Interesting N Carolina doesn’t disqualify candidates convicted of such things, isn’t it? Some places do, like liberal California. Liberals ACTUALLY care about crime enough to disqualify based on convictions, not “conservatives”.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2410_cfa_20120430_105724_asm_comm.html

Have you written your state legislature to demand they make a law so criminals can’t be elected officials? Thought not.

Then, again I ask you, why would you have ever supported repeatedly convicted con man (school cons, charity cons, repeated business cons) and racist (payed millions for redlining) Trump?

You SAY wrong is wrong, then you vote for convicted criminals constantly. I am certain you voted for the guy whose campaign harvested and filled out ballots in YOUR county, knowing beforehand that he had done that, he won despite blatantly defrauding the election, and would have again if he had run again. You absolutely didn’t say any Republican on the same ballot should be disqualified despite knowing his campaign also filled out fraudulent votes for any Republican they could. You lied and said he had suffered consequences, but you know full well he did not. None. Not only did he take office, and never was charged, he was allowed to run again in the special election required because of his admitted fraud.

The point here is Republicans (like you) SAY they believe in law and order and criminals shouldn’t be elected officials, then you go ahead and vote for people who admit to brutally murdering their wives and tossing the body in a creek and are awaiting trial and then, idiotically, go on to call Democrats the “party of debauchery”. It’s asinine and transparent.

You SAY you care about law and order, then directly encourage perjury (only from your “team”) elect child rapists, sex traffickers, people who protect child rapists, thieves, cheats, deadbeats, blatant racists, and insurectionists. (In one case, Trump, someone who is all of the above).

I can only find wrong worth mentioning on one side because only one side displays this level of wrongness. Why can you only find wrong on Democrats parts, and not see the 95% of horrific wrongness coming from your choices for representatives?

Democrats abuse their travel funds (but only about 10% as much as Republicans), Democrats commit insider trading (but not 1/2 as much as republicans).
Democrats don’t traffic little girls for sex.
Democrats don’t have cocaine fueled lemon party orgies (ugh, just the thought).
Democrats don’t try to commit a coup then blame republicans when it fails.
Democrats don’t run fraudulent charities for veterans which they steal from.
Democrats don’t have private parties with Epstein and little girls.
Democrats don’t repeatedly try to take guns onto planes (Cawthorn).
Democrats don’t harass young school shooting victims with death threats and claims that they’re not real people.
Democrats don’t put hurting republicans above the good of the nation either….they should start, turnabout is fair play, and hurting actual abusive criminals (not just fantasy crimes) is in the national interest.

Yes, I’m biased. It’s insane you aren’t, knowing what we know about current republicans, and what little we have of Democratic crimes. I find you a new disgusting Republican representative committing felonies daily, and you don’t flinch in your unbridled support of them, you toss out red herrings and whataboutisms without ever turning on the majority of pedophiles, hebephiles, rapists, insurrectionists, etc that keep coming from your chosen party.

I agree with your last sentence, but you do not.
You constantly vote for criminals like this and simply turn a blind eye to their convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Democrats got rid of Al Frankenstein for a photo of him pointing at a sleeping woman, Republicans are still trying to elect judge Roy Moore despite his pedophilic history, and re-elect Cawthorn, and Boebert, Gaetz, Jordan, even Epstein’s bestie Trump. All directly tied to pedophilia, and you don’t care one bit. Not to mention the seditious coup attempt so many are complicit in, or the coverups afterwards, or the insider trading, etc.

You don’t care about criminal behavior if it’s a Republican, and you just can’t admit it, but you and all here KNOW it’s true.

Your opinion noted. Enjoy your discussion!

I am moving on. I believe I can rely on you to "un-hide" any relevant discourse; and to note in detail any/all changes to the opinion. Or whatever else you may fear.

Lovely work, if I were someone who had 3k to burn I just might get one. I am disappointed that there were no trans dimensional demon hookers summoned upon completion.

I am so not the person to fix this! All I can figure is you are in a different country than the rest of us Down Southers.

Some of us more south than others, of course. Dag.

imagine being persuaded by john stossel and then proclaiming "i am not dumb". fascinating.

kinda makes a body wonder doesn't it?

how much lead could have lead to one's suppressed mental functions?

what could have been?

am no velvet tam wearer, but certainly not red mad hatter material.* maybe should be proud of what little there was to work with. a little less embarrassed about what didn't go right either.

maybe if this was known, would have given license to beg off father's "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING!"

"Sorry Pops. All that lawn mowing must have affected your son too much."

But then...WTF is the excuse for Twitter?


*mad as a hatter. mercury nitrate.

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

? What guy on the bicycle? Am I blind? I only see the motorcycle that pulled up after the crash.

Still totally not cool, plenty of opportunities to kill or maim someone. He got lucky. Don’t race on crowded streets with traffic and pedestrians people. Find a farm road or abandoned airport.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by BSR.

Try that again…
*backup= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li9l_beZBJo


What am I doing wrong?

Maybe it's my current state of mind, but... when I'm with a large enough group of friends, am I also a liquid?

*promote existential ponderance

Actually come to think of it, yes, I am definitely the insecure infant and she is 5 feet 2 inches of thug. Never thought about it that way.