http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2022/02/slippery-slope.html
The above link is to a post at Craig's blog, wherein he refers to further evidence of the "de-stigmatizing" of pedophilia, which like with the cases of "de-stigmatizing" of homosexuality and "transgenderism", is more likely to result in more widespread acceptance of the practice. Dan, being a defender of deviancy, immediately jumped in to argue the point (actually arguing that which was only mildly related to the point...because he's Dan) and use the post as an excuse to presume right-wingers are more likely to be child molesters than lefties. But even the title of the post suggests the point was referencing the so-called "slippery slope" argument and how the current climate regarding pedophilia validates the argument quite well.
And far more relative to the point than who is engaging in such vile behavior are those who promote or enable it by their pseudo-psychological, quasi-philosophical discussions about "de-stigmatizing" the urges which lead to bad behaviors. I get that having a desire for some non-traditional, unChristian, immoral form of sexual gratification doesn't guarantee indulging in the desire. But the desire is still as vile, immoral and unChristian nonetheless and "stigma" doesn't enter into it. That is, except that it is deserving of the stigma. It should be vilified for the contemptible sin it is.
The sin of child abuse is among the worst sins, even according to Christ Himself. And to pretend there is any other group than leftists (and those who wish to simply say they are "socially liberal" are no different) who have pushed all manner of behavior which have harmed or will harm our children is a lie. What follows is a report from AmericanThinker.com which illustrates another way in which lefties are harming our children (and jeez, there are so many ways!):
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/tony_school_in_dc_forces_5_yearolds_to_parade_around_chanting_black_lives_matter_for_the_cameras.html
This is pure indoctrination. The lefty teachers pretend their promoting goodness...that differences are normal and not a reason to hate. They do this with the bullshit claim of promoting diversity, identity and inclusion, which lefty-speak for "what we consider worthy of including".
The particular chant these kids are forced to repeat over and over is especially egregious for a couple of reasons. It is NOT promoting diversity, but promoting the lies that the BLM movement promote regarding race relations. It is NOT promoting inclusivity because it necessarily EXcludes those who are not black. If the chant was "ALL LIVES MATTER", they could make their claim as that is undeniably inclusive...not to mention absolutely true. But would this school have these little ones chant, "FETAL LIVES MATTER"? I doubt it. Why aren't they promoting respect for the police with their chanting and marching? BLM does not provide for that respect at all.
The left exploits kids and to argue they aren't the only who do is irrelevant. To argue they aren't the worst perpetrators of child exploitation is a straight up lie given how often we hear them (particularly Nancy Pelosi) expect us to believe "it's for the children" every time they struggle to get some bill passed. A proper understanding of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that it promotes the individual. But not the self-centered understanding of the leftist (assuming they give a flying rat's ass about the Constitution in the first place).
This post focuses on one specific example of leftist child exploitation. It isn't the only example.
23 comments:
The slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy. I see it as more of a cliff than a slope. The arguments the Left, including the "Christian" Left, used to justify homosexual perversions just "happen" to also justify the rest of their perversion cornucopia. They didn't press them all at once, but they use the same justifications -- i.e., it (allegedly) doesn't hurt you, love wins, Jesus was a bigot, blah blah blah.
P.S. We're going to need a lot of millstones to clean this place up.
Am I mistaken in my memory or didn't you at some point say that you could understand how some men (like yourself) would find a child (a girl under the age of 18) desirable...?
Just sayin'.
Of course, the reality is that if people are less ashamed/afraid of saying to professionals that they have these attractions to children (like you and Trump), they'd be more likely to get help and therefore, not as likely to actually act on these desires.
And if people are more likely to get help and less likely to abuse, then de-stigmatizing these desires WILL reduce the harm that comes when people like Trump and Marshal act on their deviant, harmful desires.
Marshal... "The sin of child abuse is among the worst sins, even according to Christ Himself."
And yet, Marshal could find it in his deviant heart to vote for a child abusing Trump, who used his power and wealth to ogle teen-aged girls getting dressed... and Marshal, I guess, denies any harm in that sort of harassment/abuse. Not only could Marshal vote for such a deviant, Marshal goes on to actively defend that perverted deviant, abuser of children and women.
We see.
" The arguments the Left, including the "Christian" Left, used to justify homosexual perversions just "happen" to also justify the rest of their perversion cornucopia."
This is quite true, Neil, as has been pointed out at Craig's blog and elsewhere in other discussions in the past. You'd think the pervs would be more inventive.
"We're going to need a lot of millstones to clean this place up."
God will provide, I'm quite sure.
"Am I mistaken in my memory or didn't you at some point say that you could understand how some men (like yourself) would find a child (a girl under the age of 18) desirable...?"
You're always mistaken, Danny-boy, as you are in your implications by bringing this up. My argument was logical, true and in no way immoral. Many girls look older than there age, for one thing. But a girl's age has no bearing on how attractive they are. Many, many people who are not lefty pervs have remarked about even elementary school girls, "Wow! She's gonna be a heart breaker when she grows up!" There's nothing untoward about such acknowledgements. "Desirable", even as you want it to mean here, isn't at all the same as pedophilia. But you keep going down this slanderous road, asshat. It's what you do.
"Of course, the reality is that if people are less ashamed/afraid of saying to professionals that they have these attractions to children, they'd be more likely to get help and therefore, not as likely to actually act on these desires."
Of course the reality is that if people who are sexually attracted to children seek professional help, there is a well known doctor/patient privilege which protects them from having their disorder treated without public knowledge.
And your embracing grace again, I see, as you falsely accuse Trump and myself of being pedophiles. You do realize that pedophiles are attracted to small children, correct? You might want to apologize or make sure you have my face burned into your memory should you chance to see me in your neighborhood. In the meantime, which is worse for a female: to be ogled and/or seduced by an older man, or murdered while still in the womb? The worst child abuse is that which you promote, support and enable.
"And yet, Marshal could find it in his deviant heart to vote for a child abusing Trump, who used his power and wealth to ogle teen-aged girls getting dressed..."
Yeah, you're trying really hard to inflate this one unproven episode because it turns you one so much.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/viral-image/no-president-trump-didnt-say-about-miss-teen-usa-p/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing
Note that the first link totally debunks the notion Trump admitted walking in on teens. It also states there were those who said it didn't happen and others who said it was highly unlikely he'd get in where they were dressing.
Note that the second debunks it in a similar way, with more attention to those who claim in happened being cancelled by others who said it couldn't have happened. It seems logical that had it happened at all, it would definitely have spread like wildfire among all the contestants, and like chaperons and security would have confirmed it as well. But given you're a grace-embracing hater of Trump, any slight implication is enough and it doesn't have to be true for you to regard it as gospel nonetheless. That's some sick hatred right there. Also note in the second that it shares your penchant for suggesting he actually grabs women by the crotch.
"and Marshal, I guess, denies any harm in that sort of harassment/abuse."
Deny that women who are ogled for cash prizes are harmed by being ogled? Wow. How could anyone not see it?
"Not only could Marshal vote for such a deviant, Marshal goes on to actively defend that perverted deviant, abuser of children and women."
Says the boy who supports the deviancy of homosexuality and transgenderism as well as supports, defends and enables the murder of unborn females in utero. This is the same boy who supports, defends and enables illegal border crossings which benefit criminals who exploit and physically abuse women and girls. This is the liar who hates so badly a man for his wealth and lust for women that he'll continue to lie about him.
I defend anyone against lies told about them, especially those coming from fake Christians like you. It's the right thing to do, and I'm not required to like the guy about whom you lie to do it.
I find it laughable Dan persists in trying to posture as morally superior to those who are morally superior to him by default.
Marshal... "What follows is a report from AmericanThinker.com which illustrates another way in which lefties are harming our children"
Here's what another source (that was opposed to the teaching done at this private school) said about the school...
""Social justice and activism" lessons are also on the curriculum. The Lowell School writes that "Part of helping children develop a strong sense of self includes showing them that they each have a voice and they can use that voice in service of a cause they are passionate about. This lays the groundwork for teachers to begin addressing issues of 'fairness' and ways that children can make a difference in the world.""
Some points and a question: This is a private school. Parents CHOOSE to place their children in this school precisely for the specific lessons and principles they are teaching. In other words, the parents WANT to teach their children these scandalous notion of having a strong sense of self, that they have a voice and that they can work for fairness in the world and make a difference. Shocking stuff, that!
This, you call, "indoctrination."
My questions:
1. Are you objecting to these parents choosing to send their children here to be taught these lessons in this manner?
2. Would you deny them the right to teach their children what they want, including the importance of working for social and racial justice? EVEN IF it displeases Marshal?
3. Do you think the same of private conservative Christian schools? Do you call what private Christian schools are teaching "indoctrination..."?
4. OR, do you support the opportunity for parents - conservative or liberal - to teach children the way they want in the schools they want, even if you disagree with the message?
5. Do you still not see how awful and morally/rationally backwards and upside-down it sounds when you object to teaching kids social justice, as if that were a bad thing?
Like you, this school uses benign concepts to justify evil. Teaching kids they have a voice. Yeah. A voice to promote racism as you Dems did in the 1960s south? That's cool with you? Or do you draw a line on what is appropriate to teach kids. How about a voice to promote porn, as too many leftist school boards allow? Does it matter if the school is public or private for such teaching...even if the parents WANT it taught? You're a deviant.
Your questions:
1. Yes. The lessons are perverse when exercises like this are used in pretending to teach kids they have a voice. Why not have them voice a more moral message, such as "All Lives Matter"?
2. Do parents have the "right" to teach their kids slavery is good, Jews are an inferior race, sex with barnyard animals is good, do anything you need to do to enrich yourself...I can go on. There's a huge difference between "right" and "what is right and just". In this case, to get more focused on your question, there's no such thing as "social justice" or "racial justice". There is only "justice". I deny that any parent has a "right" to have their kids taught anything else, because anything else isn't justice at all.
3. It is if they teach your corrupted version of Christianity which is no more than a means to convince people you're holier than they are. It isn't indoctrination to teach true Christianity. Here's a test: How would a kid be graded who refused to march while chanting that lie that "Black Lives Matter" because it necessarily excludes all other people, preferring to chant "All Lives Matter" because it necessarily includes everyone including black lives? Now, how would a kid be graded for refusing to believe in God in a Christian school. We can say that belief in either case is not a factor. But can we say the leftists will grade a non-believer objectively based on knowledge of the leftist subject matter? We have way too many examples to ignore the answer is "No".
4. In theory, I support parents having a say. I find it hard to believe that even among the low intellect lefty class there are enough who support private schools who teach anything in a manner which promotes racism like parroting BLM slogans.
5. It only sounds that way to morons and assholes, because moral people of character only promote justice, not the lie of "social justice" or "racial justice".
More coming...
I am horrified at the thought that someone like you, Dan, is ever around children teaching them anything. Your positions have no validity, no merit and no evidence of being worth a damn. Thus, to teach kids the things you believe, except as a warning against adopting them, would indeed be indoctrination, or more precisely, anti-indoctrination if as the warning I mentioned.
Let's go back to your third point: "Do you call what private Christian schools are teaching "indoctrination..."?"
This depends upon what's being taught and what the end game is. For all academic studies...math, science, reading, history and the like...that's called "teaching". For the introduction of "doctrine", that's called "indoctrination". It's the difference between skills and beliefs. I can believe or disbelieve in God and what it means to be a true Christian (something you should study for a change) and it doesn't matter to 2+2=4. That answer is always the same. "C-A-T" will always spell "cat" (until a lefty tries to redefine which animals are which). "Black lives matter" is clearly a different dogma than is "ALL lives matter". Good people teach the latter and lefties teach the former as if good people don't already know that black lives matter because they already believe that ALL lives matter.
I prefer schools to stick to skills, not beliefs, though beliefs cannot be totally removed from teaching. Kids act, react and act up. In policing their behavior, teachers necessarily act on doctrine. But there are general beliefs about human interaction, perception of one's own worth and potential, etc., which don't rely upon any specific doctrine to benefit kids. "Don't pick on the black kid because he's black. Being black doesn't mean anything more than being white does." That's basic stuff which most people abide. But this general doctrinal belief is no where near the lie of the Black Lives Matter doctrine, which is racist. Being "nice" does not require a specific doctrine to promote.
Now if we're talking about an actual specific class which teaches philosophical concepts, examining various doctrines is a part of that. But picking one and imposing it upon students is not something any school has any business in doing apart from schools formed to actually promote a specific doctrine along with teaching the above mentioned skills.
But here's a brief description of how too many public schools (or private schools run by lefties) go wrong:
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/im-former-teacher-heres-how-your-children-are-getting-indoctrinated-leftist
The school which composed this post is engaged in indoctrination of leftist crap and regardless of whether or not all the parents agreed the crap should be taught, or if they're totally unaware of it, it's leftist indoctrination of a doctrine which is ultimately harmful and thus abusing the kids to continue with it. There are better, less leftist ways to teach kids "they each have a voice and they can use that voice in service of a cause they are passionate about" without forcing them to chant leftist slogans.
From this link...
https://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-teaching-and-indoctrination
...comes this:
Teaching is all about communication of information, ideas or skills that can be questioned or discussed and the facts that are taught in teaching are supported by evidence, whereas indoctrination is about communication of beliefs that are not supported by any evidence and the receiver is supposed to accept it the way it has been taught without any arguement or questioning.
We need teaching in schools, not indoctrinating.
Agree we do not need indoctrination in education. Do do you truly not understand that indoctrination is precisely what happens in religious schools by-and-large?
Dude. I just explained it all. Religious schools teach "doctrine" and therefore are naturally "indoctrinating", in addition to teaching skills based curriculum. Their "indoctrination"...and I base this on personal experience...is provided in that part of the daily curriculum in which the faith of the school is imparted to students. This is generally the point of sending one's kids to a religious school...to get that specific indoctrination.
But "by and large", most people send their kids to public schools for the skills based teachings (math, reading, etc.) and not to inculcate kids with a belief system such as political systems, religious systems and the like. For teachers in such schools to force their political/religious doctrines on the captive audience which is other peoples' kids, that is not their jobs and not why the kids sit before them.
Try paying attention.
Dan claimed that Trump was guilty of "child abuse", yet has offered no actual proof of abuse. Strangely, he doesn't object to the fact that the place Trump actually committed this "abuse" was at an event designed for young women to parade themselves in front of millions/thousands of TV viewers based solely on their physical attractiveness. His opposition would be much more effective if he'd actually object to all instances of women being sexualized, no matter what the location. Similarly, the fact that he's tried to tie Trump to the Epstein/Maxwell sex trafficking ring, while ignoring the DFL connections to them, and his silence on the Weinstein case despite Weinstein being a large donor and friend to DFL candidates. It's almost like some sort of double standard where Trump is always wrong, and Dems are ignored.
I guess ignoring the actual push to normalize pedophilia and the arguments being used is a lot easier than simply invoking Trump.
Check out the Angela Day charter school being started in MPLS. They're going whole hog into indoctrination. FYI, I 100% support the organizers of the Angela Day charter school in their quest to provide an alternative to the failing MPLS school district, and I 100% support the right for parents to exercise their freedom to send their kids to be indoctrinated. Why, because I don't consider myself qualified to tell parents where they should send their kids to school.
I guess the whole notion of parents being able to freely use their after tax dollars to send their children to the school of their choice (after paying for public schools) is just a little too much freedom for Dan. Heaven forbid we allow parents input into their children's education.
What'd be interesting is to compare these "religious schools" to the public schools in their areas. To compare things like reading ability, math ability, and those sorts of more objective measures. If I was a parent and I had the choice of sending my kids to a public school where they would get a substandard education in the core subjects, or a "religious school" where they'd get "indoctrinated" along with being able to read and do math at or above grade level, I think I'd put up with the "indoctrination" as a trade off for a better education.
It sounds like Dan is objecting to Muslim parents sending their kids to a Madrassa.
Clearly, there is absolutely zero indoctrination going on in public schools. If there was then schools would be trying to hide what is being taught from the parents of their students. I have no problem with informed consent to indoctrination, I do have a problem when parents have no information or consent.
"Dan claimed that Trump was guilty of "child abuse", yet has offered no actual proof of abuse."
He's offered only Trump's words from a Howard Stern show about ogling teen contestants in a beauty pageant. But it's simply another case of Dan inflating the sins of those he opposes and ignoring or minimizing the sins of those he supports.
WOW!!! That Angela Davis school is criminal! Absolute child abuse! God help the poor kids forced into that environment by incredibly moronic parents!
There's a huge difference between "indoctrinating" a child in something wholesome like Christianity, while also actually teaching the kid skills in the all the standard academic disciplines. And yes, public schools these days do indeed indoctrinate, as so many parents have come to learn since government forced kids to learn remotely.
It's interesting that Dan chooses to focus on one person for "ogling" the contestants at a beauty pageant, but not to mention the reality that there are probably thousands more who'll simply watch it on TV and do the same thing. Or head to IG, or FanHouse, or any of the myriad of options that men have to "ogle" attractive women.
I agree with you about the school. Personally, I think they'll be out of business withing 2 years. But I respect the fact that they've chosen to be entrepreneurs about it, rather than demand that the public schools go even further left than they already are. Clearly the organizers are intent on indoctrinating the students in very specific narratives around race. They're up front about it and proud of that fact. I suspect Dan would support them and their curriculum wholeheartedly even though it's indoctrination. I also suspect that the students will come out of this school deficient in things like reading, math, and science. You know, the type of things that lead to well paying jobs.
Indeed. I could find nothing which speaks to those areas of study. It's almost as if they don't provide them at all, if one is trying to determine based on their website. Maybe I just missed it...but I was looking.
As regards ogling girls, any teen competition would include "dolling up" the girls for best effect. Even those contests involving pre-teens (creepy) include applying make-up as do older females. The entire concept of attempting to look attractive, by definition, is intended to attract attention. I guess we can rely on Dan to dictate what constitutes too much attention. Ten seconds of notice is fine. Eleven seconds of notice is deviancy. Accidental notice is fine, while intention gazing is perversion. Teen girls, as I've explained to Dan already, can look far older than their years. I mentioned a friend who never had a problem walking into a liquor store and buying our beer while only a junior in high school. I mentioned my daughter's junior high school volleyball team competing against another with two girls who looked over 18 years old...and they were quite attractive, too. Girls' bodies can mature at a really early age. My wife was the object of gawking by boys when she was twelve. As a school bus driver, who carted both elementary students as well as junior high students, I saw examples of the former who I thought were among the latter. As an office product tech servicing a junior high school, I saw examples of students I thought were teaching assistants, not 7th graders.
I say all this to emphasize the point that teen girls can indeed be regarded in exactly the same manner as "legal" females without one attempting to bed them. Dan wants to pretend he's somehow above noticing such things...knowing instinctively the age of any girl who passes by. Dan pretends like this in order to posture as one who has some right to demonize Trump as a sex offender and child molester. This is how Dan embraces grace.
The problem with the term "teens" nowadays is that it keeps children as children virtually until they graduate college.
We used to raise kids to be adults. Those who were 14, 15, 16... were considered young adults and were treated as such (before the 1900s 16-yr-old murderer would be executed). My mom married at 15.
My point is that I agree with Art in that these young women in beauty contests are just that -- young women. So ogling isn't pedophilia-minded, it is adult-minded.
I agree. I think that you are minimizing, and Dan is ignoring the effect that social media has on girls being sexualized. Look at the dispute between Fanhouse and Apple, there is clearly big money in girls and young women presenting themselves in ways that will convince guys to pay for content. If this wasn't a big money earner, Apple wouldn't be pushing for 30% of what those on these sites make.
The reality is that no one needs to go to a beauty pageant to ogle scantily clad young women, just pull out your phone.
Are you saying that I'm the one minimizing? Minimizing what?? I'm confused. I'm trying to explain how Dan is overstating Trump's sordid character, making it worse than it is, while pretending it isn't common for the average adult male to regard a teen-aged girl as "hot". That there is something unusually perverse and deviant in appreciating the beauty of a young girl. It smacks of deflection from Dan's own struggles. A hot babe is a hot babe and until one sees an ID, it is not always possible to know the age of the babe in question. At my age, more and more are way too young, so I don't see the problem Dan is trying to inflate in order to further demonize Trump than he does in his typical grace-embracing manner. The fact is that while Dan tries to posture as one who is above the typical temptations of men, he is rather the Church Lady who isn't what he pretends to be.
Minimizing the effect that social media has on these things. Especially the pressure it puts on girls and young women to present themselves in a sexualized manner.
Indeed. And that effect is that males of any age take notice, even if only in passing. Having three daughters, this was never lost on me and I'm thankful they each had more conservative notions about how they presented themselves. Most fathers see their own daughters as daughters. They don't necessarily see the daughters of other men as daughters. Again, it's a natural response to femininity and any desire which flows from that is natural as well...not perversion or deviancy. Crude expressions or jokes may be compelled, and while inappropriate with regard to any women but more so about teen girls, it is merely inappropriate, not deviancy. For any man to stop short at that point is expected and there's no evidence Trump has gone farther despite what Dan needs and wants to believe about him. Indeed, I'd say it's far more deviant to be obsessed with whether or not Trump is a deviant than anything Trump has said or actually done.
Post a Comment