- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So according to Leftists and Liberaltarians , it's not OK to call someone groomer...
Posted on 7/22/22 at 12:58 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/22/22 at 12:58 pm to AggieHank86
Defending Groomers has become a bat signal for you. Might wanna think about that.
1
Posted on 7/22/22 at 12:59 pm to oogabooga68
Posted on 7/22/22 at 12:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Is it "wrong" to use a descriptive term that EVERYONE agrees is offensive ... to describe someone whose actions do not fall within that term, at least under SOME reasonable interpretations?
Also you
quote:
I consider SoCons to be meritless authoritarians almost to the man.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:01 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
I assume you mean Libertarians? For the record, there is no political party that supports and defends free speech than the Libertarian Party.
I assume you mean "other than the Libertarian Party"?
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:03 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I do. 100%. No doubt.
Then you are an idiot.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
By analogy (and I know it is not a perfect one), let's assume that three nights per week I consume enough alcohol to take my BAL to 0.06. I am not REMOTELY intoxicated, either legally or behaviorally. Yet a teetotaler might see me as a "drunk" because he disapproves of any alcohol consumption, especially THREE TIMES PER WEEK, no matter how legal or harmless it might be. In HIS eyes, ANY alcohol consumption makes one a "drunk."
I guess I need to know what we're talking about
In this scenario, are the freakshow teachers trying to convince my son that if he thinks hard about he might be a girl = the occasional drinker?
Because I might argue that it's more a matter of degree than definition. If I abuse my wife but don't seriously harm her I'm arguably an abuser regardless of frequency or severity.
To the extent the teetotaler has relevance here, I'd object to that comparison if we're comparing him and his skewed views of alcoholism to parents objecting to teaching about sex/gender insanity in the classroom.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:They're all animals from the same farm. The filthy restroom was tranny accessible as set forth by the same insanity driving adults to allow tranny K-3 reading hours.
You equate (a) reading stories to kids in a public library with (b) violent anal rape in a filthy restroom.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:07 pm to Madking
quote:
Defending Groomers has become a bat signal for you. Might wanna think about that.
one of my favorite parts of this thread was when he tried to minimize an incident with...
quote:
He and this girl had previously met in the school bathroom for voluntary sex and had met there THIS time for the same.
She changed her mind, which she of course had every right to do.
and then quickly followed it up with...
quote:
violent anal rape in a filthy restroom.
when he needed to further morally separate that to compare it to story time.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
By analogy (and I know it is not a perfect one), let's assume that three nights per week I consume enough alcohol to take my BAL to 0.06. I am not REMOTELY intoxicated, either legally or behaviorally. Yet a teetotaler might see me as a "drunk" because he disapproves of any alcohol consumption, especially THREE TIMES PER WEEK, no matter how legal or harmless it might be. In HIS eyes, ANY alcohol consumption makes one a "drunk."
He is almost certainly aware that his definition of "drunk" is not universal (no matter how sincerely-held by him), and is almost certainly aware that it is "offensive" to call another person a "drunk."
Yes, if he is even-remotely a polite person, the teetotaler should refrain from using that term in reference to the above-described light drinker.
Can we please fricking insta-ban analogies? They are consistently the dumbest arguments on this board that I've ever seen.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:12 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
think The same posters who hold trans and gays to this standard turn a blind eye to other large well documented groups with known pedophilia issues. If this was about the kids we’d be fleeing the churches in mass and calling all priest pastor or teachers groomers
I believe this indeed happened in the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts….
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:13 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I believe this indeed happened in the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts….
It absolutely did happen. It was a pretty damned big story.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:16 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Because I might argue that it's more a matter of degree than definition. If I abuse my wife but don't seriously harm her I'm arguably an abuser regardless of frequency or severity.
Or that it's both. What is an abuser? Some would argue different definitions. Same with alcohol, which I believe was the point.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
By ALL means, please DO explain the NAP violation inherent in holding a entirely VOLUNTARY story time, as to which EACH parent has COMPLETE discretion to attend ... or not
I think...no, I know you misunderstand what the term NAP means. By your example, that I quoted, Nonagression Principle would be applied to statutory rape as long as the parent had the discretion to attend.
Grooming minors is still a violation of NAP even if the parents agree to said grooming.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Or that it's both. What is an abuser? Some would argue different definitions. Same with alcohol, which I believe was the point.
Yeah I mean, we can account for perspective, but you can make a pretty credible argument that calling a light drinker a drunkard is objectively incorrect. Calling a binge drinking college kid an alcoholic is probably incorrect. Calling him a drunkard is probably defensible, however.
Calling a Libs of Tik Tok teacher an abuser, especially in light of what we're willing to put under the abuse label in recent decades (spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, etc.) strikes me as pretty defensible.
Now seriously calling one of those teachers a pedophile would likely be false, and I'd agree to that on the same basis.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:22 pm to Pettifogger
quote:First, you seem to assume that one can "groom" another person to be transgender, which I am not sure is the case. "Grooming" is more-commonly used to refer to a person trying to get into your son's pants ... sexual activity. But let's not quibble too much on that semantic point. Whether we use the term "grooming" or another term, let's assume that there ARE people actively trying to convince your son that he is in fact your daughter and that he should eventually lop-off his wiener and buy a set of bolt-ons.
In this scenario, are the freakshow teachers trying to convince my son that if he thinks hard about he might be a girl = the occasional drinker?
The "occasional drinker" could be analogous to the person who is just not offended by the very NOTION of drag queen story hour or by the existence of drag queens. Because that is the position taken on this thread an other threads by MOST posters who have been called "groomers."
Or that occasional drinker could be analogous to the parent who takes her child to the story hour, but explains the concept to her kids. Hell, let's make her a four-night drinker to a BAL of 0.09. Still never intoxicated, but getting closer.
When we get to someone actively trying to show your son that he MIGHT BE a girl, I think that we are looking at an analogy to someone who drinks to BAL of 0.15 ... maybe five or six nights per week. Certainly more than a bit tipsy and ALMOST every day, but is that amount of drinking "alcoholism?" Subjective answer.
What about the person who is trying to convince your son that he ACTUALLY IS a girl? Maybe we are at seven nights per week and a nightly BAL of 0.25. Yeah, that person probably IS a "drunk."
The POINT is that no person who was not raised in a barn by wolves would use the term "drunk" to refer to that three-night, no-intoxication drinker, just as no person not raised in a barn by wolves would use the term "groomer" to refer to someone who just does not generally have a problem with kids being aware of the concept of drag.
This post was edited on 7/22/22 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:23 pm to UtahCajun
The Groomers are losing their minds in this thread.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:24 pm to pankReb
quote:This is how we know that we have found a poster who generally has difficulty following analogies.
Can we please fricking insta-ban analogies? They are consistently the dumbest arguments on this board that I've ever seen.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:25 pm to pankReb
quote:Oh, it's even better in wider context.
one of my favorite parts of this thread was when he tried to minimize an incident with...
quote:
Are you talking about the two kids who had previously snuck into a restroom to frick?quote:
I'm talking about a school policy. I'm talking about a tranny who was allowed access by the school to the girl's bathroom IAW policy. I'm talking about a tranny who then took advantage of that policy and forced a 14y/o facedown onto a nasty toilet stall floor in the girl's restroom, then anally raped her.
What are you talking about?
quote:
He and this girl had previously met in the school bathroom for voluntary sex and had met there THIS time for the same. She changed her mindquote:
100% false!
There was never anal intercourse until the rape. In fact, IIRC previous episodes were only oral.
quote:
I said nothing about anal in previous encounters.
Is it your position that oral sex is not sex? OK, Billy Jeff.
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Indeed it was.
Or that it's both. What is an abuser? Some would argue different definitions. Same with alcohol, which I believe was the point.
Recall that the original question presented for this thread was whether (and presumably "when") it is acceptable to use the term "groomer" to describe another person.
This post was edited on 7/22/22 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 7/22/22 at 1:27 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Yeah I mean, we can account for perspective, but you can make a pretty credible argument that calling a light drinker a drunkard is objectively incorrect. Calling a binge drinking college kid an alcoholic is probably incorrect. Calling him a drunkard is probably defensible, however.
Calling a Libs of Tik Tok teacher an abuser, especially in light of what we're willing to put under the abuse label in recent decades (spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, etc.) strikes me as pretty defensible.
When my wife and I have a disagreement, I generally head out to the range and she does whatever she does. There are people out there who call that abuse, because I'd rather wait until we both cool off and think before addressing the issue.
That's where I was going with that. Obviously, hitting my wife is abuse. But, some have different definitions of abuse that we probably wouldn't agree with.
quote:
Now seriously calling one of those teachers a pedophile would likely be false, and I'd agree to that on the same basis.
Of course.
Page 19 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News