An argument for criminalizing LGBT and transgender media

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

No, there is no sound argument for criminalizing lgbt. However, pedophiles should be tortured.

 

[Questioner]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories

Nope, I'd be fine with that one. It's the specific conspiracy theories which I'm talking about that I'd be at odds with and adverse to.

 

[g5000]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

Melania is young enough to be Trump's daughter. In fact, she's only 6 years older than Junior.

Creeeeeeepy.

 

[Questioner]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

No, there is no sound argument for criminalizing lgbt. However, pedophiles should be tortured.

Just the media I described above, not consenting adults in private.

 

[fncceo]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

Fooling around with younger women isn't pedophilia... it's just inequity.

Actual pedophiles are attracted to children (boys and girls) well below the age of consent. Typically, before puberty.

 

[Questioner]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

Melania is almost young enough to be Trump's granddaughter.

I don't care about Trump, thanks.

 

[bodecea]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Shut it down, and just classify all LGBT groups and cults which promote the ideas above as criminal or terrorist organizations for all I care. Profile them, contact their employers, and have them fired from their jobs for peddling their snake oil to children.

The Constitution can be easily changed?

 

[Questioner]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

Fooling around with younger women isn't pedophilia... it's just inequity.

Actual pedophiles are attracted to children (boys and girls) well below the age of consent. Typically, before puberty.

Right, I've had consensual sex with women and don't find that "hooking up" is a worthy life goal or pursuit as I did when I was younger, this is unrelated to what I'm describing.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Shut it down, and just classify all LGBT groups and cults which promote the ideas above as criminal or terrorist organizations for all I care. Profile them, contact their employers, and have them fired from their jobs for peddling their snake oil to children.

The Constitution can be easily changed?

Yeah... if history is any indicator.

 

[fncceo]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

Fooling around with younger women isn't pedophilia... it's just inequity.

Actual pedophiles are attracted to children (boys and girls) well below the age of consent. Typically, before puberty.

Right, I've had consensual sex with women and don't find that a worthy life goal or pursuit as I did when I was younger, this is unrelated to what I'm describing.

Depending on the age at which one had children ... young enough to be your daughter could be well into her 30's.

 

[bodecea]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Yes it can be changed...and has been a few times.

 

[bodecea]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society. Homosexuality should be shunned.

Who cares about your bible. We are not obligated to follow it or even believe in it.

 

[debbiedowner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Shut it down, and just classify all LGBT groups and cults which promote the ideas above as criminal or terrorist organizations for all I care. Profile them, contact their employers, and have them fired from their jobs for peddling their snake oil to children.

What constitution can be easily changed? Certainly not the U.S. constitution. I suspect your article is copy and paste so no link.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society. Homosexuality should be shunned.

Who cares about your bible. We are not obligated to follow it or even believe in it.

My arguments a Common Law one, and the Bible did play a role in the development of it, as did older legal systems, but since it's not arguing from the authority of "The Bible" in a vacuum to begin with, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[debbiedowner]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

Apparently, tard, you don't know that most child molesters are heterosexual males.

You are sick in the head. Get help.

As for banning media for "conspiracy theories"...BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Boy that's rich! Fox News and OAN would have to be shut down immediately.

Nope, that's a lie.

If the number of child molesters and pedophiles are AVERAGED OUT, there are FAR more homo molesters and peds than heterosexuals.

So where's your proof?

 

[bodecea]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

Apparently, tard, you don't know that most child molesters are heterosexual males.

You are sick in the head. Get help.

As for banning media for "conspiracy theories"...BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Boy that's rich! Fox News and OAN would have to be shut down immediately.

Nope, that's a lie.

If the number of child molesters and pedophiles are AVERAGED OUT, there are FAR more homo molesters and peds than heterosexuals.

Like Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Like Republican Roy Moore.
Like enabler Republican Gym Jordan
Like Republican fat donnie

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Shut it down, and just classify all LGBT groups and cults which promote the ideas above as criminal or terrorist organizations for all I care. Profile them, contact their employers, and have them fired from their jobs for peddling their snake oil to children.

What constitution can be easily changed? Certainly not the U.S. constitution. I suspect your article is copy and paste so no link.

Amendments can be repealed, including the first.

 

[fncceo]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Yes it can be changed...and has been a few times.

I agree that it isn't actually changed in the literal sense. No part of The Constitution is ever removed. Amendment can be added that supersede previous amendments.

 

[fncceo]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society. Homosexuality should be shunned.

Who cares about your bible. We are not obligated to follow it or even believe in it.

Hasn't always been the case.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Yes it can be changed...and has been a few times.

I agree that it isn't actually changed in the literal sense. No part of The Constitution is ever removed. Amendment can be added that supersede previous amendments.

Technically yeah, that's what I'm advocating - advocating an amendment with renders the 1st irrelevant and redefines it on the basis of several parameters.