Introspection on the decline of morality.

[juantoo3]

Quote the post where you inferred.this...

Already did, and you are the one that inferred it.

 

[juantoo3]

With all due respect, those links are self selected by you. And, also seem to be all from fox news? aka faux news in some circles
Is it any surprise they all show bad stuff by the "libs"?
Someone with an opposing viewpoint could grab some links about the crazy right wingers

They sure could...and we already know those sources to be confirmed liars...Nicholas Sandman, a teenager, they slandered and lied about viciously, repeatedly. That's just the one example they all were called to task over.

Try to tell me the mainstream news has no hell bent bias against conservatives...

 

[juantoo3]

Also, back to the original thought of the thread...
The decline of morality...
I've been hearing about that my whole life.
Nothing it like the good old days. ("by golly in my day it wasn't like this")
Isn't that a perennial thing?

While this is true, there is an exponential push going on right now, with an "in your face" attitude, without any respect for G!d; defund the police, disrespect the flag and the military, and in general just continue to trample the rights of anybody who dares to speak up about it.

So we are beginning to see signs of blowback...Bud Light, Target, Kohls, now even ChickFilA (however that's spelled). People, decent people, people just trying to get along in life without others imposing and impeding upon their Constitutional *and* G!d given rights to enjoy the life they've made for themselves, are getting rightly fed up with the situation. When a shop owner in Brooklyn is charged and convicted for defending himself and his property, but robbers everywhere else across that borough are routinely released without bail, and charges dropped...what incentive to obey the law? If the law won't obey the law, what good is the law???

Allow me to reiterate, since it was taken out of context...no surprise there.

The conservatives I know don't give a flying rat's ass about how another adult lives their life. If a person wants to be a flaming fruitcake, that is their business. I have the right to not partake, not accept, and want no part of...and if you get in my face about it, I will respond. It is self defense, defending MY rights that are being infringed upon. The only hate is coming from those telling me I have to accept their perversion...wrong answer, every time.

 

[Faithfulservant]

That was the point I was trying to make. Why couldn't my son and others have a prayer time around the flag before school even started to pray for the school but the administration can push their agendas that has nothing to do with education?

 

[juantoo3]

These things are not, in my clinical experience, randomly decided by adults.
These things, that is, children being transgender, is a frightening journey that parents go on because their children are often suicidal and gender affirming care is the only thing that can help.
I don't know how much you know about transgenderism and what it is like for the individuals or the childhood experiences they have and the suicide rate.
I don't have the stats offhand, I could probably find them.
Thank goodness when I worked in that place that turned out to be mostly about transgender stuff, I didn't work with many kids at all.
I found the training around evaluations lacking, and certainly the tact and finesse in how to evaluate children not so good.
Still, sometimes it was terribly obvious that someone was not at all going to ever be at home in their body without gender affirming care.
I never wanted that to be my specialty at all, but I sure learned a lot.

I agree the problem is complex, I have worked in the past 3 years in a clinic dealing with gender reassignment. I feel for someone so screwed up in their head they feel this is an acceptable way to adjust their life, but it is not my life to live. It is however my duty to assist in what way I can, and I did so as respectfully as I could...even though there were those that were less than forgiving regarding pronouns. If you have a male given name in the system and your name of the day is female, don't cop an attitude...change your name in the system, that is on you. Thankfully these were the minority, and pretty obviously had a monster size chip on their shoulder.

I draw the line at children. A child's mind is not developed to make adult decisions.

 

[wil]

Already did, and you are the one that inferred it.

Idk where it is, 60 posts if you don't care to discuss what you inferred from my post...I don't care either.

 

[juantoo3]

He didn't get lynched for a false accusation of raping a white woman.

Should he have felt singled out in CRT discussion? Sure....we all should. Could there have been a better way to teach a bitter pill without affecting our sensibilities? Obviously! But that better way was ignored when I we were born and black kids could not drink water from our fountain (use the damn hose), go to our schools (don't deserve to use our books) and step of the sidewalk and avert your eyes...

Here, once again

rubbing salt into the wound?

 

[juantoo3]

And we just gotta own the libs, right?

Perhaps you can tell me....what is a "woman?" Can you define what a woman is?

 

[RJM]

I'm glad England is starting to get a handle on cancelling and no-platforming at universities:

The Times 1/06/2023
I'll defend all views, vows professor

Universities face "urgent threats to free speech and academic freedom", Arif Ahmed, the government's new freedom of speech champion has said.

Ahmed pledged to use his new role to stand up for "all views", adding that he was not in the role to join in any culture war nor promote the views of the government.

The Cambridge professor is the first to fill the job, which was announced by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2021 as part of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

As well as championing freedom of expression on campus, Ahmed will be responsible for investigating any infringements of the duties placed on universities to promote freedom of speech.

The bill, which became law on May 11, also includes a new complaints scheme which could result in sanctions for universities that do not uphold freedom of speech within the law.

Ahmed said failures could include no-platforming external speakers, enforcing "ideological" bias training for staff and students, and disciplining lecturers for their social media activity.

The DfE has also suggested that universities that use non-disclosure agreements against staff or students who report bullying or abuse could be affected by the bill.

A blogpost by the DfE said: "Students, staff and visiting speakers will be able to bring claims to court if they feel they have suffered loss as a result of their free speech rights being unlawfully restricted."

The complaints scheme has not yet been finalised and the government is still drawing up regulation to enact the bill. When implemented, it is expected to be administered by the Office for Students (OfS) -- the independent regulator of higher education in England. Ahmed will become a member of the board of the OfS.

Susan Lapworth, its chief executive, said: "Freedom of speech and academic freedom are essential underpinning principles of higher education in England. Arif's appointment will ensure they continue to be robustly defended."

Claire Coutinho, the children's, families and wellbeing minister, said: "We're making history with the Freedom of Speech Act, ensuring fear does not undermine the rights of students and academics to debate controversial ideas and securing the right to an open ex- change of ideas in universities."

Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, which advocates for freedom of expression, said: "[Ahmed's] track record as a defender of free speech and academic freedom is exemplary.

"I'm particularly pleased the new free speech tsar is, broadly speaking, a man of the left. Woke activists on campus need to realise it's in their interests to defend free speech, not just male, pale and stale conservatives."

However, Dr Jo Grady, general secretary of the Universities and Colleges Union, which represents lecturers and staff, said the biggest threat to academic freedom came from the increasing use of casual staff who may not have the freedom to pursue research. She said: "There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, but they come from widespread precarious employment practices which strip academics of the ability to speak and re- search freely. It's clear to anyone paying attention to this government. it has ... no interest in protecting civil liberties."

A spokeswoman for Universities UK said the sector would welcome Ahmed's appointment: "Universities take their responsibility to protect and promote both free speech and academic freedom seriously."

 

[RJM]

Free speech tsar warns: Democracy is at stake
The Times 1/06/2023


Democracy is at stake if universities do not protect freedom of expression, the government's new free speech tsar says.

Arif Ahmed, a professor of philosophy at Cambridge, has been appointed director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, the higher education regulator

His role includes investigating incidents of no-platforming and the use of non-disclosure agreements among others. The watchdog will have the power to fine or sanction universities that do not uphold free expression.

Writing in The Times today, he says "We settle disputes by discussion, not censorship or violence. Today that idea is fading across our institutions. Universities must defend it by precept and example Democracy itself is at stake."

This week protesters tried to cancel a talk at the Oxford Union by Kathleen Stock, the "gender-critical" academic who has challenged trans rights. Ahmed vowed to uphold free speech for "all views and approaches: post-colonial theory as much as gender-critical feminism. He said "Free speech and academic freedom are vital to the core purpose of universities. They are not partisan values. They are also fundamental to our civilisation"

Rishi Sunak [prime minister]. said: "A tolerant society is one which allows us to understand those we disagree with, and nowhere is that more important than within our great universities"

The government will set up a complaints scheme so students and academics who feel their speech has been restricted can seek redress.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Anyway, you Americans can fight it out amongst yourselves. It's a pity this Christianity forum thread has veered so far into American politics, imo

Because in American politics, a driving force is the impassioned adamance of a faction that calls itself Christian and bible based.
Only their interpretation of Christianity and the bible is right, they alone have a "biblical worldview" nobody else need apply.
It is that kind of thinking that drives anyone who thinks even slightly differently away from Christianity. And even drives people away from God.
Christianity and God start to look bad.
This in particular perhaps needs its own thread (Are American Right Wing Christian hardliners driving non hardliners away from Christianity, God, and Religion, or something like that).

 

[TheLightWithin]

Try to tell me the mainstream news has no hell bent bias against conservatives...

Is there any mainstream news anymore, really?
Maybe the major networks. I haven't watched their 6pm news in awhile, just a timing thing, either still working or dinner.
I thought of them as fairly centrist. Right wing and left wing will both get a gimlet eye from centrists. And not wrongly!

 

[juantoo3]

Is there any mainstream news anymore, really?
Maybe the major networks. I haven't watched their 6pm news in awhile, just a timing thing, either still working or dinner.
I thought of them as fairly centrist. Right wing and left wing will both get a gimlet eye from centrists. And not wrongly!

I watched ABC news for decades, and PBS as well, until about 6-8 years ago when I saw a pronounced sharp left turn. There was always a lean, but this was so purposeful I could not watch after that.

Fox has it's own slant, but not nearly as pronounced. So much anymore that is passed off as "news," particularly from the mainstream carriers, is thinly veiled opinion. And even the local Fox affiliate out of Orlando clearly kowtows to Disney (with DisneyWorld just down the street)...which incidentally owns Fox. Hmmm... I've even called Fox News "ABC light" online before, and my comment was promptly disappeared.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Perhaps you can tell me....what is a "woman?" Can you define what a woman is?

Damn! That's a hard one!
You know what, for years people were only rarely asked to define women. People are used to it! With a definition off the tip of their tongue! Oh, once in a great while, in the not so distant past, a woman would be defined as "not a real woman" if she didn't bear children or didn't conform to some "feminine" standard or something. Men may have run into this kind of badgering more -- being defined as "not a real man" if they didn't conform to one exasperating expectation or another. (sexism cuts both ways)

Seriously, I think the immediate difficulty, when people seem to be unable to "define a women" lies not only in people not being used to being asked that, but also in people not wanting to seem like jerks for thoughtlessly defining a woman the old school way, as the adult of someone assigned female at birth, that is, a cisgender woman. Most people do think of women that way. But people are trying to be more sensitive to transgender and nonbinary people.

I am a cisgender woman. I don't march around thinking "wow, I'm a woman because of this that and the third" and I don't march around thinking "wow, I'm a cisgender woman, a particular subset of women" or anything remotely like that (actually in my own head I've always since childhood thought of myself as "the girl" if and when I think of myself in the third person and that didn't change with adulthood)

It used to be super straightforward, if you were identified as a female at birth, you were a girl, and grew to be a woman.

But some people, and apparently an increasing number, of people are desperately miserable in their own bodies because their "assigned" gender and the way their bodies appear do not match what their brain is telling them. They usually experience this severe gender dysphoria in early childhood. It used to be thought of as a rare individual here or there, but it isn't rare anymore.

When people are hesitant to use the old school "definition" of women, is they are also defending or at least respecting, or at least being open minded about, the idea that transgender women are women too. But the definitions have slipped as the categories have been challenged.

Also, people "assigned" female at birth but who do not identify as women but still choose to give birth, are distressed at being called women.

So people are cautious in multiple ways about using the definition of female reproductive capacities (after all, what about sterile or post menopausal cisgender women?)

It can be confusing! Yes! For some reason it makes some people really mad! And some people NOT mad!

I have worked with transgender people in counseling settings. I feel like I developed some intuition about it. Which is good, because the training was poor and concrete definitions were equivocated on. Would it be easier if they (the mental health and medical system that is) handled gender transitions like they used to? Maybe.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I watched ABC news for decades, and PBS as well, until about 6-8 years ago when I saw a pronounced sharp left turn. There was always a lean, but this was so purposeful I could not watch after that.

Fox has it's own slant, but not nearly as pronounced. So much anymore that is passed off as "news," particularly from the mainstream carriers, is thinly veiled opinion. And even the local Fox affiliate out of Orlando clearly kowtows to Disney (with DisneyWorld just down the street)...which incidentally owns Fox. Hmmm... I've even called Fox News "ABC light" online before, and my comment was promptly disappeared.

I haven't watched evening news in quite awhile, due to schedule, so I don't know. A leftward slant might not bother me unless it was super radical.
Fox has ALWAYS had its "own: "rightward" slant, which is heavily and extremely pronounced and has been for decades.

I guess it's a matter of perspective?

 

[juantoo3]

Because in American politics, a driving force is the impassioned adamance of a faction that calls itself Christian and bible based.
Only their interpretation of Christianity and the bible is right, they alone have a "biblical worldview" nobody else need apply.
It is that kind of thinking that drives anyone who thinks even slightly differently away from Christianity. And even drives people away from God.
Christianity and God start to look bad.
This in particular perhaps needs its own thread (Are American Right Wing Christian hardliners driving non hardliners away from Christianity, God, and Religion, or something like that).

Growing up I remember in Sunday School being taught about "being in the world, but not of the world." It seems to me most Christians interpreted that as leaving politics alone, other than the occasional protest (like the hue and cry over naming a vehicle the Dodge Demon). The result is Christianity got steamrolled.

Sometime around the mid-80s (Reagan era?) Christians wised up and realized what was going on, and got a little more savvy. Naturally, those non-Christians and atheist politicians accustomed to steamrolling right over Christians took umbrage...and battle lines were drawn.

Sometime 1990s, middle of Clinton's era, Christians in politics got a little full of themselves and headstrong, and pushed a little beyond their ken, and it bit them on the buttocks...and they backed off a bit. Been a bit of a seesaw since then up until about 8 years ago. Funny how throughout most of Obama's tenure, there weren't any racially motivated spats, until the last year or two of his term...then suddenly, literally overnight, everything in the news had racial overtones...and that has only expanded since then.

Most of us are left scratching our heads wondering what the furor is all about.

Yes, there have been heinous acts by individuals...likewise there are matters that have been deliberately misconstrued and overplayed. This isn't accidental.

 

[juantoo3]

Damn! That's a hard one!
You know what, for years people were only rarely asked to define women. People are used to it! With a definition off the tip of their tongue! Oh, once in a great while, in the not so distant past, a woman would be defined as "not a real woman" if she didn't bear children or didn't conform to some "feminine" standard or something. Men may have run into this kind of badgering more -- being defined as "not a real man" if they didn't conform to one exasperating expectation or another. (sexism cuts both ways)

Seriously, I think the immediate difficulty, when people seem to be unable to "define a women" lies not only in people not being used to being asked that, but also in people not wanting to seem like jerks for thoughtlessly defining a woman the old school way, as the adult of someone assigned female at birth, that is, a cisgender woman. Most people do think of women that way. But people are trying to be more sensitive to transgender and nonbinary people.

I am a cisgender woman. I don't march around thinking "wow, I'm a woman because of this that and the third" and I don't march around thinking "wow, I'm a cisgender woman, a particular subset of women" or anything remotely like that (actually in my own head I've always since childhood thought of myself as "the girl" if and when I think of myself in the third person and that didn't change with adulthood)

It used to be super straightforward, if you were identified as a female at birth, you were a girl, and grew to be a woman.

But some people, and apparently an increasing number, of people are desperately miserable in their own bodies because their "assigned" gender and the way their bodies appear do not match what their brain is telling them. They usually experience this severe gender dysphoria in early childhood. It used to be thought of as a rare individual here or there, but it isn't rare anymore.

When people are hesitant to use the old school "definition" of women, is they are also defending or at least respecting, or at least being open minded about, the idea that transgender women are women too. But the definitions have slipped as the categories have been challenged.

Also, people "assigned" female at birth but who do not identify as women but still choose to give birth, are distressed at being called women.

So people are cautious in multiple ways about using the definition of female reproductive capacities (after all, what about sterile or post menopausal cisgender women?)

It can be confusing! Yes! For some reason it makes some people really mad! And some people NOT mad!

I have worked with transgender people in counseling settings. I feel like I developed some intuition about it. Which is good, because the training was poor and concrete definitions were equivocated on. Would it be easier if they (the mental health and medical system that is) handled gender transitions like they used to? Maybe.

So then clearly you are not a feminist?

 

[juantoo3]

I haven't watched evening news in quite awhile, due to schedule, so I don't know. A leftward slant might not bother me unless it was super radical.
Fox has ALWAYS had its "own: "rightward" slant, which is heavily and extremely pronounced and has been for decades.

I guess it's a matter of perspective?

Fox is the only "mainstream" alternate source...to Disney's credit, unless of course there is ulterior motive even to that...

All of the rest are an echo chamber. One expects the same stories, but the exact same verbiage???

 

[TheLightWithin]

So then clearly you are not a feminist?

That's an interesting conclusion.
How did you arrive that that assessment?
How do you define feminism?
What do you think makes someone a feminist?

 

[juantoo3]

That's an interesting conclusion.
How did you arrive that that assessment?
How do you define feminism?
What do you think makes someone a feminist?

Easy. The end result of everything you wrote is that Title IX and all other Women's Rights since Susan B Anthony are rendered moot, null and void...meaningless.

End of an era. I hope it is worth it.