I used JP because people who follow him know who I mean and people who are detractors of JP might not catch it so it saves me from their criticism.
How funny is that. To get criticized and judged for listening to JP.
Also, just read the above posts.
Out of curiosity who here thinks same sex relations is immoral?
Who here thinks there should be legislation barring same sex relations with consequence like fines/jail time or whatever.
I think people should be allowed to do what they want in regards to whom they choose to be with.
But I do think an argument could be made that this push of LGBTQ ideology could be harmful to society.
I do not think gender roles are social constructions. I think they are the product of fundamental ways of being that differ based upon which sex you are and which happen to be true for the most part. There is always variability in how one fits into the mold right.
But with current LGBTQ movement its obvious that gender roles are trying to be torn down. Everything is a social construct. You are human being that is totally a blank canvas. You can be whatever you want.
And I think to allow this movement to slowly erode our overarching value system as a society would cause harm to people. And that would be immoral.
But banging a same sex partner. That by itself. Nah thatās not immoral.
Yes, of course not. Most Asian Commonwealth/ex-Commonwealth countries have laws passed down from the British, much of which were derived way back from the time the Church was still the Court of Equity, and these precedents have sometimes prevented the implementation of outright tyrannical legislation.
Itās the radicals on either side that Iām worried about.
You can easily see the way religion is being abused even today. Buddha was such a cool dude he allegedly fed his own flesh to an eagle to save a possum or something. The Buddhists in Myanmar threw Muslim children into burning houses.
EDIT
The more I read about the Rohingya Crisis, the more I find it to be much more appalling than the treatment of Uyghurs in China. And I think you may recall from our previous exchanges that I have nothing but pure and utter contempt for the CCP even though I was calling out how the Western media was sometimes misrepresenting or misinterpreting their actions.
BUT I have some understanding of how they conduct their āethnic assimilationā, oops I mean ācleansingā and deculturization programs, and itās more of a soft approach with threats ranging from mass surveillance, the taking away of ids, property, passports, social insurance etc of families and descendants to long term detainment for the purpose of āreeducationā, instead of outright mass bloodshed.
You can call the CCP today anything you want, but you can never call them stupid.
Why isnāt this Rohingya issue brought up more in international news?
Could it be because this woman was once a feminist icon all over the world?
I think this is the result of a temporary overcorrection because of past oppressions(whether real or perceived I donāt know. I donāt live in the US). Itās why I donāt think there will be some doomsday scenario some time in the foreseeable future.
Iām pro gay marriage and I leave it up to certified medical professionals to determine the mental status of ADULT transsexuals and their choice of relevant treatments. Transexualism isnāt something new. Theyāve been around, and generally accepted in Thailand for decades. And if you go to Thailand, youāll find the people there are some of the most polite people youāll ever meet in the world and thereās been no significant erosion of traditional family values even with what some might call the ā5th Industrial Revolutionā.
There difference was the Thais treated it as a medical issue, not a political one. People opting for a sex change there have to go through rigorous psychological testing that can last weeks before approval from what Iāve heard so donāt quote me on that lol.
I would like to discuss the topic thoroughly but my name and face are known here and under the soft tyranny we live in, one can get in serious trouble for politically incorrect speech. Therefore I often avoid answering some questions. I often post as if something can be used against me.
Morality aside, have you ever looked into the topic outside of the narrow scope of ātwo consenting adults behind closed doors?ā And while looking into realize that sexuality of all sorts is omnipresent.
I will not say If it is immoral or not but perhaps people can think of such a matter on a far broader scale.
I understand you and suspect we would likely be in agreement if we could have that discussion.
I do maintain that if you reduce it down to its smallest parts which would just be two same sex consenting adults engaging in some midnight debauchery you could argue nothing wrong with that.
So without going further I agree it is a possibility that there could be widespread repercussions in society if we embraced such lifestyles and ideologies irrespective of wether or not the act itself is harming anyone in the moment.
Same sex relations have existed as long as man has existed.
But I feel there is something greater occurring in our society at the moment. A shift culturally that could do more harm than good.
These groups are trying to deconstruct everything.
JP articulates it better than I ever could. There are archetypes for every kind of way of being. In society we aspire to be like these archetypal figures.
A man should aspire to be one way.
A women another.
A father another way, mother another etc etc etc.
But today to say that is to be a bigot, a misogynist, a homophobe, transphobe.
People today are trying to deconstruct these archetypes. Invalidate them.
Does that make sense. That is the best my slow brain can do.
Speaking of deconstructing ways of being.
On a tangent but related to archetypes and gender roles. I was looking into the alleged feminisation of boys and masculinisation of girls.
I decided to have cursory glance at the literature/articles out there discussing this topic. It is very interesting.
Itās interesting because it seems this criticism of masculinity and societal constraints imposed on female behavior manifested itself out of feminism. At least thats what I gathered.
So it was all about giving women equal rights/opportunities. Which is a good thing of course.
But instead of embracing femininity somewhere along the line they started pushing girls to embrace more masculine traits like self-confidence, independence, self-reliance etc.
I do not know why those were considered masculine traits but the study I was reading they were.
Conversely some examples of feminine traits were dependent, highly aware of the feelings of others, nervous etc.
So anyways pushing girls to embrace masculine traits yet simultaneously decrying ātoxic masculinityā. But if its so toxic why are girls being pushed to be more masculine.
Now obviously I think this decry was on the extremes of stereotypical masculine traits but still those stereotypical masculine traits are rooted in the traits they are trying to instill in young girls today.
Another interesting note. They did studies on masculine/feminine traits to see how that affected life outcome/success. The researchers initially hypothesized that the most successful people will score far above the average in both masculine and feminine characteristics. They found that was not the case. Regardless of sex those who scored higher in masculinity and lower in femininity had better life success.
Now that is a crude analysis of that study but its only to illustrate the following. There is correlation between masculine behavior and success. Yet we are telling our boys to be less masculine and our girls to be more masculine.
And the data shows that this will harm the boys in the long run. Todays boys are being taught essentially that they are inherently flawed.
Which by the way I am not sure if you are aware of this but over the last decade or two boys/young men having been falling on most metrics of success. Less graduate high school, less go to college, less graduate from college etc etc.
It is very interesting to see where our society is going.
I think there may be some irony in that all these social architects trying to create a sociocultural utopia with equity for the disenfranchized will find that once they break the system and everything collapses. It will revert back to the default. Creating these artificial rule sets only works when we are in a civil society and everyone agrees to play by the rules.
That might not entirely relevant to the topic at had but I could argue it does.
So funny. Seems like China clearly knows multiculturalism does not work. All they had to do was look at the West.
Iāve read somewhere once that China was spreading this idea that large portions of its population were Han. So they were literally telling these groups of people your ethnicity is Han.
Geneticist came in did a couple mouth swabs a couple PCRs and found out that the CCP were feeding these people complete bullshit.
Much easier to stifle dissent among culturally homogenous populations I would imagine.
Yeah I read these things and have no one to share them with asides from my family because you know I want to be employable. So I have to at least pretend to drink the kool-aid. Which is constant when you live in a major metropolitan area. Just one giant filthy cess pool.
All Chinese by race have Han blood unless theyāre pure manchus or other races that ālookā Chinese so Iām not sure what these geneticists were basing their conclusions on.
EDIT
Oh, you meant the CCP was telling the Urghyurs they were Hans? Well, everyone knows 2+2=5 lol.
Youāre right though. When all this ridiculousness comes crashing down, we will go back to default settings. If some men want themselves and their society ended or to be mismanaged, other ambitious and masculine men will fill the void.
I must admit I do find this extremely irritating. People should be amenable to their own opinions so long as they donāt preach hatred, incite violence or hurt anyone. Not only that, itās almost as if people donāt have a sense of humour anymore.
Youāve subtly implied numerous times that you arenāt particularly fond of homosexuality and thatās okay, no judgement from my point hereā¦ itās not like youāre part of the westborough baptist church.
Public displays of affection are widespread, but you canāt turn someone gayā¦ Just as you canāt forcibly convert a homosexual. A child seeing two men hold hands and/or kiss isnāt going to āturn gayā, thatās not how it works. If you believe this to be the case, Iād like to see some scientific literature backing this concept. People should be allowed to harbour their own opinions. I draw the line when people go out and hurt others or incite violence and/or deny a demographic certain rights over something as trivial as being homosexual.
Iām not up to verse on this per se, but I believe this applies to gender theoryā¦ Or now lack thereof. A very small, select certain demographic of parents appear to be attempting to raise gender neutral infants, which is strange as an infant/toddler clearly canāt grasp the concept of gender constructs. Masculinity/femininity are traits that need not be thought of and/or implimented within a toddlers life.
As an example, clothing for men/women differ on the basis of said clothing being more flattering on a male/female frame, tinkering with engrained biology when someone is an infant seems futile and/or pointless and potentially confusing. But at this point we are talking about extremes
Well the same goes for this and other forms of social media. One cannot peacefully discuss immigration, sexuality, religion, morality, race, history, and so on without going along with the current narrative because s/he will be called a racist/self-hater/Stormfront visitor/bigot/anti-Semite/homophobe or be reminded of evil mustache men, one of which I think Iāve heard about on a near weekly or bi-weekly basis Since I first heard of him at six or seven years old in 1987 or 1986. Thatās a long time now that I think of it, and very often.
I remember when someone brought Stormfront up to me, a Jewish guy, because I disagreed on a historical moment. After that I realized that one is limited in what he speaks about because utterly irrelevant and inapplicable things will be brought up. Imagine I talk about the initial aggressors in WWII and the next thing weāre talking about Is a website Iām not interested in. This is A rude and unfair way of talking to people and e-bullying. What it means is, ādonāt say anything I donāt like or Iāll take out my e-weapons.ā
Itās almost as if many arenāt capable of engaging within a civil discussion, especially online wherein a computer screen creates disconnection, a facade of security.
I like talking with you. Youāre civil, polite and open to discussion even if you donāt agree with the bodies of thought being deconstructed within a given conversation (and you say āhey, I disagreeā without being rude about it)
I wish more people were able to discuss controversial topics without going on the attack 24/7ā¦ Itās interesting to hear differing perspectives, uniformity/herd mentality seems to be the norm nowdays.
Thatās enough for me tonight, Iāll have the ability to write up a detailed message to prior responses within a few days.
Donāt remember the details unfortunately. But suffice it to say CCP was clearly trying to create more unity by convincing people they were Han or more Han than they actually were. Probably not the Urghyurs because well. People can be dumb but thats seriously dumb.
Everything I know about ethnic groups of China is from Wiki so I refer you there but I am not sure all Chinese by race are Han or partly so.
āChineseā is both a race and a nationality(I really fucking hate this fact lol) so a Chinese person by race would be Han or at least have Han blood. My race on my Id states: āChineseā and I donāt live in China. If I were an obscure ethnic minority migrant from China, my race would state: āOthersā.
EDIT:
To clarify further:
In China, you donāt identify yourself as āChineseā because the word in mandarin literally means āChina Personā(zhong guo ren). So you have people either identifying themselves by their province of birth or ethnicity. Mostly itās by province since everyone is assumed to be Han even before the CCP restarted this campaign reviving nationalism and some modified aspects of traditionalismā¦
A further example:
A Tibetan living in a China controlled region would be āChineseā by nationality, but his race would be Tibetan.
This āHanā nationalism really isnāt new, more of a revival. Itās been a long lasting reaction to the Manchu Qing government who royally screwed up everything pertaining to foreign relations. Both KMT(The Nationalists who retreated and claimed Taiwan) and the CCP were already championing Han nationalism during the civil war.
I wouldnāt guarantee it in the case of a single child, but do you really think that showing such things dozens of times a day for a decade or two straight to a billion children would result in the same rates as if they had seen such things once a month only?