L&FP, 60: Illustrating an all too common atheistical attitude

_{kairosfocus

September 30, 2022

Atheism, Logic and Reason, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The below is taken from a typical Internet Atheist trollish rhetorical stunt, illustrating all too familiar patterns of fallacious reasoning that are here seen in an attempt to bully and stereotype Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. For first level responses see here [Jesus], here [worldviews], here [evil Christians].

This sort of polarising snide stunt is what we need to recognise as a real problem (and no, turnabout projection is not an acceptable response), acknowledging that it is unacceptable bigotry and intellectual irresponsibility, and then set such aside, there are fate of civilisation issues on the table:

Now, let us ponder:

Where we do not need to go. END

U/D, Oct 1, on the real political spectrum by way of the Overton Window and BATNA concept:

Comments

CD at 68, Both sides want to assert their view. Why are you surprised when accusations and name calling begin? On the other hand, both sides can't be right.relatd_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

CD: It appears that projection and ad hominem are not exclusive to the “atheistical” crowd. Your remarks eerily ape the Woke strategy that, when all else fails, scream “bigot.”

KF: CD, doubling down on a serious attitude problem.
This almost made me spit up my morning coffee. :)Sir Giles_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

F/N: As a first step in such discussion, I note as follows from Cicero:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
That is a beginning to recognising self evident first duties:
We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), readily knowable first principle . . .
first duties of reason and so too first universally binding laws written into our rational, responsible nature and forming morally driven governing principles of reason, high and low alike:
"Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to and pervasive in our reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
From this, we can start afresh, in a very different tone. For, we have to recognise that our reason is morally governed, that such moral government is coeval with our nature, that this points to the root of reality and demands that that root be adequate to bear the weight of ought. Completely different from the sort of ill-bred raillery that has been going on. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

CD, doubling down on a serious attitude problem. You seem to have forgotten that the OT/Tanakh -- they are just differently organised -- is the scripture of Judaism, so the sort of venomous rhetoric Dawkins indulged himself in not only attacks the Christianity he so obviously disdains, but also, directly, Judaism. Had he posed his arguments in a different tone, raising real questions and concerns [genuine, not insincere concern trollery], that would have been a different matter. Worse, like it or lump it, it is scripture based gospel and underlying hebraic ethics that are core to our civilisation and its law code [including Alfred's Dooms, the common law system, magna carta, the 1688/9 bill of rights, US DoI, US Const], so we also see automatically misanthropic anti civilisational attitudes on display. That you did not immediately sense these issues and distance yourself from tone, is then sadly diagnostic. Attempted doubling down is revealingly confirmatory. There is never an excuse for issuing or endorsing misanthropic railing. KF PS, For those with serious questions, kindly note that in the opening paragraph of the OP, there are three links to 101 discussions on the actual substantial matters tied to the bit of trollery I dissected and so too to the underlying arguments of the likes of Dawkins et al. PPS, to gain some balance, let's go to a doubly core text on Hebraic and Christian ethics, the actual context of love neighbour as self, to put in focus the real OT ethics and vision of God Dawkins so horribly caricatures. I have already cited the warning against perverse moral inversion in Is 5:20:
Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor [--> ie by false accusation]: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
This is of course, the key text cited by Jesus when he taught:
Matt 22: 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Similarly, the apostle Paul writes:
Rom 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The core of hebraic christian ethics is not in doubt, and so also the core character of God, expressed through ethical theism here shown through the Judaeo-Christian tradition. And Dawkins was responsible to know this, as were his editors and reviewers. Had he recognised that then posed questions and difficulties, that would have been responsible. Instead, he chose to rail, making the most vile attacks, not even pausing to recognise that he was also by direct implication impugning the survivors of the Holocaust. That is misanthropic and anti civilisational. Period. It needs to be corrected and repudiated so we can return to sane, sober discussion.kairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

KF/65 It appears that projection and ad hominem are not exclusive to the "atheistical" crowd. Your remarks eerily ape the Woke strategy that, when all else fails, scream "bigot."chuckdarwin_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

SG, I suggest we become responsible enough to do various things at various ages and that individuals vary, the age of consent is a protective measure against exploitation of the vulnerable, similar to age to drink, age to vote, age of independent adulthood. Raising the age reflects changes away from young marriages and rising education requisites too. I rather distinctly recall that there has been considerable pressure from sexual activists over decades to lower it, and frankly their rhetoric was rather similar to that of the Minister in question. However, this seems to be a rather convenient side topic that moves away from dealing with the dangerous attitude highlighted in the OP. KF PS, colour of law is very different from what is genuinely lawful, a key lurking issue.kairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

KF: And yes, for very good reason 18 is a better age of consent/marriage even though down to 12 is known. KF
And, as I have mentioned, the age of consent has increased over the years. A positive thing. But if you are going to say that a 17 year old is not mature enough to have sex, surely they are not mature enough to join the armed forces and go to war. Or to be charged and sentenced as an adult. We are not talking about whether having sex is something that someone under 18 should do. We are talking about whether it should be illegal.Sir Giles_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

CD, do you see that you are enabling and giving social permission to the unbalanced, who will eventually not only parrot talking points but act out with violence? The answer to your accusations, endorsements and projections is that nothing in Dawkins' slanderous caricature is remotely true, that you wish to endorse it tells us a lot about your own attitude problem. In brief introductory outline I answered a parrot and point onward to more detailed correction. So, now, it's your turn: explain to us why you are endorsing such thinly veiled slanderous accusation that for instance directly implies that Jews who take the OT seriously are a menace to civilisation [and yes, that is exemplified in the onward linked], no it's not just Christians you have endorsed the smearing of. So, why are you endorsing anti semitic and anti christion bigotry? KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

PPS, consider:
Isa 5: 18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: “Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!” 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!
How would you address a community deeply confused, polarised and indoctrinated by such turnabout projections and caricatures, imagining good is bad and perverse evil good, truth is false and lies are unquestionable truths? Why? To what end?kairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

KF/60 Setting aside your animosity towards Dawkins (which may be impossible for you, I don’t know), what descriptor of the God of the Old Testament does he get wrong in the quoted passage from The God Delusion?chuckdarwin_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

FG, while UD is not a Bible exposition site, I note to you again that Ac 27 and Ac 17 speak to Christian citizenship in the face of march of folly -- did you read Ac 27, the Ship of State parable and the summary of the background Peloponnesioan war, or the Reichstag fire incident? All of these give key history we should all know to be soundly informed citizens --and to addressing worldviews challenges, where Rom 1 elaborates the analysis and Eph 4 vv 9 - 24 lays out an operational form of the church's mandate, with vv 17 - 24 pointing to a counterculture, reformational alternative. Ac 27 - 28 actually shows the opening stage of the first Christian nation, Malta. We can see from the OP a pattern of anti-gospel agitation and rhetoric designed to marginalise and belittle the Gospel and God, marginalising preaching as speaking nonsense to the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked; the last being a stage to persecution or at least systematic exclusion and bigotry. These turn on indefensible but widespread attitudes and fallacious, strawman caricature arguments. But hostile caricatures can indoctrinate, especially if correction is neglected or marginalised. The Jews of Germany and others who thought Hitler's narrative beneath contempt and worthy of being ignored paid a bitter, bloody price, as did those who naively imagined they could appease his claimed grievances. So, a wide range of approaches is indicated but we must not neglect answering the attempts to marginalise, caricature, belittle, dismiss and polarise against the gospel. It is not the 1950's anymore. KF PS, imagine yourself a Sunday School teacher, and that a College age student brings the argument in the OP to your attention. How would you respond, why?kairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

KF: “ It is is highlighted here as this is a problem we need to soberly address.” What do you think the Bible says should be done about this problem?Fordgreen_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

F/N: Meanwhile, we cannot but notice the side stepping of the huge attitude problem headlined in the OP. Where, just in case someone wishes to pretend this is isolated, let me remind of what was stated in a widely praised best selling book by a leading atheistical spokesman:
“The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31.]
There are quite a few similar examples and it is obvious that they gave social permission for the new/internet atheist attitude which has become drearily familiar. Nor is this attitude just about atheism, it reflects a certain trollishness that has now become all too common on a great many topics. It is highlighted here as this is a problem we need to soberly address. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

SG, I am willing to accept that the minister meant 16 year olds, but mis-spoke horribly -- or is that inadvertently revealingly? (As in, open season on 16 year olds is not that different from much the same on girls a little younger.) And yes, for very good reason 18 is a better age of consent/marriage even though down to 12 is known. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

I certainly trust my 16 year old to make risky life decisions given that their brain is going rapid developmental changes at that age where anything can permanently alter their brain development. Makes perfect sense really.AaronS1978_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

I never knew that if another country allowed children to give consent that it made it ok and validated that the child knew what they were doing. By no means that the country that allowed child consent could be wrong in their judgement.AaronS1978_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

SG at 51. Consent. Let us all bow down and worship the word consent. It is just an excuse for some to have sex with underage girls. Lately, "legal" does not mean it's right.relatd_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

SG at 37, The marketing plan has been launched. https://americansfortruth.com/2011/08/25/firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference-for-minor-attracted-persons-aims-at-normalizing-pedophilia/relatd_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Vivid at 36, Yes. Harming children. Children who can't do certain things without their parents' consent. Well, the negative-progress types - the word Progressive should be struck from the dictionary - want to """"protect"""" kids - kids who are not mature, FROM their parents. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/law-aims-make-california-haven-transgender-youth-90786946 Fortunately, parents are still considered a child's parents and can raise them as they see fit. “By signing this extreme bill, Gavin Newsom is telling all parents across the country that he knows what’s best for their children," said Jonathan Keller, the group's president. “Mothers and fathers in every state should demand their elected representatives push back against this unconstitutional assault on parental rights.”relatd_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Vb at 33, And a uh... Minor Attracted Person is just like uh... a pervert. A sexual pervert. Pedophile. That's the word.relatd_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

SG at 31, Women had no recourse in the 1950s? Only in the fantasy world you apparently live in. Women had their parents - two parents - or relatives they could turn to. Even neighbors were willing to help. There is a difference between spanking and being beaten to death. I hope you realize that your fantasy assessment is just that - a fantasy. Spanking does not fall under violence. The biggest lack of "improvements" was and is in human sexual relationships. The goal was to degrade normal human sexuality and replace it with perversion. Some people wanted this to become normal. It's not.relatd_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

KF: Children simply cannot credibly give consent, and that is the normal meaning of ninyos and ninyas [I spell enye as ny]. KF
I know that this is your preference, but the fact remains that children over 16 in Spain have a legal right to give consent. The same as in Canada, the US and Montserrat. She was talking about children of legal age of consent. That you choose to misinterpret this to support your “sky is falling” tripe, after a credible and warranted corrective has been provided, seriously weakens the credibility of your opinion.Sir Giles_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

SG, the fact that a Minister of Government in a modern democratic state can feel social permission to speak like that, never mind can think like that is not an isolated, negligible matter. As for the out of context game, here is the vid, with captions https://rumble.com/v1lwoqi-pedophiles-celebrate-spanish-minister-declares-children-can-have-sex-with-w.html Children simply cannot credibly give consent, and that is the normal meaning of ninyos and ninyas [I spell enye as ny]. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

KF, you have a habit of citing isolated incidents and use them to claim a real trend. The reality is that over the last couple centuries the trend has been to increase the age of consent in most countries. In the US it went from 12 to 14 in most states (7 in one of them) to 16 to 18.
On September 21, during a hearing in Congress on the pro-trans and abortion law, Spain’s Minister of Equality called pedophilia a “right.” The communist Minister, Irene Montero, shocked her fellow politicians when she chose sexual deviants over minors and declared, “Children should have the right to have sexual relations with whomever they want, as long as they consent.”
A horrendous thing for any government official to say. Sadly, for the “sky is falling” crowd, the official never made this claim.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Irene Montero, Spain’s minister of equality, did not suggest this when she spoke before a legislative commission last week. The left-wing politician was discussing provisions in a proposed abortion law that deal with sex education programs, including material about consent. A short video clip of her remarks was taken out of context.
Sir Giles_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

AF, while this is not going to deteriorate into a debate over deviancies, let us compare some dates. The article I linked is dated September 28, 2022 and discusses "Pedophiles Celebrate: Spanish Minister Declares Children Can Have Sex 'With Whomever They Want' If They 'Consent' (Video)." The file you just linked is dated 4 Sep 2013, titled "Spain raises age of consent from 13 to 16." It is flagged, "This article is more than 9 years old." Clearly, the current development is after Spain went to a half-way house -- given today's circumstances 18 makes a lot of sense, especially with provisions for silly teens playing with fire if they are within about 2 years of age of one another -- about a decade ago. The push continued and what is being reported is that:
On September 21, during a hearing in Congress on the pro-trans and abortion law, Spain’s Minister of Equality called pedophilia a “right.” The communist Minister, Irene Montero, shocked her fellow politicians when she chose sexual deviants over minors and declared, “Children should have the right to have sexual relations with whomever they want, as long as they consent.”
I think that this person -- a full Minister of Government, note -- is deeply confused and massively ill informed at best. KF BTW, my earlier remark on 12 years of age and the black market were in connexion with a court case that sent a former Minister of Government in the Caribbean to gaol. The age 12 age applies to a certain hispanic country in this region and brazen remarks by a twelve year old girl viewing herself as in the game so to speak that would shock you; I have no doubt this young miss knew exactly what she was getting into and that is perhaps the saddest thing of all, she was clearly robbed of childhood. In my considered view, she should have been studying her books and playing with dolls and doll houses instead of playing exotic temptress.kairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/25/spain-only-yes-means-yes-sexual-consent-bill-expected-to-become-lawAlan Fox_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

OOPS, looks like there is a push in Spain https://rairfoundation.com/pedophiles-celebrate-spanish-minister-declares-children-can-have-sex-with-whomever-they-want-if-they-consent-video/kairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/14/transgender-bathroom-policies-open-doors-for-sexual-predators/vividbleau_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Vivid, the obvious point is that as the BATNA of lawfulness is ever more eroded, the barrier to sexual exploitation of children will erode; as, will that to various forms of incest and more, much more. Let us remember there are places where the age of consent for girls is twelve -- and there is a black market trade in hymens. The Overton Window is real. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

SG “They have been doing this for decades without a single incident of a woman being harmed.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/transgender-bathroom-policies-have-led-to-21-cases-of-crimes-against-women-family-research-council.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11269869/Vermont-girls-high-school-volleyball-team-barred-locker-room-transgender-student.html Vividvividbleau_{October 2, 2022
October
10
Oct
2
02
2022
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply