety of them. But now those crowds are formed around sexuality and gender and there are a lot of very confused kids that are just desperate to find a place to fit in.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14229
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:24 am

Genuine gender dysphoria is a real thing and some adults need a sex change to feel right. But yeah, there are reports that it’s getting faddish. A camp counselor who’s trans had a lot of young campers who spontaneously decided they were “queer” or in need of a change. i’ve always been pro gay rights. i never thought I’d be sitting here thinking things have gone too far, but they have.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Post Reply