Regarding sexualized drag shows for LITTLE CHILDREN:

He was referring to teachers in the classroom that's not a bully puppet or you get to have free speech that's actually a person that's working as an agent for the government.

So in the practice of teaching if you speak freely you're speaking for the government you're not just an ordinary citizen teaching at a private school. This is about upholding the right to free speech is in freedom from government regulated speech.

The classroom is not an open forum. It is required by law that children attend. So if you want to talk about how gay you are and how gay you think everyone else should be and how they need to address you by whatever screwball pronouns you make up and you're a teacher you're saying that you don't have free speech because you have to listen to an agent of the government tell you what to say and think.

Teachers in public schools are government employees that makes them servants they are not to have free speech with regard to the classroom that isn't a right afforded to them and that's why they can get fired for saying things.

 

yes some of them are some of them are even sex offenders.

A drag queen is just a person like anyone else they're not any kind of nobility or special person that is outside of The human condition so they can be criminals they can do things they shouldn't do and we see that.

I disagree with this also the messaging is this is coming to a school near you. It is also a virtue signal created specifically to provoke so-called people who drive their four wheelers to go vote.

There is no conceivable reason that you can give me for why a man has to dress up and drag to read the children. It is designed so that the parents of these kids can virtue signal about how woke they are. That's the only reason we're talking about it if it wasn't designed for this we wouldn't be.

 

Nope, homeschooling does exist.

 

just like some consider religious people that believe in and talk to imaginary Gods delusional, with mental issues - this is a perfect comparison to what you were saying

 

I think Judge Mark Walker broke it down pretty well:

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,” and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the State has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of “freedom.” To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the State of Florida passed the so-called “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act in 2022—redubbed (in line with the State’s doublespeak) the “Individual Freedom Act.” The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this Act, professors enjoy “academic freedom” so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian. It should go without saying that “if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document...d-denying-part-motions-preliminary-injunction

 

So you think you have a free speech right to discuss gay and trans sexuality issues with 5 year olds.
Pretty sick

 

do you think it's ok to give a child a bible, one with incest and such in it? father daughter sex?

Should we ban prince and princess books

Everything can be taken to extremes

 

None of what you posted here shows how a teacher in a public school is not a government agent.

The government does not have free speech to indoctrinate children that's a limit.

 

Of course we are talking about you, because it is your judgement that the intention of crossdressers, is some sinister form of deception. The short person, who uses high heels or shoe lifts, is also trying to deceive viewers-- how could they not be? Likewise, the bald person, with a toupee, the overweight person, using girdling, the aged person, who's had a face lift, the flat chested, using a wonder bra, and of course, the person with artificial breast implants. That it is actually a man, beneath his makeup and dress, I think is generally much easier to discern, than any of those aforementioned deceits. For one thing, men usually have noticeable Adam's apples. As you'd noted, sometimes a crossdressing male will leave even more obvious tells, like facial hair, or will speak in their own, male voice:

How many women do you know, who go around in public, with beards? That you interpret this as trying to fool others, is very odd, to say the least. So I think that your fundamental conceptualization of crossdressing, is flawed: crossdressers are often presenting what they feel is a truer version of their inner self-- to be dressing up in "manly" way, they might feel, and a case could be made, would be the greater deception. This may be the appearance they feel best represents who they are, inside, or at least the way they sometimes like to see themselves. It is therefore no more deceitful, and often less so, than a woman or man representing their selves to be better physically endowed-- more buxom, or better "hung"-- than is truly the case. So, once more, it is you who is placing some enhanced emphasis, on the gender issue.

Or what if a crossdresser just likes the way it feels-- where's the crime in that? Why is this of such significance, to maintaining a society with good "values?" What about people who are, naturally, androgenous looking, so that their sex isn't always, initially obvious (the "It's Pat!" phenomenon-- once upon a time, a running skit, on Saturday Night Live)? Should they be required, in "the best society we can build," to always wear a pin, stating, or symbolizing their sex? Or perhaps that best society should be run like Catholic schools, in which all the girls are required to wear a uniform with a skirt, and all the boys, with slacks?

That is the part that I genuinely don't understand about your argument, nor that I feel you have adequately explained: how does my seeing a man, dressed as a woman, or a woman attired as a man, cause me to lose my grip on reality, any more so, than any other of the misrepresentations, I've mentioned? Why the special emphasis on the necessity of us each knowing, not how tall, how young or old, how toned or physically fit, other people are but, whether they have, under whatever's covering their crotch, a pee-pee, or a purse? Why is that intrinsic to a "civil" society, and a must, of "responsible human conduct?" Without that, why can there be no "dignity" or "self respect?" If you are speaking to someone on the phone, and are unsure of their sex, are you unable to respect them?


Many people "dress for success," representing themselves to be more successful, & financially well-off than, in truth, they are. I think that @btthegreat has already made the point, that all fashion includes a degree of illusion, is about projecting images that are not necessarily factual, but are the way we see ourselves, and would like others to see us, as well. Your acceptance of this, as merely peoples' "improv(ing) the presentation," of what they are, except in cases when one's sexual identity is involved, is something that is central to your perspective, but which you have failed to specifically address, other than by throwing around terms, indicating you find this indecent, but without advancing any argument as to why this should be the case. Is there really a need, or are we entitled, to know everyone's sexual identity? If preferring the clothing which is customarily worn, in a given society, by the opposite sex, is false advertising, how is that not also true of women, who wear a certain style of leather and latex, associated with alternate forms of sexuality, but who are nevertheless not into bondage or S & M? Shouldn't their clothing, tell the world, that they are into "vanilla" sex? Is not our society just as vulnerable to being corrupted, losing its way, and collapsing, if it tolerates this type of deceitful projection? How can we expect, under such circumstances, to maintain our collective sanity??!

 

A person has to be extremely dense or just belligerent to be unwilling to acknowledge the obvious.
Ideology- the assumption that everything is negotiable and there are no baselines, no solid foundations for anything, is the ideal way to escape responsibility for being what you are, for believing whatever is convenient for you at the moment. . It's also the way to promote the loss of identity, of purpose, of value, of the capacity to understand life in the very society you are part of.... reducing the capacity of people to a state of confusion, not sure about anything, incapable of self-managing their own life and world. Obviously, you have no idea how that affects the future. Or, you do but don't care.

The topic of the thread is "Sexualized drag shows for children". It seems you don't see anything wrong with this? It's just an extension of normal? No baseline.

Every living thing on this planet is born as something specific; those things know what they are, they are well equipped to be what the are and succeed as what they are. So long as they remember that and don't try to be what they are not.... they thrive. They have no government, no politicians, no psychologists, no religions, none of the crap humans use to try to keep themselves from going off the rails, with just limited success. They are without question, smarter than we are when it comes to excelling and thriving, living well and happy. They do it without trashing or poisoning the planet as well- Then there is the human race, which will probably be the first species in history to be totally responsible for it's own extinction. Unfortunately, we are likely to take a great many others down in the process.

That's nature making the rules, and they are not negotiable. You can ignore them, but unlike human rules, the consequences of doing so are unavoidable and will happen. You are free to do what you wish- but not free to destroy the society others have built.

Nobody immersed in the nonsense sees the larger picture. Not because they can't, but because they won't. It's like this old cartoon... sadly, more relevant to today that when it was created decades ago.

 

Sounds like an issue that only exists in your imagination.

 

That is what it is promoted as the thread's subject; but when we look at the supporting links, it is clear the title has been a case of false advertising-- just as you apparently see crossdressing, to be. It seems to me that internet misinformation, has a far greater potential for causing people to lose sight of what's real, than some guy, walking around in drag.


In fact, check out XXJefferson#51's new thread about a voter poll, cited by Breitbart. You can use the link at the article, to see all the findings, not just the few, highlighted in the OP. And there you will see that the same 79% of respondents, strongly or somewhat agreed that they wanted a reduction in online misinformation, as who had voted in the midterms, based on concerns over the economy, inflation, crime, & immigration (combined).


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ary-6-committee.605813/page-2#post-1073864340

 

You don't seem to realize that what I'm talking about IS dis-information.

 

If parents told their kids it was OK to kill someone, would that be OK to?

In other words, is it OK to sexualize minors?

 

Ironically, you are actually demonstrating the effects of online disinformation, right now, as you claim this thread is about "Sexualized drag shows for children," when no evidence of such, was provided.

 

Because that's a valid analogy?

 

Wait...are you comparing murder to a drag queen show? You DO know murder is against the law, right??? You ALSO realize I said I wouldn't bring my kids to a drag queen show, right?

 

Probably THE dumbest analogy I've seen on this forum.

 

Since you decided to butt in, I posted mine because a previous poster posted that parents brought their kids to drag queen shows and shouldn't parents be able to tell their kids what to do? Of course, the disingenuous previous poster doesn't care if parents have a say about raising their own kids.

 

I don't know-- it was a ridiculous one; but there'd be a lot of competition, for that title.

 

Hahaha...very true

 

Why do you imply that's not a good analogy (in your words)? I mean the previous poster was implying it was OK for kids to be a drag queen shows 'cause their parents brought them to drag queen shows.

Not only that, but you and the other poster don't even care if parents have a say in how their kids are raised.

 

Nope. Never made that claim

Nope. Never made that claim

 

What does this post mean, then?

 

Yes, I saw your quote, so realized to what you were responding, in your equating of someone's believing a parent had the right to bring his or her child to a drag show, with the person also being all right with the idea of a parent's right to teach their kid that murder is an acceptable practice. I just think that comparison is a dramatic fail.

I did notice, however, that you at least tried to improve your post, with an edit about sexualizing minors, which would be much closer to the right ball park. But in the first linked video, which is to what I believe ECA was directing his comment, the performer was not a minor, so your response doesn't really make sense.