The Continent’s Consensus on Climate?……Crumbling

[kallend 2,026]

20 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Think about that for a minute. 

How about you spend a minute and tell us what the non MAGA Republicans are doing about the festering abcess currently at the heart of their party.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

Don't forget demonrat, socialist and Obiden worshiper.

Ok, I hadn't heard 'Obiden' before, that's very silly,

But wouldn't it be 'Obiden lover'?

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But wouldn't it be 'Obiden lover'?

Obiden worshiper is the correct form of the insult per the definitive word of Youtube.

[kallend 2,026]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Obiden worshiper is the correct form of the insult per the definitive word of Youtube.

Insulters can't even spell.  In the United States, there is a 58 to 42 preference for "worshipper" over "worshiper".

[JoeWeber 2,720]

10 hours ago, kallend said:

How about you spend a minute and tell us what the non MAGA Republicans are doing about the festering abcess currently at the heart of their party.

This. Simply put it falls short of even slightly helpful to waste time explaining why you aren't like the rest of the assholes when you should be leaving the group behind. Republicanism isn't about economic policy anymore, it's about social engineering and religion. 

BTW, you misspelled abscess.

[kallend 2,026]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

This. Simply put it falls short of even slightly helpful to waste time explaining why you aren't like the rest of the assholes when you should be leaving the group behind. Republicanism isn't about economic policy anymore, it's about social engineering and religion. 

BTW, you misspelled abscess.

Which group should I be leaving behind?

P.S. Sorry for the misspelling.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

Which group should I be leaving behind?

P.S. Sorry for the misspelling.

Not you Professor, I was referring, clumsily, to those who hang on to being republican and want understanding in the face of today's reality. And no apology necessary, I actually woorshipp how you spell.

[Coreece 190]

On 5/24/2024 at 8:59 AM, olofscience said:

you're trying really, really hard to paint the left with a broad brush. . .

FYI, I'm leftist and I'm very against all forms of pedophilia and sexual abuse.

You're kind of proving the point that I was trying to make.

Bill and Gowlerk were talking about moral shifts. Some Issues that society viewed as immoral in the past, no longer consider them to be a moral issue today.

My argument to that was, so what?  Just because society suddenly decides one day that something isn't immoral anymore, doesn't mean that you would/should change your personal view on morality.  And I used 'pedophilia' as an example, mainly because that's how Gowlerk defined immorality, and most people would agree that it is.

So how is it broadbrushing when the entire premise of my point rests on the assumption that  people living right now in the present find it immoral to begin with?  

The ideas about destigmatization were just a few examples of how these societal moral shifts might actually begin.  If you bothered to familiarize yourself with the issue rather than getting all triggered and defensive, you'd see I wasn't trying to pose a sweeping statement as an absolute truth.

It's not my fault that your confidence in the left is so low that you fear reasonable people  might readily accept the notion that even a slight minority would condone pedophilia.

 

[Coreece 190]

On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:

hat is exactly right.  You can be attracted to whoever you want.  That's not immoral.  That's not moral.  It has no bearing on morality, because morality has to do with how you treat other people, not what's in your head.

If some guy is attracted to children?  I don't think that's moral or immoral.  In fact, I don't care

Ok, so let's test that.  If parents at the beach were upset because some known creep was biting his lip and gawking at someone's daughter frolicking on the splash pad, you'd say/think "who cares, leave the poor guy alone, he can't help it, he was born that way, he's doing nothing wrong, it's all in his head.  He'll never be able to live as his true self,  have some compassion for Christ's sake?"

 

On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:

morality has to do with how you treat other people, not what's in your head.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This speaks to an element of immorality in our thought life.

We can't really arrest people for thought crimes, but if we value personal development and self control, it might be wise to take heed and get a grip on that as soon as possible.  It all starts in the mind, so ya, it matters.

 

On 5/24/2024 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:

Starting to sense a pattern here?

Originally, I didn't really offer any commentary on the issue other than to list what's being said and where it's coming from.
The point was that if they're trying to destigmatize pedophilia, then is it really a stretch to think that one day they would allow minors of child bearing age to have sex with whomever they wanted, including men of any age?

When I brought this up in the past, people on both side would say things like "we make the laws. . .not children, we would never let that happen, children are impressionable, they can't consent, we need to protect them."

But do people still really feel that way?  Will they feel that way in the near/distant future?

It varies by state, but I think many of us generally assumed 17-18 was the age of consent for sex.
Then it was like, ok, maybe 15 but only with a 3 year age difference.
Then it was 5 years difference.

Nowadays people say things like "children are individuals with their own agency.  They should be able to make decisions about their their own body, their own sexuality, their own sexual orientation, etc.  They should be able to hide it from their parents and share secrets with their teachers if they want.  They should even be able to have abortions and gender affirming care without a parent's consent."

Starting to sense a pattern here?

Now we find out that 15 year old girls can legally have sex with 25 year old men in Colorado.

You can almost hear people saying "screw it, at this point what's the difference between a 25 and a 40 year old?  He might even be better for her than some horny 25 year old punk."

Is it really that much of a stretch to see this being allowed one day?  Maybe not in our lifetime, but what will these desensitized kids think when they're older, having grown up in a hypersexualized society where degeneracy is normalized?

They might say something like, "our parents were ignorant and couldn't handle it, but we're educated!  They fought for us to have books in elementary school with vivid imagery and stories of sex acts between 9-year olds.  We had online pornography "where no on gets choked" at our finger tips whenever we wanted.  We learned how to live with it responsibly."  

"Who could ever forget Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey who taught us all how to twerk when we were 7 years old at the local library's drag hour?  And look, we're fine!  Nothing bad happened to us.   We will teach our kids even better.   Sex is natural and happy relationships reduce suicide.  You don't want people killing themselves, do you?  Sexually mature girls are wise beyond their years and have the right to choose their lover.  If nature says they can have babies, it's their choice.  What business is it of OURS!"

[Coreece 190]

On 5/26/2024 at 1:31 PM, kallend said:

Insulters can't even spell.  In the United States, there is a 58 to 42 preference for "worshipper" over "worshiper".

In the United States, we put the period before the quotation mark.

[Coreece 190]

On 5/26/2024 at 10:27 PM, kallend said:

P.S. Sorry for the misspelling.

Not quite Skitt's Law, but close. . .

[olofscience 480]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

So how is it broadbrushing when the entire premise of my point rests on the assumption that  people living right now in the present find it immoral to begin with?  

What - so you mean I'm not really leftist at all because I find pedophilia immoral, and only leftists are trying to destigmatize pedophilia? And you're not broadbrushing because "most people" find pedophilia immoral anyway? Thinking isn't your strong point, is it?

 

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's not my fault that your confidence in the left is so low that you fear reasonable people  might readily accept the notion that even a slight minority would condone pedophilia.

I'm so touched by your concern...but no. 

 

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

We can't really arrest people for thought crimes, but if we value personal development and self control, it might be wise to take heed and get a grip on that as soon as possible.  It all starts in the mind, so ya, it matters.

Is that why you're so obsessed thinking about what homosexual people do in private?

[gowlerk 2,190]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

Starting to sense a pattern here?

There definitely is a pattern here. The age of consent and the level of protection from the sexual exploitation has been steadily increasing for at least 150 years. It is a direct result of liberalism and the decline of religion. Things that were once tolerated are no longer. Men go to jail for long periods of time for having immoral photos on their hard drives and police forces have members dedicated of finding them. There is more effort being made to understand pedophilia and why it exists. You are in error thinking that this means our society may someday tolerate the abuse of children. What it really means is that we are working harder to prevent it. That is the pattern.

The "left" believes in protecting children. Childhood marriage is a conservative and largely a religious based belief in paternalism and the leadership of strong men who take what they want. It is a problem of the extreme right, not liberals.

Edited May 28, 2024 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,990]

13 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so let's test that.  If parents at the beach were upset because some known creep was biting his lip and gawking at someone's daughter frolicking on the splash pad, you'd say/think "who cares, leave the poor guy alone, he can't help it, he was born that way, he's doing nothing wrong, it's all in his head.  He'll never be able to live as his true self,  have some compassion for Christ's sake?"

Great test.  And my answer depends on the definiton of "some known creep."

Is he a "known creep" because he's black, and you know those people?  Is he a "known creep" because he's 60, and why is he at the beach with kids if he's 60?  Is he a "known creep" because you know he has a younger girlfriend who likes to dress like an anime schoolgirl?  Is he a "known creep" because he's a liberal, or he was a swinger when he was younger, or he once gave a talk on consent, or he dresses up in women's clothes at DZ parties because he thinks it's funny?

Then yes, I'd think he did not deserve to be attacked.

Is he "some known creep" because another parent caught him with child porn?  Because he raped someone?  Because he was on a sex offender list?  Because he was stalking a kid online?

Then I'd be on the side of the parents.

Again, see if you can determine the fundamental difference between the two general cases above.

Quote

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This speaks to an element of immorality in our thought life.

We can't really arrest people for thought crimes, but if we value personal development and self control, it might be wise to take heed and get a grip on that as soon as possible.  It all starts in the mind, so ya, it matters.

Agreed.  If you and your wife have agreed to be monogamous, then you should not be plotting and scheming to have sex with other women.  You can't help it if you look at other women and are attracted to them - but it should stop there.  But that's up to you, not me.

Quote

The point was that if they're trying to destigmatize pedophilia, then is it really a stretch to think that one day they would allow minors of child bearing age to have sex with whomever they wanted, including men of any age?

Yes, it's a stretch.

People who like to be tied up for sex are not going to try to legalize rape.  People who like to be choked during sex are not going to one day want to legalize murder.  People who like to have their hair pulled are not going to lead the charge to legalize spousal abuse.

Quote

 

Nowadays people say things like "children are individuals with their own agency.  They should be able to make decisions about their their own body, their own sexuality, their own sexual orientation, etc.  They should be able to hide it from their parents and share secrets with their teachers if they want.  They should even be able to have abortions and gender affirming care without a parent's consent."

Starting to sense a pattern here?

 

Yes, starting to sense a pattern.  People are looking at kid's rights - and protections - more.  Good for them.  

This has been going on for decades.  We are, slowly, removing workarounds to pedophilia laws; more and more states are removing the marriage loophole.  In the 1980's kids got more protection as the drinking age went from 18 to 21 to try to reduce drunk driving.  But it also reduced their rights.  Good thing or bad thing?  Jury's still out on that.  But it's being discussed more.  Kids can now leave abusive parents, even if the Bible says parents can hit them.  That doesn't mean that a crying 2 year old can run away - but a 16 year old who's been beaten black and blue now can.  I am sure you agree with that, even though it goes against both the Bible and traditional (circa 1900's) childrearing.

Quote

Maybe not in our lifetime, but what will these desensitized kids think when they're older, having grown up in a hypersexualized society where degeneracy is normalized?

We have normalized "degeneracy" for centuries.  Blacks can now have sex with - and even marry - whites.  And that was the very height of degeneracy circa 1880.  Women can now refuse sex with their husbands.  That was degenerate and went against the Biblical role of the man.  Gay people can marry - that was degenerate as recently as 1990.  Kids can leave parents who beat them, even if the Bible says that "those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."  Women can be bosses, even if the Bible teaches that you should "not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."  

And again, I bet you even agree with most of those once-degenerate principles.

Quote

"Who could ever forget Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey who taught us all how to twerk when we were 7 years old at the local library's drag hour?  And look, we're fine!  Nothing bad happened to us.   We will teach our kids even better.   Sex is natural and happy relationships reduce suicide.  You don't want people killing themselves, do you?  Sexually mature girls are wise beyond their years and have the right to choose their lover."

Let's go back in time to what that strawman would have been in the 1890's.

"Sure, let white women marry black men so they can get their big dicks.  And after that we'll let them marry apes, then dogs.  After all, they can make their own decisions on who they want to marry, right?  And it would be racist of people to not let them marry dogs if they want to!"

And a very similar argument was made for gay marriage - that soon people would be marrying their cats.

Didn't happen then, won't happen now.  It's one of the sillier slippery-slope arguments.

[billvon 2,990]

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

Bill and Gowlerk were talking about moral shifts. Some Issues that society viewed as immoral in the past, no longer consider them to be a moral issue today.

And vice versa.  The legal age of marriage used to be 13 or so.  Now we consider that immoral.  It was once moral for a man to force his wife to have sex with him, indeed, that was defined as a "wifely duty."  Now we consider that immoral.

Quote

My argument to that was, so what?  Just because society suddenly decides one day that something isn't immoral anymore, doesn't mean that you would/should change your personal view on morality. 

Absolutely true.  The only person who has to agree with your morality is you (and your wife/partner if you are in that sort of relationship where it's expressed.)  But - and this is a big but - you also don't have the right to impose your morality on anyone else.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

14 hours ago, Coreece said:

We can't really arrest people for thought crimes,

But they can be condemned to perdition by a loving God and that's cool? You know, it's that all in your head coveting thing.

Edited May 28, 2024 by JoeWeber

[kallend 2,026]

16 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

 

So you won't be voting for Trump the Pussy Grabber, then.

[jakee 1,489]

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

But do people still really feel that way?  Will they feel that way in the near/distant future?

It varies by state, but I think many of us generally assumed 17-18 was the age of consent for sex.

Did you? Why?

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

Then it was like, ok, maybe 15 but only with a 3 year age difference.
Then it was 5 years difference.

Nowadays people say things like "children are individuals with their own agency.  They should be able to make decisions about their their own body, their own sexuality, their own sexual orientation, etc.  They should be able to hide it from their parents and share secrets with their teachers if they want.  They should even be able to have abortions and gender affirming care without a parent's consent."

Starting to sense a pattern here?

OK, here's the thing: you're not describing a pattern of the laws changing for the worse, you're describing a pattern of you gradually becoming less ignorant of what the laws already are. This doesn't imply any progression of the law itself in any direction.

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

You can almost hear people saying "screw it, at this point what's the difference between a 25 and a 40 year old?  He might even be better for her than some horny 25 year old punk."

Is it really that much of a stretch to see this being allowed one day? 

Yes it is, because on balance things have moved the other way. Because here's the thing... In 1880, 37 states had an age of consent of 10 years, 10 states had an age of consent at 12 years, and Delaware had an age of consent of 7 years." Wiki

So where would you rather be? In a modern Colorado elementary school with a librarian in drag, or the good old Christian 19th Century?

Edited May 28, 2024 by jakee

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Did you? Why?...

So where would you rather be? In a modern Colorado elementary school with a librarian in drag, or the good old Christian 19th Century?

Well many Christians want to turn back the clock. They pander to the public when they say the church is open to all. But when the doors are closed the pope says whats really on his mind. Pope Francis just apologized for a homophobic slur made behind closed doors with Bishops.

[BIGUN 1,306]

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

They pander to the public when they say the church is open to all. But when the doors are closed the pope says whats really on his mind. Pope Francis just apologized for a homophobic slur made behind closed doors with Bishops.

You know how eating pussy and being the Pope are similar? One slip of the tongue and you're in deep shit. 

[jakee 1,489]

7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Well many Christians want to turn back the clock. They pander to the public when they say the church is open to all. But when the doors are closed the pope says whats really on his mind. Pope Francis just apologized for a homophobic slur made behind closed doors with Bishops.

Keep in mind that it’s a bunch of dudes who’ve decided never to have any relationship with a woman in favour of worshipping a semi naked man on some bondage equipment instead. They’ve got to pretend to be anti-gay or people will start getting suspicious.

[Phil1111 1,149]

India temperatures above 126 degrees F. today. A new record.

[brenthutch 444]

On 5/16/2024 at 6:34 AM, kallend said:

The last glacier in the Venezuelan Andes has now disappeared.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/15/venezuela-corona-glacier-humboldt/

I’ll trade a patch of snow and ice for record food production, but that’s just me. I would rather feed the hungry than gaze upon an alpine iceberg. Obviously Kallend disagrees.

“NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, US — Global grain production is expected to reach a record 2.307 billion tonnes in 2023-24, mostly due to a solid rebound in corn output, the International Grains Council (IGC) said at its 59th council session convened in New Orleans, Louisiana, US, on Jan. 24.”

[kallend 2,026]

On 5/29/2024 at 7:43 AM, Phil1111 said:

India temperatures above 126 degrees F. today. A new record.

It's just weather, nothing to worry about.

[brenthutch 444]

33 minutes ago, kallend said:

It's just weather, nothing to worry about.

 No different than the recent record cold in Antarctica.

“Vostok mean temperature for November 2023 is -45.4°c, which is the same as 1983 and the coldest November mean since records began in 1958.”

 

Edited May 30, 2024 by brenthutch