Transgender Rights

[Abhorsen]

No, I’m talking about the people who helped push transgenderism and pedo-behavior.

I am NOT referring to everyone who was homosexual. I think I was pretty clear on that point.

Thanks for the clarification, I very much read the opposite, glad to know I read it wrong (which I should have realized was strange, apologies, you aren't the type of person to do that).

 

[DarthOne]

Thanks for the clarification, I very much read the opposite, glad to know I read it wrong (which I should have realized was strange, apologies, you aren't the type of person to do that).

Don’t worry about it, we all make our mistakes.

 

[Jormungandr]

"We've zapped three of them this morning!"

 

[S'task]

Problem is, none of his studies were scientific and were dismissed at the time.

You're otherwise correct on the timeline... ish... Kinsey actually began his studies in the 1940s and 50s and earlier. He was separate from the Weimar folks.

However, his studies were not dismissed at the time. They actually were hugely impactful, being best sellers when the two books were originally published. The impact these books made was not in the generation that read them, after all, those adults were already set in their ways... however, it had a massive impact on the generation of children who were being raised at the time in the United States and the West.

Take a look at the timeline: the two Kinsey reports were published in 1948 and 1953. The GI Generation and Silent Generation were mostly grown up and to old by that point to be heavily influenced (though the Silent Generation did have a preview of the later Hippy movement known as the Beatniks that often expressed similar ideas)... but you know who would be raised and educated under the assumptions of those two books?

Those born from 1946 - 1964... A certain generation known as the "Baby Boomers". The generation that saw the Sexual Revolution, "Free Love", and the all the sexual changes.

Yeah. To say those books didn't have an impact is to misunderstand the timeline. Those two books combined with some other factors are what directly led to the Sexual Revolution.

 

[Cherico]

Hiding your actual gender to a prospective partner, even if it's just paid-for sex, is going to get more and more people killed.

We're going to be seeing more cases like this and vice-versa.

Its also a bad fincial move.

Look at the end of the day there are a lot of bi sexual people if your trans and a prositute then be freaking open with it, just accept your in a nitch market and you will most likely do fine in finding customers. Like any other business its a bad idea to lie to your customers.

 

[DarthOne]

You're otherwise correct on the timeline... ish... Kinsey actually began his studies in the 1940s and 50s and earlier. He was separate from the Weimar folks.

However, his studies were not dismissed at the time. They actually were hugely impactful, being best sellers when the two books were originally published. The impact these books made was not in the generation that read them, after all, those adults were already set in their ways... however, it had a massive impact on the generation of children who were being raised at the time in the United States and the West.

Take a look at the timeline: the two Kinsey reports were published in 1948 and 1953. The GI Generation and Silent Generation were mostly grown up and to old by that point to be heavily influenced (though the Silent Generation did have a preview of the later Hippy movement known as the Beatniks that often expressed similar ideas)... but you know who would be raised and educated under the assumptions of those two books?

Those born from 1946 - 1964... A certain generation known as the "Baby Boomers". The generation that saw the Sexual Revolution, "Free Love", and the all the sexual changes.

Yeah. To say those books didn't have an impact is to misunderstand the timeline. Those two books combined with some other factors are what directly led to the Sexual Revolution.

I stand corrected then and thank you for pointing out my mistakes.

And I thought I couldn’t hate that bastard more…

 

[Aldarion]

By go after them, what you mean is shove the gays into concentration camps and use their pink triangles as target practice? Because that's what the nazis did.

It was not right for the Nazis to go after them. It was in fact deeply wrong. There's a difference between being gay, being a communist, and being a pedo. The latter two are evil, the first isn't.

See, that's what a lot of religious people don't understand, won't admit, or cannot even comprehend: The value of "homosexuality is innately wrong" isn't shared by most people anymore.

People don't care if someone's gay, Bi, or a lesbian if they're just a regular person with a different orientation. That includes shagging their partners behind closed doors like any other hetero couple would do.

Homosexuality is innately wrong, it just isn't evil.

Communism and pedophilia however are innately evil.

As for what "most people think"... that is not a measure you can use for whether something is wrong or not. After all, most Muslims would agree that a 60 year old screwing a 9 year old is just fine and dandy... doesn't mean they are correct.

 

[King Arts]

Not quite sure this belongs here or somewhere else? If a mod wishes to move this, please do.

San Francisco Prostitute Says He Killed Victim Who Realized He Is Transgender and Wanted Refund

SF Prostitute Says He Killed Victim Who Realized He Is Transgender

A prostitute is facing second-degree murder charges after a man was found dead near Crissy Field in San Francisco, California.

www.breitbart.com

Because of course it’s San Francisco.

This is why even though it’s evil prostitution should be legal and regulated that way John’s and prostitutes won’t kill each other a greater evil if they think one party is cheating the other.

Hiding your actual gender to a prospective partner, even if it's just paid-for sex, is going to get more and more people killed.

We're going to be seeing more cases like this and vice-versa.

I’d argue that action should be treated as rape.

Homosexuality is innately wrong, it just isn't evil.

Communism and pedophilia however are innately evil.

As for what "most people think"... that is not a measure you can use for whether something is wrong or not. After all, most Muslims would agree that a 60 year old screwing a 9 year old is just fine and dandy... doesn't mean they are correct.

I’m curious what reasoning you are using for innately evil? Because without god you can’t derive objective morality, and well except for Hinduism and Buddhism religion says gay acts are a sin and sinful acts are evil.

Edit I’m asking this because you say you are Catholic so I’m wondering what logic you are using.

 

[Aldarion]

I’m curious what reasoning you are using for innately evil? Because without god you can’t derive objective morality, and well except for Hinduism and Buddhism religion says gay acts are a sin and sinful acts are evil.

Well, Islam accepts pedophilia, so I'm not sure I care much for using religion as a sole measure anymore. My religiousness took a hard hit ever since a) I started reading Qur'an and b) kept hearing that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god...

But innately evil means violating basic properties of a human being: in this case, violating free will.

A child has not yet developed morality, is reliant on adults for many aspects of life (including psychological development) and is not independent either. Thus, child is fundamentally incapable of providing consent, which means that - even with apparent consent - sex with a child would still be a case of rape.

 

[King Arts]

Well, Islam accepts pedophilia, so I'm not sure I care much for using religion as a sole measure anymore. My religiousness took a hard hit ever since a) I started reading Qur'an and b) kept hearing that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god...

But innately evil means violating basic properties of a human being: in this case, violating free will.

A child has not yet developed morality, is reliant on adults for many aspects of life (including psychological development) and is not independent either. Thus, child is fundamentally incapable of providing consent, which means that - even with apparent consent - sex with a child would still be a case of rape.

No you misunderstood I was not asking why sex with a child was wrong. I was asking why gay sex is not wrong. I was asking about your first sentence. I was not talking about the rest of your post I agree with it it’s logical.

I’m sorry I’m on the phone if I was on a computer I could have bolded the thing I was quoting easier.

Edit that’s why I added the your Catholic thing at the end. Because it’s a traditional Christian position that morality comes from god he is the final arbiter on what is good or bad. He decides what is innately good or bad.

 

[ATP]

Well, Islam accepts pedophilia, so I'm not sure I care much for using religion as a sole measure anymore. My religiousness took a hard hit ever since a) I started reading Qur'an and b) kept hearing that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god...

But innately evil means violating basic properties of a human being: in this case, violating free will.

A child has not yet developed morality, is reliant on adults for many aspects of life (including psychological development) and is not independent either. Thus, child is fundamentally incapable of providing consent, which means that - even with apparent consent - sex with a child would still be a case of rape.

About jews - those who follow Talmud certainly do not worshipp our God,or even Jahwe,but some tribal demiurg.
Koran - i read,that it was created by christian or jewish heretics,and since ERE treated them as heretics during first 100 years of their wars,it is possible.

 

[King Arts]

Well, Islam accepts pedophilia, so I'm not sure I care much for using religion as a sole measure anymore. My religiousness took a hard hit ever since a) I started reading Qur'an and b) kept hearing that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god...

But innately evil means violating basic properties of a human being: in this case, violating free will.

A child has not yet developed morality, is reliant on adults for many aspects of life (including psychological development) and is not independent either. Thus, child is fundamentally incapable of providing consent, which means that - even with apparent consent - sex with a child would still be a case of rape.

Edit I figured out how to bold using a phone. Again sorry for being unclear.

 

[Aldarion]

No you misunderstood I was not asking why sex with a child was wrong. I was asking why gay sex is not wrong. I was asking about your first sentence. I was not talking about the rest of your post I agree with it it’s logical.

I’m sorry I’m on the phone if I was on a computer I could have bolded the thing I was quoting easier.

Uh, I never said that gay sex is not wrong. Read again what I wrote:

Homosexuality is innately wrong, it just isn't evil.

Communism and pedophilia however are innately evil.

Gay sex is wrong because purpose of sex is procreation. "Sex for fun" is something animals do.

But gay sex is not evil because it does not violate free will.

So it should not be promoted (or accepted) but you shouldn't execute people for it, or even throw them into prison. Psych ward? Perhaps.

Raping a kid however should warrant death sentence by default. Hanging, preferably.

EDIT:

Edit I'm asking this because you say you are Catholic so I'm wondering what logic you are using.

I don't remember saying that. I was raised a Catholic, but pretty much abandoned it for various reasons.

 

[King Arts]

Uh, I never said that gay sex is not wrong. Read again what I wrote:

Gay sex is wrong because purpose of sex is procreation. "Sex for fun" is something animals do.

But gay sex is not evil because it does not violate free will.

So it should not be promoted (or accepted) but you shouldn't execute people for it, or even throw them into prison. Psych ward? Perhaps.

Raping a kid however should warrant death sentence by default. Hanging, preferably.

EDIT:

I don't remember saying that. I was raised a Catholic, but pretty much abandoned it for various reasons.

Ahh I was using wrong and evil as synonyms.

But now that you explained your logic and that you were raised catholic but aren’t anymore I understand now. Thank you for explaining it.

 

[S'task]

My religiousness took a hard hit ever since a) I started reading Qur'an and b) kept hearing that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god...

So this is a much more complicated question that each group answers differently.

According to Jews, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God as them. From a theological / historical perspective Christians are, in effect, a heretical Jewish sect that went crazy and got to big and basically forgot their true roots. Muslims meanwhile are at best a religion founded upon what amounts to religious fanfiction of the Jewish Torah as rewritten by a tribal warlord to provide him religious excuses for his conquest and appetites.

According to Christians, Jews and Christians worship the same God and there is direct continuity from the Jews to the Christians, and that Christianity represents a fulfilling of Judaism and that while Jews are still God's Chosen People, God has extended those blessings and promise of Eternal Life to all Peoples through Christ, which Jews can accept and be a part of too. Muslims meanwhile are at best a religion founded upon what amounts to religious fanfiction of the Bible as rewritten by a tribal warlord to provide him religious excuses for his conquest and appetites*.

According to Muslims, they all worship the same God, but Jews and Christians follow imperfect revelations of that God and that what was revealed to Mohammad is the actually true and perfect version that God wanted told, and the Jews and Christians are, in effect, heretics and fools for clinging to their older revelations and need to be shown the error of their ways... by force if necessary.

From a documentation standpoint, history is more on the side of Jews and Christians in their consideration of Muslims. There's little to no direct continuity between Islam and the other two, unlike there is with Judaism and Christianity. The Quran appears much, MUCH later than any of the other scriptures while many of the stories appearing in it in regards to figures like Abraham, Moses, etc. just appear to be cribbed from the Torah without attestation**. There is likewise no strong continuity of theology in Islam when compared to Judaism and Christianity, which have strong theological ties where one cannot truly understand Christian theology without having some understanding of ancient Jewish religion, as the theology is directly tied.

There are many Christians who consider Islam to be a work of Satan designed to deceive and corrupt God's Word, especially considering how many of Islam's teachings seem to conflict and oppose the theology and morality put forwards in Jewish and Christian scripture while enabling men to indulge in many vices while including just enough moral groundwork to make both a functioning society and also come off not as entirely out of line with those traditions.

-------------
* Note, this isn't the first such religious group to appear like this, there's actually a lot of groups that make these claims of "new revelation" that supersedes the old... Mormons being one of the more famous modern examples.

** Note how this stands in stark contrast to Christianity, which integrates the Jewish scriptures into it's own. Christianity makes no secret of it's links to Judaism nor does it pretend to have more accurate renditions of the Torah than the Jews do. While there is some quibbling over some specific translations between the Torah and the Christian Old Testament, they are much more alike than they are different, and these translation quibbles mainly come from Christians tending to prefer to refer back to the oldest source documents they can find while modern Jews prefer to focus on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of those documents made in the 3rd century BC.

 

[Aldarion]

** Note how this stands in stark contrast to Christianity, which integrates the Jewish scriptures into it's own. Christianity makes no secret of it's links to Judaism nor does it pretend to have more accurate renditions of the Torah than the Jews do. While there is some quibbling over some specific translations between the Torah and the Christian Old Testament, they are much more alike than they are different, and these translation quibbles mainly come from Christians tending to prefer to refer back to the oldest source documents they can find while modern Jews prefer to focus on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of those documents made in the 3rd century BC.

And that is large part of my problem, and why I am - in this question - actually closest to Jewish viewpoint. I simply cannot reconcile the strict, slightly psychopathic God of the Old Testament with an all-loving Christian God.

Meanwhile Islam is not that hard to explain - it is just an unusually successful Christian heresy. But modern-day Christians seem to have forgotten that.

Thanks for the explanation, btw.

 

[Jormungandr]

And that is large part of my problem, and why I am - in this question - actually closest to Jewish viewpoint. I simply cannot reconcile the strict, slightly psychopathic God of the Old Testament with an all-loving Christian God.

Meanwhile Islam is not that hard to explain - it is just an unusually successful Christian heresy. But modern-day Christians seem to have forgotten that.

Thanks for the explanation, btw.

It's also why I can't take religion at all seriously.

Religions are spawned from other religions, and like language families you can basically track one back to where it spawned from by just studying history. That's one of the reasons why it's all fiction to me on par with Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

Hell, Judaism itself started as a bloody cult from Canaanite pantheon worship!

 

[ATP]

And that is large part of my problem, and why I am - in this question - actually closest to Jewish viewpoint. I simply cannot reconcile the strict, slightly psychopathic God of the Old Testament with an all-loving Christian God.

Meanwhile Islam is not that hard to explain - it is just an unusually successful Christian heresy. But modern-day Christians seem to have forgotten that.

Thanks for the explanation, btw

Jews after 93AD basically worshipp tribal god,who do not care about others.And koran most liely was made by christian heretics,although they could be heretical jews,too.

Most interesting theory is,that Koran is very changed psalter of some heretical christian group.

God of Old and New Testament - it is easy to explain,God love us and even died and ressurected for us,but HE still burn those who do not abadonned luciper.

 

[S'task]

Hell, Judaism itself started as a bloody cult from Canaanite pantheon worship!

This is a highly contested idea that has very limited actual evidence supporting it beyond claims by some academics. Further, those academics often have... ulterior motives for making those claims: they fundamentally amount to wanting to disprove the Biblical account of early Jewish history that functionally makes the claim they were always a monotheistic religious faith even going back to their earliest founding families.

This is the same motive for academics in the late 19th and early 20th century who claimed things like the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure. An idea now widely considered false in the academic world, as there's to much supporting evidence for a Jewish itinerate teacher who would later be called "Jesus the Christ" living, teaching, and executed in Judea in the 1st century AD*.

-----------
* And if we consider there to be not enough evidence to account for a historical Jesus, by that same standard we end up saying a LOT of other major historical figures are "mythical", including many Caesars of Rome, ancient Kings, and major figures of philosophy.

 

[Jormungandr]

This is a highly contested idea that has very limited actual evidence supporting it beyond claims by some academics. Further, those academics often have... ulterior motives for making those claims: they fundamentally amount to wanting to disprove the Biblical account of early Jewish history that functionally makes the claim they were always a monotheistic religious faith even going back to their earliest founding families.

This is the same motive for academics in the late 19th and early 20th century who claimed things like the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure. An idea now widely considered false in the academic world, as there's to much supporting evidence for a Jewish itinerate teacher who would later be called "Jesus the Christ" living, teaching, and executed in Judea in the 1st century AD*.

-----------
* And if we consider there to be not enough evidence to account for a historical Jesus, by that same standard we end up saying a LOT of other major historical figures are "mythical", including many Caesars of Rome, ancient Kings, and major figures of philosophy.

It originated from the same area, at roughly the same time, and many linguistics match up. Even if it somehow didn't start as a cult from within that pantheon worship that became monotheistic and went from there, I'd say there is definitely some link/"spawn" point for Judaism from Canaanite civilization/religion, and I think that's the most likely case.

Biblical Jewish history accounts are fantastical embellishments of what happened, but many events did happen (which can be corroborated through archeological evidence and such). I'm... not trying to say otherwise or implying something...?