SHOCKING: Did Anyone see Joy Reid defend an LGBTQ book about rape and incest against Mom's For Liberty?

[MinTrut]

That the best you can do?

I find it smut and you are a pervert and a bad parent?

Let me tell you Fricus. I have a daughter, she's 12. In her class there's a boy who likes to dress as a girl. He is accepted in that class simply as who he is.

Bigotry is something that's learned. And I'm not the one to teach it to my kid. If you think that makes me a bad parent. I have to say I don't give a flying ****. In fact, your condemnation feels more like a badge of honor.

Some good points, but chauvinism is inherent.

 

[MinTrut]

It is smut by any definition or context.

I sure hope you don’t have her read or watch pornography. She can’t consent, you’d likely be harming her. Your job is to protect her innocence.

If you embrace sexualizing kids to spite me.. well that’s on you, and the kids you’d be harming. It’d also be very immature, usually such rebelliousness leaves upon adulthood.

But yes, a parent who exposes their child to porn is a bad parent. If you do that and don’t like hearing that you’d be a bad parent, I’m sorry your feelings are hurt, but it wouldn’t change the fact that you’d be letting your child down and not protecting them.

Do better

^ Delusional spewing and trolling.

Me, I don't want the Bible banned despite its repulsive content.

 

[MinTrut]

Keep em coming and I will just knock em out of the park!
10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”
In Leviticus 26, God lists various punishments which will come if the Israelites disobey his commands. The chapter lists four forms of punishment for disobedience, and that if the Israelites continue to disobey, the final punishment will be God giving full vent to his hostility, and “then you will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters” (Leviticus 26:29).

Deuteronomy 28 repeats this warning in similar language, describing how God will allow enemies to lay siege to the Israelite cities and the behavior that the Israelites will descend into. Interestingly, this seems to phrase the warning with more emphasis on how the people will be shocked at how barbaric they become, where “the most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion” (Deuteronomy 28:54).
The law allowed for Hebrew men and women to sell themselves into slavery to another Hebrew. They could only serve for six years, however. In the seventh year, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:2). This arrangement amounted to what we might call indentured servanthood. And the slaves were to be treated well: “Do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you” (Leviticus 25:39–40). The law also specified that, “when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:13–14). The freed slave had the option of staying with his master and becoming a “servant for life” (Exodus 21:5–6).
The Canaanite nations were punished because of their extreme wickedness. God did not cast out the Canaanites for being a particular race or ethnic group. God did not send the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy a number of righteous nations. On the contrary, the Canaanite nations were horribly depraved. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, and sorcery. They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).


Their “cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious” (Unger, 1954, p. 175). Their “deities…had no moral character whatever,” which “must have brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time,” including sensuous nudity, orgiastic nature-worship, snake worship, and even child sacrifice (Unger, p. 175; cf. Albright, 1940, p. 214). As Moses wrote, the inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” In truth, “[t]hese Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees” (Unger, 1988). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

So you support the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of children as glorified in the Bible?

 

[MinTrut]

No, it's realistic. This is one passage in a book that is a young man's story.

Compared to what they can find on line, which often has no context other than objectifying the people involved.

Heck, when I was a kid, growing up in the 70s, every kid had a stash of porno mags discarded by the adults. I hate to think what my generation could have done with the internet.


Hardly out of context if it is still endorsing genocide and incest and racism and pimping out your wife to get goodies.

The Bible is kind of awful, in that it is written by a primitive people with values we can't understand today, because they were barbarians.

Again, you've left out the worst parts.

Context makes them no better; they glorify the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of children, and those who do these things.

Among other horrors.

 

[MinTrut]

A vote for DeSanaontonious by the braindead.

ps, the amusing thing is I'd agree the book is not appropriate for a school library, but you're too dishonest to communicate with.

It's inappropriate for an elementary school library, but like the Bible, fine for 12+s.

 

[Frankenstein]

The Bible glorifies the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of children, and those who commit these deeds.

You approve of this?

No it doesn't glorify it

 

[Frankenstein]

So you support the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of children as glorified in the Bible?

again it is not glorified!

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So you support the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of children as glorified in the Bible?

If anyone has to explain to you the difference between:

1. Mentioning someone was murdered in a story/description vs. graphic explicit gore

2. Mentioning people had sex in a story/description vs. graphic, explicit pornography

… you’re just not intelligent enough to participate in a discussion here. It’s that simple.

Either become more intelligent or.. there just isn’t any point, I can’t help you.

 

[JoeB131]

If anyone has to explain to you the difference between:

1. Mentioning someone was murdered in a story/description vs. graphic explicit gore

2. Mentioning people had sex in a story/description vs. graphic, explicit pornography

… you’re just not intelligent enough to participate in a discussion here. It’s that simple.

Either become more intelligent or.. there just isn’t any point, I can’t help you.

Seems like this is more about your hangups than the content of the book.

 

[hadit]

It glorifies them, and the perpetrators of them.

No, it does not, no more than our history books glorify the killing our atomic bombs did, or the total destruction we waged on European cities in WWII, or the devastation we waged in Viet Nam, etc. etc.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, it does not, no more than our history books glorify the killing our atomic bombs did, or the total destruction we waged on European cities in WWII, or the devastation we waged in Viet Nam, etc. etc.

Is David (you know, the guy from the Old Testament) not glorified for sexually mutilating the men he killed in battle?

 

[hadit]

Is David (you know, the guy from the Old Testament) not glorified for sexually mutilating the men he killed in battle?

Let's take a look at that. First, we're talking about the military practices of the Middle East during the Bronze Age, a time that can hardly be compared to the sensibilities of the 21st century Western World, so they routinely did things we would be horrified at today. Second, David was the king of a nation. When the history books talk about Truman dropping the Bomb on Japan, do they talk about his private morality and say he committed a great sin? Do they go into mourning over the dead and injured, or do they point out that dropping the bomb cut short the war and the long, drawn-out horror and devastation that would have been the invasion of the Japanese mainland? IOW, do we glorify death and destruction in our history books when we talk about the atomic bomb or the bombing of Dresden? Thus it is with King David. He was the king of a nation, and he did some very unsavory things that kings often do. Remember, though, that he was prevented from building the temple for God because of the blood on his hands and the violence he had perpetuated. He was not glorified in what he did. In short, by recording what David did, the Bible is not glorifying his atrocities.

So, yes, David did some bad things, but received praise for being a man who sought after God and repented when he was confronted with his sin. I'd like to see the reference you have, though, that says he sexually mutilated bodies. I am very aware that he beheaded the corpses of his dead enemies and put their heads on display to serve as a warning to other enemies. That was not even controversial in his day.

Finally, is it glorifying atrocious behavior to record that it occurred?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let's take a look at that. First, we're talking about the military practices of the Middle East during the Bronze Age, a time that can hardly be compared to the sensibilities of the 21st century Western World, so they routinely did things we would be horrified at today. Second, David was the king of a nation. When the history books talk about Truman dropping the Bomb on Japan, do they talk about his private morality and say he committed a great sin? Do they go into mourning over the dead and injured, or do they point out that dropping the bomb cut short the war and the long, drawn-out horror and devastation that would have been the invasion of the Japanese mainland? IOW, do we glorify death and destruction in our history books when we talk about the atomic bomb or the bombing of Dresden? Thus it is with King David. He was the king of a nation, and he did some very unsavory things that kings often do. Remember, though, that he was prevented from building the temple for God because of the blood on his hands and the violence he had perpetuated. He was not glorified in what he did. In short, by recording what David did, the Bible is not glorifying his atrocities.

So, yes, David did some bad things, but received praise for being a man who sought after God and repented when he was confronted with his sin. I'd like to see the reference you have, though, that says he sexually mutilated bodies. I am very aware that he beheaded the corpses of his dead enemies and put their heads on display to serve as a warning to other enemies. That was not even controversial in his day.

Finally, is it glorifying atrocious behavior to record that it occurred?

1 Sam 18:27 David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

 

[hadit]

1 Sam 18:27 David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Okay, let's take a look at the situation, shall we?

First, Saul was king and was trying to off David, because he was extremely popular among the people. In order to off David without his fingerprints being all over it, he gave David a task in order to earn his daughter's hand in marriage, a task he was sure would get David killed. That task was to bring the foreskins of 100 of their enemies. David brought back double the amount and got his wife. Now, what you are trying to do is claim that David was glorified for mutilating the bodies of his enemies, and thus the Bible glorified it.

This is the truth:

1. David was ordered to do it as a dowry to Saul for Saul's daughter.
2. There is no record that he was glorified for doing it, merely that it was accepted as a dowry, and he got his wife.
3. The Bible is not glorifying the mutilation of the enemies' bodies, merely recording that it was done. In fact, Saul is presented as a petty, vengeful tyrant trying to eliminate what he thought was competition by ordering David to do it.

So, given all that, are you still convinced?

 

[MinTrut]

No it doesn't glorify it

Glorify, embrace, instruct; it makes heroes of the monsters who do it.

Have you not read the Bible?

Maybe do that & get back to us?

 

[fncceo]

Ms Reid and I don't share a proclivity for the same sort of porn.

But, I don't begrudge her personal kink.

 

[hadit]

Glorify, embrace, instruct; it makes heroes of the monsters who do it.

Have you not read the Bible?

Maybe do that & get back to us?

Do history books that relate the massive death and suffering in WWII glorify nuclear bombs and carpet-bombing cities, or do they record events that occurred because no one had a better means of stopping evil at the time?

 

[MinTrut]

If anyone has to explain to you the difference between:

Oh please - consplain it to me!

1. Mentioning someone was murdered in a story/description vs. graphic explicit gore

It's not merely mentioning, it's instructing and glorifying horrendous crimes against children.

Have you not read the Bible?

Maybe do that & get back to us.

2. Mentioning people had sex in a story/description vs. graphic, explicit pornography

So you've changed your mind about banning the book Joy defended?

Good on you.

… you’re just not intelligent enough to participate in a discussion here. It’s that simple.

Well, I'm not dishonest enough to set up multiple "burner" accounts here as you have, Joy.

Either become more intelligent or.. there just isn’t any point, I can’t help you.

I don't need help setting up "burner" accounts, Joy - I don't do it as you do because it's dishonest and against the rules.

 

[MinTrut]

Seems like this is more about your hangups than the content of the book.

Yup.

Basically, they're turned on by this description of a painful same sex interaction involving a young man.

I think most adults have the reaction of sadness, empathy and concern, but it arouses them.

It's a classic homophobic situation where they want material that arouses them suppressed because they believe it will suppress their same sex urges.

The definition of pornography is "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement," but you and I aren't aroused by it, and understand the author's intent, so we react to it in a non-sexual way.

But conservatives who have been told that same sex desire is evil, and have thus avoided any exposure to it, have an entirely different, and highly triggered reaction.

They experience arousal, and then shame and anger over that arousal.

This brief passage in a much larger and rather brilliant work is like the messenger in those old Greek stories killed for speaking truth too difficult for some to hear.

They believe - without grasping their conflicted state - that banning/burning these books will bring them peace.

But really, only embracing their identities will do this; they're victims of backward conservative ideology as much as the people they target.

So it's sad and destructive, but understandable, and we can only hope that at least a few of them will wake up before doing any more harm to themselves and others.

 

[MinTrut]

No, it does not, no more than our history books glorify the killing our atomic bombs did

Wasn't there just a big movie - based on a big book - that glorified the atom bomb?

Lots of Oscar nominations I think.

But yeah, the Bible glorifies horrendous and inhuman crimes.

or the total destruction we waged on European cities in WWII

Seems to me that's been glorified a lot too, in books and art.

or the devastation we waged in Viet Nam, etc. etc.

Vietnam?

That's a tricky one, as it's been both disparaged AND glorified.

Interesting to see the progression - or regression - there.