American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Celritannia]

So facts are left-wing now?

Just because an academic source says something doesn't make it a fact. Academics said all kinds of racist stuff before your tribe took over the academy and your tribe doesn't have any kind of monopoly on the truth which their tribe didn't.

There's a reason they don't allow "original research".

There are multiple reasons, some of which are politically suspect but some which aren't. That wasn't a criticism: it was just pointing out what Wikipedia does.

That's because, with time, information gets corrected. Now, there are far stricter standards to ensure facts remain objective. Interpretation of facts though can vary.

Because Wikipedia wants to make sure the information provided is accurate, thus sources are necessary to back up a claim.
Otherwise, anyone can say random shit like zombies are real, or werewolves exist.

[San Lumen]

Who in their right mind has turned American politics into childhood nostalgia that they only now fear is being incinerated in the name of an endless cycle of disposable playthings, while the privileged elite plan the destruction of the agents of change that threaten to destabilise the status quo.

Well, I mean, the real problem with this is the childhood nostalgia, if you put it like that...

Speaking of childhood nostalgia, the movie America needs right now is a sequel to Swing Vote.

See the explanation I made a few posts back.
Anyway what was Swing Vote about?

It was movie about a Presidential election coming down to the vote of one person.

[The Jamesian Republic]

See the explanation I made a few posts back.
Anyway what was Swing Vote about?

It was movie about a Presidential election coming down to the vote of one person.

Okay. Never heard though but sounds interesting.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

The thing is. Not the onion is an unofficial thing ran by people who probably love the Onion, Also the Onion is funnier anyways lol.

"Not the Bee" does have official status with the Babylon Bee company, sure. But it isn't one of their satires: it's news.

If you need evidence that Critical Race Theory, the LGBT movement, climate worship, or abortion are rooted deeply in religious thought, look no further.

How then are we to live among the pagans?

if this isn’t satire, than it’s extraordinarily crappy news.

[Archinstinct]

If you need evidence that Critical Race Theory, the LGBT movement, climate worship, or abortion are rooted deeply in religious thought, look no further.

How then are we to live among the pagans?

if this isn’t satire, than it’s extraordinarily crappy news.

Indeed.

[San Lumen]

It was movie about a Presidential election coming down to the vote of one person.

Okay. Never heard though but sounds interesting.

There are far better political comedy films. One of the best is Man of the Year starring one of the greatest comedians of all time Robin Williams.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Okay. Never heard though but sounds interesting.

There are far better political comedy films. One of the best is Man of the Year starring one of the greatest comedians of all time Robin Williams.

I might check it out sometime.

[Moroniland]

And discriminating against adopters because they happen to be same-sex should be allowed because?

Because we don't have a common goal of what adoption is for on a fundamental level. We lack a shared answer to the question, "Why have adoption?" There's just no agreement there at all.

But this isn't uncommon. I mean we don't agree on what numerous other institutions are for either. Like we don't agree on what the military is for.

The discrimination being referred to has nothing to do with who you choose to date or not to date,

Yet.

but with businesses and the like refusing to do business with LGBT people because of their sexuality or gender identity.

So that you can force artistic creativity at the point of a policeman's gun. Bake the cake or else.

In fact, all of the big companies publicly support all of your nonsense. All of them. All of it. This is about trying to destroy small businesses and only small businesses in communities you dislike.

The government dictating that you cannot discriminate on who you date would be knocked down by the courts faster than you can say Loving v. Virginia

I'm an atheist with regards to the god they teach in law school. Ultimately, lawsuits are money fights. They follow the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." Pack the courts with judges who support whatever it is you want and the courts will rule however you want. Law is a myth. Precedent doubly so.
I believed this before my side got a SCOTUS majority and I believe it still.

Or can you source that gay adoption is actually harmful?

Of course the definition of "harmful" depends on what your philosophy of life is. When Jews circumcise their male babies, is that harmful? Different customs will be considered harmful or beneficial based entirely on who is judging them to be so.

[San Lumen]

And discriminating against adopters because they happen to be same-sex should be allowed because?

Because we don't have a common goal of what adoption is for on a fundamental level. We lack a shared answer to the question, "Why have adoption?" There's just no agreement there at all.

But this isn't uncommon. I mean we don't agree on what numerous other institutions are for either. Like we don't agree on what the military is for.

The discrimination being referred to has nothing to do with who you choose to date or not to date,

Yet.

but with businesses and the like refusing to do business with LGBT people because of their sexuality or gender identity.

So that you can force artistic creativity at the point of a policeman's gun. Bake the cake or else.

In fact, all of the big companies publicly support all of your nonsense. All of them. All of it. This is about trying to destroy small businesses and only small businesses in communities you dislike.

The government dictating that you cannot discriminate on who you date would be knocked down by the courts faster than you can say Loving v. Virginia

I'm an atheist with regards to the god they teach in law school. Ultimately, lawsuits are money fights. They follow the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." Pack the courts with judges who support whatever it is you want and the courts will rule however you want. Law is a myth. Precedent doubly so.
I believed this before my side got a SCOTUS majority and I believe it still.

Or can you source that gay adoption is actually harmful?

Of course the definition of "harmful" depends on what your philosophy of life is. When Jews circumcise their male babies, is that harmful? Different customs will be considered harmful or beneficial based entirely on who is judging them to be so.

How is gay adoption harmful?

[Moroniland]

That's because, with time, information gets corrected.

Also with time, regimes change. What happened there is that a regime which prided itself on being "anti-racist" got control of the academic institutions, so of course nothing racist was allowed. It's the same with every controversial issue, although race does seem to be the clearest example because of how utterly impossible it is to get any anti-egalitarian conclusions allowed to count as genuine research, despite egalitarianism ultimately not being evidence-based.

Because Wikipedia wants to make sure the information provided is accurate, thus sources are necessary to back up a claim.

Those two things have little in common with one another.

Otherwise, anyone can say random shit like zombies are real, or werewolves exist.

Since they already are doing both those things, (zombies being your political opponents and werewolves being Furries) these seems like unfortunate examples for your argument.

[Moroniland]

How is gay adoption harmful?

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

[Port Caverton]

How is gay adoption harmful?

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

the fuck? Why are gays evil? And how are gay couples not families?

[Nora Xent]

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

the fuck? Why are gays evil? And how are gay couples not families?

He is a mormon. Mormons believe all kind of crazy shit.

[Celritannia]

That's because, with time, information gets corrected.

Also with time, regimes change. What happened there is that a regime which prided itself on being "anti-racist" got control of the academic institutions, so of course nothing racist was allowed. It's the same with every controversial issue, although race does seem to be the clearest example because of how utterly impossible it is to get any anti-egalitarian conclusions allowed to count as genuine research, despite egalitarianism never being evidence-based.

Because Wikipedia wants to make sure the information provided is accurate, thus sources are necessary to back up a claim.

Those two things have little in common with one another.

Otherwise, anyone can say random shit like zombies are real, or werewolves exist.

Since they already are doing both those things, (zombies being your political opponents and werewolves being Furries) these seems like unfortunate examples for your argument.

Congratulations, I have never put someone on ignore this quick for absolutely absurd post stupidity before.

[YuriFornia]

And discriminating against adopters because they happen to be same-sex should be allowed because?

Because we don't have a common goal of what adoption is for on a fundamental level. We lack a shared answer to the question, "Why have adoption?" There's just no agreement there at all.

But this isn't uncommon. I mean we don't agree on what numerous other institutions are for either. Like we don't agree on what the military is for.

Yeah, I'm not going to play the whole "we don't agree on what x is for" game, thank you. There is broad agreement on these topics, and that's enough for me.

Yet.

Okay, show that anyone is seriously advocating for this in anything approaching a borderline meaningful amount.

So that you can force artistic creativity at the point of a policeman's gun. Bake the cake or else.

Welcome to living in a society. There are certain things taht you have to do, especially if you open a public business. Discrimination has been regulated (and in a lot of cases, banned) since Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, and said regulations and bans have expanded over time.

In fact, all of the big companies publicly support all of your nonsense. All of them. All of it. This is about trying to destroy small businesses and only small businesses in communities you dislike.

Strawman. I just don't want people discriminated against because of their immutable qualities.

I'm an atheist with regards to the god they teach in law school. Ultimately, lawsuits are money fights. They follow the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." Pack the courts with judges who support whatever it is you want and the courts will rule however you want. Law is a myth. Precedent doubly so.
I believed this before my side got a SCOTUS majority and I believe it still.

And I don't buy that in the least. But please, prove that all of that's the case.

Of course the definition of "harmful" depends on what your philosophy of life is. When Jews circumcise their male babies, is that harmful? Different customs will be considered harmful or beneficial based entirely on who is judging them to be so.

[/quote]
So, you play semantics instead of offering evidence. Good to know that you have no actual proof that gay adoption results in, say increase in mental illness, decrease in academic or job performance, or worse life outcomes overall. How's that for a definition of harm?

[YuriFornia]

How is gay adoption harmful?

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

Gay couples are families. Prove otherwise.

[Moroniland]

Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-NY) who is challenging incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul in the primary called the “Don’t say Gay “ bill reasonable in a recent interview.

Yeah, that's because it is. Don't go into a lot of detail about sex with K-3rd graders. That's all this is. A giant nothingburger which shouldn't even be controversial. It shouldn't have any actual effect on schools. I mean we shouldn't even be debating this. If we were debating something like banning gay teachers or some other policy of consequence then I could see that being controversial, but what the hell. We don't want schools pushing Christian ideas about sexuality in K-3 either. Just don't do sex at that level. Why is that even controversial!?

[San Lumen]

How is gay adoption harmful?

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

excuse me? You mean to tell me my friend in college didn't have a real family and that his parents were evil? How dare you. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine.

[YuriFornia]

How is gay adoption harmful?

The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.

Are you trying to get yourself banned again?

[Moroniland]

excuse me? You mean to tell me my friend in college didn't have a real family and that his parents were evil? How dare you. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine.

Yeah, that's what I said and I'm not convinced that very many people in general are "turning out fine" these days.
We just have a totally different and fundamentally incompatible set of moral values. (assuming you have any: I'm assuming you do although that isn't necessarily safe) What does it mean to be a good person? Our society lacks a basic agreement about that.
I mean you'd think Mother Theresa. There would be an example of a good person. But no, she must be cast down because reasons. Martin Luther King Jr? Womanizer. There just aren't any good people around anymore. In recent history, I can't name one.

[Necroghastia]

Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-NY) who is challenging incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul in the primary called the “Don’t say Gay “ bill reasonable in a recent interview.

Yeah, that's because it is. Don't go into a lot of detail about sex with K-3rd graders. That's all this is. A giant nothingburger which shouldn't even be controversial. It shouldn't have any actual effect on schools. I mean we shouldn't even be debating this. If we were debating something like banning gay teachers or some other policy of consequence then I could see that being controversial, but what the hell. We don't want schools pushing Christian ideas about sexuality in K-3 either. Just don't do sex at that level. Why is that even controversial!?

What is it with you people and assuming anything LGBT related is any more sexual than cishet stuff lol

[Moroniland]

What is it with you people and assuming anything LGBT related is any more sexual than cishet stuff lol

If by "cishet" you mean normal human sexual reproduction by which we all got to be here, then we don't want a lot of details about that in K-3rd grade either. How about let's not sexualize children, neither with gayness nor with anti-gayness. Just don't talk about it, at least not until 4th grade. Why is that so hard?

[San Lumen]

excuse me? You mean to tell me my friend in college didn't have a real family and that his parents were evil? How dare you. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine.

Yeah, that's what I said and I'm not convinced that very many people in general are "turning out fine" these days.
We just have a totally different and fundamentally incompatible set of moral values. (assuming you have any: I'm assuming you do although that isn't necessarily safe) What does it mean to be a good person? Our society lacks a basic agreement about that.
I mean you'd think Mother Theresa. There would be an example of a good person. But no, she must be cast down because reasons. Martin Luther King Jr? Womanizer. There just aren't any good people around anymore.

Don't dodge a response with meaningless drivel like this. How are gays evil? What supposed influence does having a single parent whose gay or two dads or mons have on a child?

I have real world experience with someone who had two dads. He turned out perfectly fine. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence other than bigotry and vague answers.

[HISPIDA]

excuse me? You mean to tell me my friend in college didn't have a real family and that his parents were evil? How dare you. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine.

Yeah, that's what I said and I'm not convinced that very many people in general are "turning out fine" these days.
We just have a totally different and fundamentally incompatible set of moral values. (assuming you have any: I'm assuming you do although that isn't necessarily safe) What does it mean to be a good person? Our society lacks a basic agreement about that.
I mean you'd think Mother Theresa. There would be an example of a good person. But no, she must be cast down because reasons. Martin Luther King Jr? Womanizer. There just aren't any good people around anymore. In recent history, I can't name one.

hear me out: people can still be good people even if they have bad traits

gandhi was a racist and a pretty creepy dude but he was still influential in getting the british out of india

lenin was a poor economist and rude but he helped create the first socialist state in history

martin luther king, jr. was a womanizer and an adulterer but he still spearheaded one of the greatest movements for basic rights in western history

[Necroghastia]

What is it with you people and assuming anything LGBT related is any more sexual than cishet stuff lol

If by "cishet" you mean normal human sexual reproduction by which we all got to be here, then we don't want a lot of details about that in K-3rd grade either. How about let's not sexualize children, neither with gayness nor with anti-gayness. Just don't talk about it, at least not until 4th grade. Why is that so hard?

how is mentioning that someone has two dads sexualizing children lol