Hypocrisy of the left

[olofscience 489]

15 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The problem with that argument is that the POTUS doesn't control the post office.  Not at that level.

As billvon said - he seems to be actively trying to impede it.

I do think your initial suggestion of extending the voting is reasonable, but it seems the president isn't really interested. I hope I'm wrong.

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

As billvon said - he seems to be actively trying to impede it.

I do think your initial suggestion of extending the voting is reasonable, but it seems the president isn't really interested. I hope I'm wrong.

Hi olof,

'The United States Postal Service (USPS; also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service) is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

And for more info on the Executive Branch:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/

Jerry Baumchen

[airdvr 210]

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/city-council-lapd/

Last week, as protests against police violence took place across the country and “defund the police” became a rallying cry, L.A. City Council President Nury Martinez pledged to cut funding to the LAPD. Martinez, who was named council president in December, plans to slash up to $150 million from the budget of the nation’s second-largest police department, which is currently $1.86 billion. “We cannot talk about change, we have to be about change,” she tweeted.

Five days later, it came out that the LAPD had been providing 24-hour security outside of Martinez’s home for the previous two months. Natalie Brunnell, a reporter for Spectrum News 1 Los Angeles, went there and interviewed several of the officers who have been part of the detail providing protection to Martinez and her family in 12-hour shifts since April. The same day Martinez’s office caught wind of the report, the security detail came to an end. A Martinez spokesman later defended the detail, saying his boss and her daughter had received death threats. LAPD Detective Jamie McBride, a leader of the police union representing 10,000 L.A. cops, told Brunnell, “If she was really feeling threatened, then that security detail should [still] be in place.”

[airdvr 210]

Seriously?

[turtlespeed 226]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:01 AM, airdvr said:

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/city-council-lapd/

Last week, as protests against police violence took place across the country and “defund the police” became a rallying cry, L.A. City Council President Nury Martinez pledged to cut funding to the LAPD. Martinez, who was named council president in December, plans to slash up to $150 million from the budget of the nation’s second-largest police department, which is currently $1.86 billion. “We cannot talk about change, we have to be about change,” she tweeted.

Five days later, it came out that the LAPD had been providing 24-hour security outside of Martinez’s home for the previous two months. Natalie Brunnell, a reporter for Spectrum News 1 Los Angeles, went there and interviewed several of the officers who have been part of the detail providing protection to Martinez and her family in 12-hour shifts since April. The same day Martinez’s office caught wind of the report, the security detail came to an end. A Martinez spokesman later defended the detail, saying his boss and her daughter had received death threats. LAPD Detective Jamie McBride, a leader of the police union representing 10,000 L.A. cops, told Brunnell, “If she was really feeling threatened, then that security detail should [still] be in place.”

Hmmm - I replied to this yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.

I think that the she should be able to keep her detail.  She should also provide a detail for everyone else in her jurisdiction, that has received death threats, the same detail.

She is no more important than you or I.

 

[turtlespeed 226]

Yes.  Seriously.

What did you expect.  This was predicted long ago.  It was denied and condemned, and it was said it would never happen by those that wanted the illusion of equality.

Really.  What did you expect?

 

[gowlerk 2,251]

19 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Seriously?

Pedophilia is something that a significant portion of the population seems to have some interest in. We need to suppress it because of the harm it does to children. This is not breaking news and these people are not advocating for pedophilia. So, if there is a conference somewhere and a speaker dares to acknowledge that it is a problem that must be addressed it is not an outrage. However it is great click bait. 

And, I'm not sure why you choose to post it here. Do you really think it is a left/right issue?

Edited August 12, 2020 by gowlerk

[airdvr 210]

"Just like pedophiles we're not responsible for our feelings".  I'm quite certain that this talk isn't coming from any conservative think tank.

[jakee 1,564]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Yes.  Seriously.

What did you expect.  This was predicted long ago.  It was denied and condemned, and it was said it would never happen by those that wanted the illusion of equality.

Really.  What did you expect?

It was said that what would never happen?

[wmw999 2,545]

From what I've read, pedophilia is, in fact, a sexual orientation. It's not acceptable because children cannot consent. And, like many other orientations, it's a spectrum, with the axes that matter most being the degree to which one is attracted to children ("only" to "mildly" to "no fucking way"), and the sex drive the individual has. Because is someone really isn't that strongly driven to sex, they can just ignore it, or be celibate. If, on the other hand, they have a strong sex drive, and they're really "only" attracted to children, then they're well and truly fucked. Because it's not acceptable.

The scholar (note the singular here) made it clear that children are not to be involved with sex; it's unacceptable. But saying it's purely a decision out of evil is like saying that someone who has dylsexia and can't read is lazy or stupid.

Understanding things is how you begin to address them. And maybe, for some people, complete isolation is the only answer.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 2,251]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

"Just like pedophiles we're not responsible for our feelings".  I'm quite certain that this talk isn't coming from any conservative think tank.

I don’t think it’s coming from a liberal think tank either. It’s probably coming from a medical professional conference. Like I said children can be harmed by paedophiles and dangerous activities need to be strongly sanctioned. However, it must be a terrible thing to have that sort of affliction. I can find it in my heart to feel sorry for those people. Even though I have less ability to forgive harmful behaviors.

I guess it’s true that right wingers tend to be reactionary. Therefore they are not likely to open their minds and understand. I would venture to say that people on the left are no more likely than people on the right to be pedophiles.

Edited August 12, 2020 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

"Just like pedophiles we're not responsible for our feelings".  I'm quite certain that this talk isn't coming from any conservative think tank.

I don't see the problem with the statement. You seem to conflate feelings with actions. As much as they may not be responsible for their feelings, they are most certainly responsible for their actions. I have this feeling the person you are quoting is going to agree with that statement.

[billvon 3,076]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

"Just like pedophiles we're not responsible for our feelings".  I'm quite certain that this talk isn't coming from any conservative think tank.

They're not responsible for their feelings.  They ARE responsible for what they DO.  Those are two very different things.

Some guys have rape fantasies.  That's not a problem.  No reason to throw them in jail for thoughtcrime.  The problem only occurs when they actually try to rape people.

[jakee 1,564]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

"Just like pedophiles we're not responsible for our feelings".  I'm quite certain that this talk isn't coming from any conservative think tank.

It's not coming from any think tank. It's coming from a TED talk by a medical student.

 

Please explain how you think it fits into this thread?

[turtlespeed 226]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

From what I've read, pedophilia is, in fact, a sexual orientation. It's not acceptable because children cannot consent. And, like many other orientations, it's a spectrum, with the axes that matter most being the degree to which one is attracted to children ("only" to "mildly" to "no fucking way"), and the sex drive the individual has. Because is someone really isn't that strongly driven to sex, they can just ignore it, or be celibate. If, on the other hand, they have a strong sex drive, and they're really "only" attracted to children, then they're well and truly fucked. Because it's not acceptable.

The scholar (note the singular here) made it clear that children are not to be involved with sex; it's unacceptable. But saying it's purely a decision out of evil is like saying that someone who has dylsexia and can't read is lazy or stupid.

Understanding things is how you begin to address them. And maybe, for some people, complete isolation is the only answer.

Wendy P.

It is a mental disorder.

Does this open the door to calling other sexual orientations as mental disorders?

Disorders of the brain?

[jakee 1,564]

37 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It is a mental disorder.

Does this open the door to calling other sexual orientations as mental disorders?

Why would you want to do that?

[airdvr 210]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Please explain how you think it fits into this thread?

It's along the same lines as the whole bathroom thing and the gender identity.  Solid left field stuff.

[jakee 1,564]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

It's along the same lines as the whole bathroom thing and the gender identity.  Solid left field stuff.

You think 'the whole bathroom thing' is equivalent to pedophilia? Ok. I mean, wow! But ok.

 

So given that you think it's all the same kind of consistent, solid left wing thinking, I'll still need you to explain why you put it in this thread. Specifically how it relates to the first word of the thread title.

[airdvr 210]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

You think 'the whole bathroom thing' is equivalent to pedophilia? Ok. I mean, wow! But ok.

 

So given that you think it's all the same kind of consistent, solid left wing thinking, I'll still need you to explain why you put it in this thread. Specifically how it relates to the first word of the thread title.

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs.

I believe that if you're born with a penis you're a man and vice versa.  I know there are some  cases where it's physically difficult but that's rare.  If you have a vagina you should go to the women's bathroom and vice versa.  If you fantasize about having sex with children I don't need to understand or claim they aren't responsible for their feelings.

The left loves this kind of stuff.

[gowlerk 2,251]

22 minutes ago, airdvr said:

It's along the same lines as the whole bathroom thing and the gender identity.  Solid left field stuff.

Yes, another good example of right wing reactionary fear. If you don’t understand it, it must be from the left. I suppose this is where flying pizza and Q bullshit also comes from. The same attitude that you are exhibiting now. What you fail to understand is that gay people are just as likely to be right wingers just left wingers.

[airdvr 210]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Yes, another good example of right wing reactionary fear. If you don’t understand it, it must be from the left. I suppose this is where flying pizza and Q bullshit also comes from. The same attitude that you are exhibiting now. What you fail to understand is that gay people are just as likely to be right wingers just left wingers.

I have no problem with homosexuality.

[gowlerk 2,251]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

I have no problem with homosexuality.

How about five years ago did you have a problem five years ago?

[jakee 1,564]

31 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs.

So first, this person is advocating for a situation where pedophiles do NOT have to hide that they are attracted to children. That's the opposite of your definition above.

 

Second, if you think that what 'the left' is saying about pedophilia is the same as what they are saying about trans people that's the opposite of the real definition of hypocrisy.

 

So, AGAIN, why did you post this in a thread about left wing hypocrisy?

Edited August 12, 2020 by jakee

[kallend 2,107]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

Seriously?

Presented to look like a news broadcast, but NO source listed.

[gowlerk 2,251]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Presented to look like a news broadcast, but NO source listed.

Seems both deceptive and hypocritical.