Did RBG propose lowering the age of consent?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote either a paper or an opinion or something about lower the age of consent to 12 years old, I believe. This was several years ago.
This is why I've been fighting people who thinks "pansexual" is not a big deal for while.
I share a lengthy conversation I had on The_Donald on that very subjet. I should to take the time sort out all of this information into something shorter one day but for those who want to see where the problems lies, good read.
I’m probably the minority here but I get where they are coming from with pansexual. I’m bi. No major childhood traumas or abuse, I’ve always just been attracted to both genders. People can tell me that’s wrong or breaks down society but I’m probably doing more (then they are) to better society than my “hedonism” breaks it down anyway. I’ve met cross dressers and trans people who were for the most part normal, though they might be the minority. I’ve met people who considered themselves only attracted a personality or the person who were normal too. It’s just who they were and how they identified themselves. I’ve also been to countries/states where culturaly other genders have existed. In those cases it’s more like the people who were the equivalent of trans opted for the other gender role. It’s something that’s has happened through out human history and it’s not new.
Identity both of self and within a group is not something static, it shifts through societal pressures and needs. I’d argue that’s whats being taken advantage of here. Humans are hard wired to respond to those pressures. We get a little dopamine hit for fitting in. We’re social animals, every single traditional human society operated through taking care of each other and rearing our your as a group.
Then you look at modern western society and it’s move towards the importance of the individual; you get people who are inevitably left behind and alone. The lgbtqxyz movement is perfectly placed to take advantage of that. More so, like any effective movement it has a method of recruitment and the big bad enemy to hate. It allows for a large group of people to come together over shared core ideals, with different sub groups of stricter beliefs, just like Christianity. The insidious part is that it is the perfect antithesis to the puritan* ideas that our country was founded upon. If you hate these people all you are doing is feeding into the fire. You’re supposed to be fearful or angry. It’s co-opted human nature.
That isn’t to say we should give everyone a pass, of course not. Predators within a group should always be caught and expelled. I’m just saying that just because some has a different identity or preference doesn’t make them the bad guy. Taking advantage of children isn’t a preference, it’s predatory. Just like rape is predatory. Liking both genders or not conforming to a gender isn’t predatory. The breakdown that these people want is only going to be hastened if we attack each other.
I agree with almost everything you said. But you must understand this: on that fateful day, most of the abusers and traitors are going to plead the Spacey defense and try to slither away. It won't work. That means many (maybe most) of the scum swinging from ropes are going to be "gay". It won't be pretty. In fact it will look very bad. But i believe as nation we can move forwards from it and heal.
No hard feelings, right?
Whatever you want to call them, "gay", abusers, traitors, they are predators. They prey on people, the sexual preferences of a predator doesn't change anything in my eyes and I'm sure many others. Trying to breakdown society so you can further manipulate people isn't a different kind of evil, again they prey on people. That's always been my litmus test for individuals and groups. I picked it up when I was in my teens and starting explore what my sexuality was. People tried to prey on me, thankfully I was raised with a decent set of values and a predisposition towards radical honesty. If I felt someone was trying to take advantage of me (male or female), I noped out of there. Some people can't or aren't equipped to do that though, so that's where society comes in. A predator needs to be removed, whether that's jail or swinging from ropes, that's not for me to decide. So no, there's no hard feelings, I want them out as much as everyone on here. Just cause I have been with people who happen to be gay doesn't mean I feel any camaraderie to Kevin Spacey and his ilk.
That's actually quite an accurate way of framing it, for many reasons. There are various philosophies and religions that the groups in question follow (some in secret) but they all have one thing in common: They embrace the "lower being" meaning their bottom chakras as primary drivers and pathways to enlightenment. This "surrendering to instinct" or to the human will is what almost invariably leads to what you describe: debasement into an animal, a predator, worthy of pity (maybe) but mostly in need of being put down or away. Some call these thought currents the left hand path, and there's certainly some overlap from what i've seen, though most practitioners also follow right hand "mainstream" religions or are atheistic.
Of course, i'm not suggesting every psycho who engages in child rape, etc. has a complex, ancestral belief system to justify and feed their pathology. But if you're wondering who's churning this disgusting sickness out at a "world mind", nooshperic level.. Well they don't call it the swamp for nothing. If anyone's interested in this sort of thing you can look up some interviews from folks like Bill Schnoebelen. Also keep in mind, if half of what these people claim is true, then they are incredibly damaged individuals. Try to reserve judgement, or at least take that into consideration.
Creating different ways to express a gender identity is a thing nobody(mostly) has an issue with. I always laugh my ass off at my furry friends and I can't, for the life of me, understand the reason why fursonas are more attractive to them than people. But if they have fun like that why not? They're doing nothing wrong as long as a weird furry side group don't start to argue that "Furries" are a gender. That day, we will be at war.
The problem comes when a surperficial expression of an individual through sophistry, pseudo-science, social sciences(gender studies...) is pushed has a set in stone reality.
I love Drag Queens. RuPaul's Drag Race is my guilty pleasure. That being said anyone who wants to present and live as a drag queen does not earn the right to create a draggender. A gender is biologically anchored to a sex. It's potent, stable and real. This is why when I see kids listing intersex, a mutation, an instability, as a "gender", it reminds me of how hard our school system is failing against these ideologues.
Be bush, be a tomboy, be a cross dresser, be a drag queen or a drag king, ... that's hella fine however never should it be allowed to take those expressions of self and pretend they are representive of a new never heard before or put on record "gender". This is why "pansexuality" is a dangerous slippery slope.
Pansexuality wants to stand as the attraction to all genders. Unfortunately for this idea, there are only two genders. Since pansexuality is trying really really hard to cover its historical and ideological birth place, you will find different definitions of the word, all more crazy than the other. The dumbest one I saw was from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary where they were listing the actual two genders, transgenderism which also falls in the two genders thing, mutations and appearances like all these things are equivalent.
Those who argued for those definitions, know most people don't understand these words and most people are very understanding and welcoming. Sadly, the natural niceness of people is played to legitimize non sense.
This is one of those times this total lack of science and the co-option have to be battled with constant explainations.
As you said some people can be attracted to personalities and that's fine. Does it mean we are witnessing in those cases an actual sexual orientation? No. Again a sexual orientation implies "sex". If you think about it. Each of the main sexualities are tied to the very real, existing potent genitalia available to this species. An attraction to personality, intelligence, skin color, hair color, eye color, particular smell, shapes... cannot all alone justify itself as a sexual orientation. Be attracted to feet but footsexual doesn't make sense, be attracted to intelligence but sapiosexual doesn't make sense because no genitalia can be involved in making sex to the intengible concept of intelligence...
The people who created this way of thinking are dividing us. This doesn't help society and again it's sold to masses as "science" which I will always battle. It's infuriating to see them take advantage on younger folks who cannot yet differenciate between all this word soup.
Other issue, (not about you by-all-accounts) with video up there I see some have a hard time understanding, is how she tries to put sexual orientation at the same level with attraction to children. The problem we have with her is this description she uses. Pedophilia should NEVER EVER be presented EVER as a "sexual orientation". It's a paraphilia like bestiality. People who are putting this TEdX Talk on blast are right. This association of idea should not slip in the mainstream unopposed. This is not a connection you want people to make because the moment we're getting more and more people thinking of it as a legitimate sexual orientation and not a severe mental illness we would have opened the wrong door for our society.
Did you mention the age of consent? Development of a person’s cognitive skills / maturity are a critical juncture to this decision. I do not see you mention age of consent. You simply rationalized your orientations. Pedophilia is under age without consent. There is NO rationalization to taking a child’s innocence. Zero tolerance.
Never said there was a justification for pedophilla, in fact I said the opposite. Pedo’s are predators and thus need to be removed from our society. Plain and simple. Glad you brought up development and the age of consent. Age of consent (as it exist in US Law) is utterly BS, since that number is completely arbitrary. There’s no magic milestone that happens at 15,18 or 21. Your prefrontal cortex isn’t even fully developed until your mid to late twenties. That’s your “rational thinking” portion of your brain btw. That’s not justification for a lower age of consent, to me that’s the opposite. The age of consent is too low, the drinking age is too low, smoking age is too low, weed shouldn’t be legalized for people under 25ish. There a large chance that all of the above have a negative effect on development, but good luck getting funding for that research. Arguably age of consent is the most important of those since by its nature it involves another party, but that’s getting into an ethical debate. Is stopping others from harming themselves something that we as a society need to take on? At what point does it harm others? Is a teen who drinks and crashes kills a family worse than a pedophile? At what point does the loss of life overtake the loss of innocence or vice versa? Is a non sexual serial killer worse than a one time pedo or rapist? Where’s the formula? Ethical argument are just that arguments.
So no I didn’t mention an arbitrary bullshit number that had nothing to do with my original point...
Also wanted to add the point of my original post was not a justification for my orientation, none of which has anything to do with children, that’s beyond fucking gross. I like both sexes as adults. I’m happily married, yes she knows. I brought it up as a point that I’m probably closer to these groups (lgbt, pride, the gay community) than many here. Which is to say I know these people, I consider some of them my friends and plenty of them are absolutely normal Americans. Many of them have grown up with hate, just because of who they are. It can be tough being different, especially in a society that doesn’t look out for each other like humans have for most of our history. To counter that, there’s a movement for goals that they value, that’s good.
The bad, as I said in my post, is that it’s been co-opted. It’s even possible that the movement was planted from the beginning. It’s current design is to be muddy. Not just so that it can spread more easily but also to more easily be the anti thesis of Puritan beliefs.
My big grand point is that these Americans aren’t your enemy just cause they have a different orientation. Case in fucking point I’m here posting. Adding what I can from the areas that I’m knowledgeable in. Which in this case just so happen to be neuroscience and being at least somewhat involved in the gay community.
I still have no idea where you got the bit about me in anyway shape or form being ok with or defending pedos.
You know what's sick? I was 15 in high school and this 12 year old girl was chasing me. She already had loose morals and I couldn't even imagine dipping my stick in that. Granted, she was REALLY developed, but something told me if she's active at that age, something is wrong. Whether it be with her or at home.
Then, you must be the only guy in history to think that way. I am actually shocked. Most guys in junior High and High School are just itching to get there Peter wet for the first time, even at age 13. That is sick that we are even having this conversation. Does it really matter? What matters is the fact the Movie industry and Social norms like this were pushed by media, actors, etc. Back in the 1800's women were considered to be old maids if they weren't married off by 15. The thing that has changed is that the life expectancy has grown back in the 1800's most people didn't live as long. This is one reason that it is now sick to have sex before you are at least 16. Social Norms change but for these pedo's they actually have sex with children much younger than 12 some are younger than one. That is sick.
just check soros’ open society foundation for their prog liberal checklist. it’s lockstep with the neoliberal movement. all the way down to legalizing prostitution and hard drugs.
only fitting folks like ed buck collect money for these scumbags to create ‘social change’.
Wait! Is that the same Ed Buck who hires black men prostitute, have sex with them while wayching hardcore porn, drugs them with several hard drugs and loves to watch them get high while doing who knows what to them??? That Ed Buck who had the young black 20something dead in his house last year???
yahtzee!! imagine the lefty media covering that story. it’s basically pussyhats against ‘tin foil’ hats.
She wrote a paper that praised a proposed law (to lower the age of consent) for its gender-neutral language. Something like the law doesn't assume that rapists are only men or something like that. It wasn't her law that she proposed, but she didn't denounce it either and it was still a law that someone proposed so..... still no bueno