United States Co-founder of gay activist group HRC charged with sex abuse of 15-year-old boy

[S'task]

No more than any other sub group has issue with lunatics and sicko's taking advantage of it. And rooting them out is a lot easier if people do not also fear people like you using the incident to try to attack same-sex marriage and LGB stuff on the whole.

After all, Old Dementia Joe has been sniffing a lot of girls, and Hunter has gotten up to all sorts of things verging on pedo stuff (including possibly involving family members) seem perfectly hetero.

Again, trying to blame LGBs and the whole LGB movement for there being pedo's in powerful positions, or existing at all, is like blaming flies for there being garbage around.

You're seeing accusations of collective guilt where people are not making them. Folks are trying to argue philosophical first principles here and point out how the foundational principles of the Gay Rights movement have issues. They are not blaming the movement for that, but rather, trying to get you to look at the actual underlying logic of the movement and understand it's flaws.

 

[Bacle]

You're seeing accusations of collective guilt where people are not making them. Folks are trying to argue philosophical first principles here and point out how the foundational principles of the Gay Rights movement have issues. They are not blaming the movement for that, but rather, trying to get you to look at the actual underlying logic of the movement and understand it's flaws.

Yeah, that's the thing, people here ARE blaming the movement as a whole, and did multiple times on the last page, while trying to either act like the movement either doesn't self police enough or abides these scum as a matter of course, and going on about how when the political compass swings back the LGBs will have to fear the days of Stonewall coming back or worse.

Or did you not see the people fantasizing about a coming 'backlash' against LGBs, and how bad it will be, in the last page?

And how many times previously have people here tried to make threads about how bad the LGB movement as a whole is, how bad same-sex marriage is, and showing why LGBs should fear the political Right gaining serious power again?

It's the same shit again and again, with different excuses or justifications for bring in/bringing up anti-LGB rhetoric, so excuse me if I am not buying the 'first principles' cover for the arguments that I've seen variations of time and again.

 

[Abhorsen]

You're seeing accusations of collective guilt where people are not making them. Folks are trying to argue philosophical first principles here and point out how the foundational principles of the Gay Rights movement have issues. They are not blaming the movement for that, but rather, trying to get you to look at the actual underlying logic of the movement and understand it's flaws.

See, the problem here is that the gay rights movement wasn't much of a philosophical movement. It was a civil rights movement. This means that the members weren't too concerned about their arguments being perfect or susceptible to exploitation, but instead not being lobotomized/castrated by the state, and later not dying in droves because of AIDS, and more recently with the right to marry. So critiquing the philosophical origins of the movement doesn't actually hit the majority of the movement, but instead a couple of thought leaders that 90%+ of members haven't read nor really care about what they say. Kinsey is cared about more than Foucalt, and in his case, they only care about the science (by which I mean his data, not abstract theorizing), not his philosophy, and then only because it tracks with things they've seen in real life (most just use the scale, that's it).

Basically, this isn't marxism or CRT where the philosophical theory is vital to the movement.

As for the principle of consent being the only thing that matters, one can arrive there in multiple ways, some from postmodernism, others from the NAP. The problem of arriving via postmodernism is that not even consent really matters then, as Foucalt has no fixed morality, just whatever society says is okay is okay. But arriving there via the NAP doesn't come with moral relativism, but does come with nearly everything the gay rights movement wants (no antidiscrimination laws, but that's about it).

 

[Bacle]

See, the problem here is that the gay rights movement wasn't much of a philosophical movement. It was a civil rights movement. This means that the members weren't too concerned about their arguments being perfect or susceptible to exploitation, but instead not being lobotomized/castrated by the state, and later not dying in droves because of AIDS, and more recently with the right to marry. So critiquing the philosophical origins of the movement doesn't actually hit the majority of the movement, but instead a couple of thought leaders that 90%+ of members haven't read nor really care about what they say. Kinsey is cared about more than Foucalt, and in his case, they only care about the science (by which I mean his data, not abstract theorizing), not his philosophy, and then only because it tracks with things they've seen in real life (most just use the scale, that's it).

Basically, this isn't marxism or CRT where the philosophical theory is vital to the movement.

As for the principle of consent being the only thing that matters, one can arrive there in multiple ways, some from postmodernism, others from the NAP. The problem of arriving via postmodernism is that not even consent really matters then, as Foucalt has no fixed morality, just whatever society says is okay is okay. But arriving there via the NAP doesn't come with moral relativism, but does come with nearly everything the gay rights movement wants (no antidiscrimination laws, but that's about it).

Yes, that is the real disconnect; to them it's Christian moral philosophy that matters, not American civil rights, when it comes LGB stuff.

Also, lets not forget the guy in the OP hid behind power, just like this douche: