To be fair, only the mind of a child could fall for such obvious bullshit.
Yeah but to keep the mind childish you'd have to start doing things like removing books from oooh yeah I see it now yeah makes sense
Your comment doesn't state which of the two you mean. Depending on which extreme of the political spectrum you adhere to, it could be either.
The Bible promotes incest, from Adam and Eve on.
Seems like a good enough reason to skip that reading lesson.
Children are also old enough to marry their rapist. As long as he pays the father who, of course, is the real victim in the situation.
Well yeah, your property has been soiled. Who else would be the victim? /s
My partner signed up for the military at 17.
They were mature enough to risk their life for no reason at all, but apparently, they couldn't decide their gender or sexuality until at least age 25?! Because their brain wasn't fully deveoped?!
GTFOH cons.
Yep, hypocrisy is great ain't it? I've had people tell me that being LGBT is a religion and therefore it shouldn't be allowed to be taught to children, and then in the same paragraph say that all kids should be raised Christian. I've also had people tell me I was too young to know in my mid 20s that I wanted a hysterectomy, but then turn around and defend circumcision. Here's the thing though, while yes, I did want a hysterectomy, it was done for medical necessity. In a two sentence comment someone defended newborn circumcision, and then told me my doc should be in jail "for mutilating the genitals of a child". Because apparently people in their 20s are children.
Oh and kids that lower case t you see around everyone's neck? It's a torture device
"And children, if you don't believe me, underground scary man will also nail you to one and torture you down there for eternity."
Children don't have room in their tiny brains to comprehend LGBTQ+ people. All of that room is reserved for what to do when dealing with a mass shooting.
The inconsistency of principle is the point. It asserts the dogma, ideology, identity and desigated in-groups of the transnational white power movement are not privileged or superior according to an internally consistent model, but by fiat and the power of force.
The conservative appeals to tradition, to false analogies, to emotion, to ridicule, or to threat of violence. Not to internally consistent logic.
That's really interesting, I've never thought of it that way. By proposing logically inconsistent policies they are indeed asserting that the exercise of arbitrary authority is more important than fair and equitable governance.
The main unifying belief of the right is that some groups deserve power and some don't. That's it. Inconsistency doesn't matter in the slightest to them. If the "good" people do something then it's good, if the "bad" people do something then it's bad. The inconsistency is fundamental to how they view groups and power. They deserve to be inconsistent and arbitrary because they deserve power just by existing. In their minds it's good because they are the good people, everything they do is good. They are the good people so they think they should have the most unchecked power.
'If god really loves you he'll rape you and leave you pregnant at 14 so you can go give birth in a barn.'
Well if they think about their identity then they might be happy and become their own person instead of conforming and we can't have that.
Christian anything is dumb. But I personally don't like the idea of stereotyping the Dems/Cons. We should call those idiots out one by one.
Both are equally bad
There's a lot of indoctrination of children, that's largely what mandatory education is. But there is pretty clear difference between sexual education and philosophical education. Even if the philosophy is wrong.
I would say that there is a large difference between the standard shaping-the-narrative indoctrination (which likely is about leaving out details in history class and maybe how certain things are framed) and religious indoctrination (especially if you get into the history of nuns-with-rulers and also treatment of indigenous kids at religious boarding schools that expected conformity).
Somewhat for that fact I also wouldn't equate philosophy and religion at all.
a large difference between the standard shaping-the-narrative indoctrination (which likely is about leaving out details in history class and maybe how certain things are framed) and religious indoctrination (especially if you get into the history of nuns-with-rulers and also treatment of indigenous kids at religious boarding schools that expected conformity).
That difference is what I value, and probably what you value, but not really different in being taught several prescribed world views(philosophies). Sexual education of children is not teaching a philosophy- it is to those who support it a preventative health and mental health measure, and to those who oppose it grooming children.
Can both of these arguments be wrong? Yes, yes they can.
