Dumb Political Correctness

No, I mean the attempts to force facilities to admit intact males into female-only spaces (you know, like locker rooms and bathrooms).

 

Ive had discussions with people both liberal and conservative about gay exhibitionists. Ive asked them if they wanted their kids to be around straight exhibitionists or if they wanted to eat lunch with two straight people going to town next to them. They all usually say "well, no" and I respond "well then, why would you want to see gay exhibitionists?"

The issue is not gay or straight, just there are situations were exhibitionism is inappropriate and people are turned off by it.

I'll note I am not talking about two people holding hands, but rather people acting like two teenagers having their first mutual infatuation in inappropriate settings.

 

I'm with you there.

 

I'm not arguing that it harms my marriage. I'm arguing that it is harmful to society in general. It doesn't harm or impinge me directly that people might run around naked on the street. However, I see that as harmful and damaging to society. It doesn't harm me if people take to cursing as a common method of discourse....directly...but I believe it harms society. It doesn't harm me when violence is on TV, or when violence against women is on TV...but there are whole social groups aimed at stopping both of these because they recognize that what surrounds us, becomes accepted as normal and acceptable. I don't consider gay marriage normal or acceptable.

I know that probably comes off as a direct attack on you and I regret that, but I simply don't think gay marriage is or should be construed as normal and acceptable.

If the wider public was so supportive of homosexuals then the gay community shouldn't have needed an end run to change an existing institution like the Boy Scouts. They should have been able to offer an alternative in the market place of ideas and if people really felt that homosexuality was ok with them and they were ok with it around their kids, they would have joined up. But they didn't. They used the dumbasses in the courts to force it on them.

 

I'm not necessarily referring to the old trope that homosexuals and pedophiles are one in the same. I don't want homosexual scout leaders at all, simply because it says to youth, gay is normal and acceptable. And yes, BSA tries very hard to ensure youth safety and has gotten better at it over the last several years. But that's not the point that I'm harping on.

The BSA was changed by a select few. They sure as heck didn't take public Scout Family opinion into account. The BSA enrollment numbers are heading downwards every year since the policy was enacted. The tiger ranks are the real barometer and BSA won't be transparent about those because they know the story it would tell.

 

There are lots of ways to learn leadership. Boy Scouts is among the best.

 

It was, until the libs ruined it, like they ruin everything they ever touch. Look at what they did to Cat Stevens.

 

From my up close vantage point, Scouting is far from "ruined" though failure to exclude gays may "ruin" it for certain segments. If you can't live and let live, my liberal heart doesn't bleed for you.

 

So by "live and let live" you mean that everyone should have autonomy to do as they please. Unfortunately, although it sounds like a reasonable thing to do, that process leads to a breakdown in society.

 

Live and let live to me means not hurting people who aren't hurting you and allowing people to be themselves so long as it doesn't harm you or the greater good. It's not the same as "anything goes baby."

 

By this definition, you are against taxation for social programs. Taxation hurts everyone being taxed. Taxation is the taking by force of other peoples' money to give to someone else.

The issue is "the greater good". Who defines the greater good? Good for who? One sector of society that exerts political power over another sector?

 

^ This. Everyone has an opinion on what the greater good is. Americans believe that everyone is equal. If everyone is equal, and everyone has different opinion but the equal right to their opinion, then it would seem the best way to decide on the greater good would by to tally up those opinions and see what the majority is.... if 75% or more people agree with an opinion it could be placed in the Constitution and trump things that only 50%-74% of people agree with... or we could ignore this system and let 5 of 9 judges who went to only harvard or yale ignore the people and make up the greater good.

 

Right And by being against taxes I'd prefer to live in a failed state like Somalia where there is no capable central government.
Iatrogenic when you take a shorthand definition of live and let live and extrapolate to the 10th power to understand my feelings on government and its role in society, you are coming up with conclusions that are not especially meaningful.

 

JF that pic is awesome! Please also post that under "Post a pic that makes you LOL".

 

I was using your definition Crockett. It is difficult to tell if you're writing in short hand.

 

I know its a virtual impossibility, but I'm an advocate for a limited referendum offering on each presidential election. I would propose that it go something like this....

2016- A topic is put forth with 5 'shades' of implementation. for example...abortion-
level 1- Always wrong no matter what. No exception, ever.
level 2- Wrong and should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, life saving of the mother.
level 3- Some sort of compromise detailing a lesser access but still greater than the above
level 4- Open and available but not government supported
level 5- unfettered access and included in all insurance, medicare, etc

We vote. The two receiving the most votes go to the second round.

2020- We vote on the two finalist from abortion issue and one new issue is floated with 5 options (gun rights comes to mind). Winning item from first round becomes a mandate for reform and resolution of the subject. We might have to have two drafts representing each party, but the parties would put a summary bill directly to the voters for round 3 approval.

2024- summary bill is provided directly to voters to accept/reject

so in three rounds, we have the people directly deciding if abortion is ok with us, if gun rights are ok, if gay marriage is ok, if we should have lighter or no mandatory sentencing

I would caveat this with a requirement that whatever the outcome, it becomes a settled issue for at least three more election cycles. Meaning no one could amend the bill for 12 years once it accepted/rejected by the people.

It my mind it would negate much of the constant BS back and forth on the critical social issues and we could get on with other things.

 

European males?

 

unfortunately not. that's the latest millennial rage. Ones-ies for grown men.

 

Rompers
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/health/male-romper-romphim-trend-trnd/

 

Wearing Rompers let ordinary people know who the beta males are.

 

European "males" are candy asses, but they do know better than to wear onesies - at least right now they do.

 

Since I have a long torso, I'm going to eschew Joe Fan's fashion suggestion. I'm thinking I don't want to go out in public displaying squeezed private parts. Worked out poorly for this guy.

 

I'm surprised his advisors didn't stop him from wearing that. Everybody knows the "split sack" look is unflattering on a man.

 

Is that a split sack or manmel toe?

 

That doesn't roll off the tongue as well. Lol

 

Colleges are really on the intellectual cutting edge. Link.

 

I'd say you missed a chance to call it the bleeding edge, but don't take me too seriously since I'm just trying to go with the flow and pad my post count.