Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Thread starter iatrogenic
- Start date
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Yep. Taking something off a recommended / required reading list is not "banning" it.
Removing it from a school library isn't banning it. Even removing it from the public library isn't banning it. We don't typically see Hustler magazines in libraries, but nobody would say Hustler is banned.
Look for the Garmel section.
Yep, getting your own section at the public library is one of the honors of being the undisputed King of Sleaze.
Adding that might increase library attendance at high schools.
I was walking around B&N the other day. I ran across this in the kids' section: A Kids Book About Banned Books. i knew it would be laughable. It basically says if a librarian wants a book in his/her (or they, apparently most likely these days) library but someone says no, then it meets their definition of banned.
No mention of age appropriate discussions or input from library users. againGee, have a few orgies and you get called a perv. What's this world coming to?
Too funny.
"Seattle-based ice cream company, Molly Moon’s Homemade Ice Cream, is suing for extensive property damage that it suffered from a BLM zone CHOP in 2020
The lawsuit claims that it 'does not seek to undermine CHOP participants' message or present a counter message.'"
So why not sue BLM?
Pro-BLM ice cream chain sues Seattle over ‘extensive property damage’ from BLM autonomous zone ‘CHOP’: Report
"Seattle-based ice cream company, Molly Moon’s Homemade Ice Cream, is suing for extensive property damage that it suffered from a BLM zone CHOP in 2020
The lawsuit claims that it 'does not seek to undermine CHOP participants' message or present a counter message.'"
So why not sue BLM?
Pro-BLM ice cream chain sues Seattle over ‘extensive property damage’ from BLM autonomous zone ‘CHOP’: Report
Facing Addiction
1,000+ Posts
Funny, but even if they did run out of things, they're very good at coming up with new contrived controversies. Look at gender ideology. Ten years ago, there was almost universal agreement about what men and women were, but everybody was fighting about gay marriage. The Court handed down Obergefell, and the fighting mostly stopped.
Within a few months many of the same people freaking out about the supposed injustice of the definition of marriage that had applied without controversy for thousands of years were suddenly furious that guys who masqueraded as women weren't guaranteed of the right to pull their dicks out in front of women and little girls while they're showering - another issue on which there was previously no controversy for thousands of years. If they win on this, they'll be freaking out at the supposed injustice of not being allowed to have sex with children. They're already hinting at it.
I'm not sure what race hustlers would move on to, but they'll move onto something. They aren't just going to go home and get real jobs. Maybe they'll be mad that crack dealers aren't allowed to call themselves pharmacists or that health insurance and Medicaid don't pay for illegal drugs. Who the hell knows? But they'll find something.
Being liberal means always finding something to complain about and change then move on to the next topic. You think it's pedophilia, and of course, you may be right. Elsewhere on the liberal index must be polygamy, bestiality, reparations, closure of religious schools, and more.
Reparations are part of the race hustling wing. Closing religious schools is part of the God hatred wing. Those are somewhat similar but not the same as the sexual perversion wing.
I don't think polygamy wil be next, because most polygamists are hard-line social and religious conservatives. They are Mormons who think the mainstream LDS church got soft and liberal. The Left won't align with them
I don't think beastiality is next, because the animal rights people would go ballistic. They'd have to come up with a way for the animal to consent to break that impasse, and that would be a tall order.
I think pedophilia is next, because it's an easier target. Can a child really not consent to sex? Normal people know they generally can't, but is there really some objective proof that they never can? No. We just assume it because it's obvious, so we legally deem it so. Well, that leaves all kinds of room to dismiss such laws as bigoted and presumptuous without running into conflict with other leftist constituencies or enabling a right wing constituency like polygamy does.
And we're already seeing the early signs of the move. We're celebrating the involvement of children in clearly sexual contexts like drag queen shows and graphic sexual literature and discussion at school. We're seeing academia starting to change their language on pedophilia to the less stigmatizing verbiage line "minor attracted persons. It may take another 5 - 10 years, but it's definitely coming.
Can't get much more queer than that? Queerly, you misspelled something there.
Not sure, but I always heard when you die, you will have to go through Atlanta on your way to Heaven.
But seriously, yes, that would be along the great circle route to Amsterdam.
Were you trying to fly to Amsterdam for the weed or the hookers?
My guess is both.
Also, there has been storms on the east coast that the pilots may have wanted to avoided.
From the court's perspective, wouldn't the limit of one concurrent spouse be more arbitrary? It made sense pre-Obergefell since the laws were drafted around what it takes to make children. Since gay marriage can't produce offspring, why the limit? It doesn't seem like it'd take major liberal action to challenge that, avoiding the link to Mormons.
You're arguing legal and logical consistency, and you're absolutely right. If we apply the substantive due process rationale applied in Obergefell, there is no rational basis whatsoever to prohibit polygamy.
However, the political agenda has to make sense for the political Left to take up the cause, and I just don't see them doing it. It's not because they have some principled opposition to polygamy. It's because they don't like the overwhelming majority of polygamists. They do like people who like to sexualize and corrupt children.
Plus, it requires the wife/wives to be submissive to the husband (at least historically so).
It would be positioned as a person can marry any other number of people at the same time, regardless of the individual's gender and spouses' genders. For example, a lady could marry three dudes, six other ladies, and two transgenders, as along as each was an adult and consented to the marriage. I guess the only challenge is - does that make each of the 12 people in the example above married to each other or only to the one initial lady? I assume just to the lady.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
