Why is pride month so sexual?

Why do the lgbt Community have to sexualise their pride month?

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

I don't spam. I only post questions every month or 2 or so, a lot of others post the same questions and topics every day or week.

Geschrieben von DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.06.2019 at 08:38

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

I don't spam. I only post questions every month or 2 or so, a lot of others post the same questions and topics every day or week.

bro 3 months ago u were spamming forum like a fag

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

What the hell is the point of off topic then

Every other forum that has an off topic section is like this

Geschrieben von DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.06.2019 at 08:27

Why do the lgbt Community have to sexualise their pride month?

we arent Lgbt... but maybe?

Geschrieben von Froyer, 12.06.2019 at 09:59

Geschrieben von DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.06.2019 at 08:38

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

I don't spam. I only post questions every month or 2 or so, a lot of others post the same questions and topics every day or week.

bro 3 months ago u were spamming forum like a fag

I disagree

Because homosexuality, a perversion of the telos of man is inherently a sexual sin in nature. What you see is simply them being out of control due to giving completely in to temptation so they just go wild, it's only still approaching the logical conclusion of ''muh love xDDDDD'' which will lead to worse than just pedophilia. I hate how they perverted the rainbow, God's sign of the Noahic Covenant and enjoyed by children. Now you can't be seen with one without looking like a degenerate.

Geschrieben von DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.06.2019 at 11:39

Geschrieben von Froyer, 12.06.2019 at 09:59

Geschrieben von DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.06.2019 at 08:38

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

I don't spam. I only post questions every month or 2 or so, a lot of others post the same questions and topics every day or week.

bro 3 months ago u were spamming forum like a fag

I disagree

I dont care if u disagree

Can you stop making useless threads. You must live in the middle of fuckheadistan because all you do is question women, religion, and gay rights. Piss off already.

Geschrieben von PleaseMe, 12.06.2019 at 15:57

Can you stop making useless threads. You must live in the middle of fuckheadistan because all you do is question women, religion, and gay rights. Piss off already.

Is this all you do with your life?

Cause they're big gays

Geschrieben von PleaseMe, 12.06.2019 at 15:57

Can you stop making useless threads. You must live in the middle of fuckheadistan because all you do is question women, religion, and gay rights. Piss off already.

Are you saying there are good people and bad people, according to their location of birth? Not very tolerant of you is it?

Geschrieben von QuasiCasual, 12.06.2019 at 11:46

Because homosexuality, a perversion of the telos of man is inherently a sexual sin in nature. What you see is simply them being out of control due to giving completely in to temptation so they just go wild, it's only still approaching the logical conclusion of ''muh love xDDDDD'' which will lead to worse than just pedophilia. I hate how they perverted the rainbow, God's sign of the Noahic Covenant and enjoyed by children. Now you can't be seen with one without looking like a degenerate.

Your avatar... could it be, the Legend himself?

I'm sick of the LGBT agenda being pushed onto us, especially onto young children. It's like there's an agenda to try brainwash us into getting into these perverted ideologies, corrupting the mind of young impressionable children in the process as well.

I've noticed in particular that they're specifically targeting children with this ideology. The people behind pride use homosexuality as the forefront, because lately tolerance towards gay people have improved. However, after this they're moving onto new territory; transgenders, new genders, new sexualities, cross dressers, drag queens, etc.

Not only are these ideologies immoral and completely wrong, but when you introduce these damaging ideologies to children, they start becoming sexualised... look at any major pride event and you'll see men in sex outfits with their manly parts out in the open, and sick parents bring their kids to witness all this insanity...

This is actually a really good question that i wonder myself. If i had to guess i would assume it comes from frustration of being in a male-female centric society where it's normal to have those relationships publicly (tv / movies specifically) and gay relationships are somewhat shunned in public still. Personally I still get really uncomfortable seeing 2 dudes going at it, but if you shove it in my face enough, i'll probably be more tolerant/ less weirded out in the future.

For a good example of gay shunning, look at Legend of Korra when she was kind of gay for a bit at the end. People went crazy over it for some reason.

Geschrieben von Skanderbeg, 12.06.2019 at 17:36

Geschrieben von QuasiCasual, 12.06.2019 at 11:46

Because homosexuality, a perversion of the telos of man is inherently a sexual sin in nature. What you see is simply them being out of control due to giving completely in to temptation so they just go wild, it's only still approaching the logical conclusion of ''muh love xDDDDD'' which will lead to worse than just pedophilia. I hate how they perverted the rainbow, God's sign of the Noahic Covenant and enjoyed by children. Now you can't be seen with one without looking like a degenerate.

Your avatar... could it be, the Legend himself?

Eyyy Panteri, Bog na tebe svece...

Geschrieben von Sid, 13.06.2019 at 01:04

For a good example of gay shunning, look at Legend of Korra when she was kind of gay for a bit at the end. People went crazy over it for some reason.

They went crazy since it was bad writing and preferred their own ships. Korra x Asami came out of nowhere with no real character development to justify it.

Geschrieben von Sid, 13.06.2019 at 01:04

but if you shove it in my face enough, i'll probably be more tolerant/ less weirded out in the future.

This is way too right. This constant exposure, especially by all of these huuuuuuuuuuge corporations and the mainstream media desensitize us to the point that we finally start tolerating worse and worse degeneracies. Compare the moral standards of the Eastern Roman Empire, first millennium AD and to now. You'd get a billion homilies by just about any Church Father condemning today's societies with such fiery language to the point that you'd be surprised they are considered Saints and Theologians of the Church.

Geschrieben von Garde, 12.06.2019 at 10:18

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

What the hell is the point of off topic then

Every other forum that has an off topic section is like this

its a safe place where i can say what the hell i want (dont let that extra chromosome you got cloud ur ability to understand sarcasm )

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 13.06.2019 at 07:24

Geschrieben von Garde, 12.06.2019 at 10:18

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

What the hell is the point of off topic then

Every other forum that has an off topic section is like this

its a safe place where i can say what the hell i want (dont let that extra chromosome you got cloud ur ability to understand sarcasm )

You're so unfunny and unoriginal that you're literally stealing my punchlines now? And your schizopost sends off completely different vibes depending on how you read it, crazy ass.

Geschrieben von Sid, 13.06.2019 at 01:04

This is actually a really good question that i wonder myself. If i had to guess i would assume it comes from frustration of being in a male-female centric society where it's normal to have those relationships publicly (tv / movies specifically) and gay relationships are somewhat shunned in public still. Personally I still get really uncomfortable seeing 2 dudes going at it, but if you shove it in my face enough, i'll probably be more tolerant/ less weirded out in the future.

For a good example of gay shunning, look at Legend of Korra when she was kind of gay for a bit at the end. People went crazy over it for some reason.

Avatar the Last Air Bender rocksssssssss

Man, I wish some of you guys would "live and let live" a little bit more

I "philosophically" disagree with people claiming that something is (im)moral. They start with an observation, and then conclude with something that MUST be, or that we MUST or MUST NOT do.
Like: "Seeing two guys kissing makes people sick", therefore it must be wrong.
Or: "Human race would not survive if men were gay", therefore, it must be wrong.
Or: "Random dudes wrote a book about another dude claiming to be the son of a god", therefore we must follow what is written in the book.

If you want someone that articulates this a little better than me, you can read David Hume (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume), and his "Problem of Induction" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction).

In other words, all those claims about morality are purely an opinion (in my opinion). LONG LIVE the LGBT community.

PS: As for the original question, yeah, I agree that the LGBT is too sexualized. But I think Sid found a good explanation: past oppression. It's like where I live. For a time, francophones were "oppressed" by the anglophone minority. When "oppression" was relaxed, what did the francophones start to do? "Oppress" the anglophones. But it is passing with the new generation, and I am confident it will just stop. Same here for the LGBT; I think it's a typical reaction, that will lessen with time.

PPS: DeepFriedUnicorn, keep them coming, you keep the forum alive

Geschrieben von Crow, 12.06.2019 at 19:42

It's like there's an agenda to try brainwash us into getting into these perverted ideologies

You are not incorrect. There actually is an agenda. These narratives and stories being pushed are carefully crafted. Or do you seriously think they just leave this to chance or accident?

I could also go into the reasons why they do this, but regardless of the reason, we know for a fact there is "someone" pushing this, it's not even a question anymore

That being said, let's play a WW2 with Tik Tok

Geschrieben von wafelmentalstate, 14.06.2019 at 02:23

Geschrieben von Crow, 12.06.2019 at 19:42

It's like there's an agenda to try brainwash us into getting into these perverted ideologies

You are not incorrect. There actually is an agenda. These narratives and stories being pushed are carefully crafted. Or do you seriously think they just leave this to chance or accident?

I could also go into the reasons why they do this, but regardless of the reason, we know for a fact there is "someone" pushing this, it's not even a question anymore

That being said, let's play a WW2 with Tik Tok

I wonder (((who))) is behind it.

Geschrieben von Garde, 13.06.2019 at 10:43

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 13.06.2019 at 07:24

Geschrieben von Garde, 12.06.2019 at 10:18

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 12.06.2019 at 08:31

Play the game and stop spamming please, thanks.

What the hell is the point of off topic then

Every other forum that has an off topic section is like this

its a safe place where i can say what the hell i want (dont let that extra chromosome you got cloud ur ability to understand sarcasm )

You're so unfunny and unoriginal that you're literally stealing my punchlines now? And your schizopost sends off completely different vibes depending on how you read it, crazy ass.

Pls take stick out of your ass, unless u couldn't tell I was using your joke intentionally to casually poke fun... no need to take everything so damn personally

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 13.06.2019 at 22:29

Man, I wish some of you guys would "live and let live" a little bit more

I "philosophically" disagree with people claiming that something is (im)moral. They start with an observation, and then conclude with something that MUST be, or that we MUST or MUST NOT do.
Like: "Seeing two guys kissing makes people sick", therefore it must be wrong.
Or: "Human race would not survive if men were gay", therefore, it must be wrong.
Or: "Random dudes wrote a book about another dude claiming to be the son of a god", therefore we must follow what is written in the book.

If you want someone that articulates this a little better than me, you can read David Hume (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume), and his "Problem of Induction" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction).

In other words, all those claims about morality are purely an opinion (in my opinion). LONG LIVE the LGBT community.

PS: As for the original question, yeah, I agree that the LGBT is too sexualized. But I think Sid found a good explanation: past oppression. It's like where I live. For a time, francophones were "oppressed" by the anglophone minority. When "oppression" was relaxed, what did the francophones start to do? "Oppress" the anglophones. But it is passing with the new generation, and I am confident it will just stop. Same here for the LGBT; I think it's a typical reaction, that will lessen with time.

PPS: DeepFriedUnicorn, keep them coming, you keep the forum alive

Really dude? You wanna go down this path, invoking the PoI? Because this is how I know you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you really believed in Hume, you wouldn't even be bothering to making an ethical claim here.
1. Problem of induction. To say that the PoI affects morality means that you don't believe in any deduction for ethics. The problem of induction in this context is only a problem if nominalism/empiricism was true (which they aren't but I'd like to see you try) because you'd be denying a real, ontological existence of abstract concepts such as the Good, Justice, Truth etc or any a priori truth. Thing is, if you want to go down the route of nominalism you'd be making a fundamental self-contradiction of presupposing your own claim to be true
2. Literally what are you doing with calling all of morality an opinion? Meanwhile, you're implying that you are right to assert this since it's in your morality to accept what you perceive to be truth. Perhaps also that we should accept your moral claim, that we OUGHT to let them ''live and let live'', despite all morality being mere opinion, and not fact?

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 13.06.2019 at 22:29

In other words, all those claims about morality are purely an opinion (in my opinion)

Quit playing pretend and wasting our time, ought someone accept this as true or not? You cannot just make a claim and say ''yeah but I don't really believe it )))))) you do you boo''. Are you asserting this as fact or are you just playing pretend?

Geschrieben von QuasiCasual, 14.06.2019 at 08:36

Really dude? You wanna go down this path, invoking the PoI? Because this is how I know you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you really believed in Hume, you wouldn't even be bothering to making an ethical claim here.

OK, i see I'll have to be careful here, English is not my first language, and I see we are going down a path where every word counts - and I have to admit I had to look up many words from your reply to just start understanding it

But ... i'll attempt an answer, that's why I post: to open discussion.

First of all, I don't pretend to believe in everything Hume said - because I didn't read everything he wrote. The only thing I read about him is that PoI, which I summarize as "you cannot generalize from something that is to something we must". I might be wrong by summarizing it that way, but that's what I meant.

As far as I understand the definition of "ethical claim", I was not making one. I was stating my opinion that the world we live in would be better off if we "live and let live" a little more. And I don't see why I would not even bother to state my opinion just because I believe in the PoI.

Geschrieben von QuasiCasual, 14.06.2019 at 08:36

1. Problem of induction. To say that the PoI affects morality means that you don't believe in any deduction for ethics. The problem of induction in this context is only a problem if nominalism/empiricism was true (which they aren't but I'd like to see you try) because you'd be denying a real, ontological existence of abstract concepts such as the Good, Justice, Truth etc or any a priori truth. Thing is, if you want to go down the route of nominalism you'd be making a fundamental self-contradiction of presupposing your own claim to be true

I am happy to see that according to you, my statements seem to be at least a little bit logical. Because indeed, I do not believe in any deduction for ethics. Indeed, if I got the definition of "ontological" correctly, I do not believe in ontological existence of abstract concepts of Good, Justice, Truth, etc. I think this only exists in the strucure of our brains. I believe in pure determinism, that we live in a world where we have no
liberty, where everything is determined in advance by the laws of our universe. The only thing that makes our life a nice show is the incomplete consciousness that nature gave us, which by its imperfect state, does not allow us to predict everything that will come, therefore leaving us with an illusion of choice and liberty. Does that correspond to what you called "nominalism"? With that in mind, I agree with your conclusion: nominalism would self-contradict the truthfullness of my own claim. The thing is, I do not claim it to be true: it's just my (predetermined) opinion that I laid out there.

Geschrieben von QuasiCasual, 14.06.2019 at 08:36

2. Literally what are you doing with calling all of morality an opinion? Meanwhile, you're implying that you are right to assert this since it's in your morality to accept what you perceive to be truth. Perhaps also that we should accept your moral claim, that we OUGHT to let them ''live and let live'', despite all morality being mere opinion, and not fact?

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 13.06.2019 at 22:29

In other words, all those claims about morality are purely an opinion (in my opinion)

Quit playing pretend and wasting our time, ought someone accept this as true or not? You cannot just make a claim and say ''yeah but I don't really believe it )))))) you do you boo''. Are you asserting this as fact or are you just playing pretend?

Not sure what to answer to all of this paragraph, I think I would just repeat myself. I am not playing pretend nor forcing you to accept my claim as morally true. I merely think that the world would be better off if we "live and let live" a little more.

PS: I am in no way as knowledgeable in philosophy as you are, but thanks for the discussion, I miss those classes I had 20 years ago more than I thought I would

Zitat:

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 14.06.2019 at 09:24

First of all, I don't pretend to believe in everything Hume said - because I didn't read everything he wrote. The only thing I read about him is that PoI, which I summarize as "you cannot generalize from something that is to something we must". I might be wrong by summarizing it that way, but that's what I meant.

That's not the issue here, the issue is that you aren't being consistent with the PoI

quote author=469055 date=2019-06-14 09:24:06]As far as I understand the definition of "ethical claim", I was not making one. I was stating my opinion that the world we live in would be better off if we "live and let live" a little more. And I don't see why I would not even bother to state my opinion just because I believe in the PoI.

Your opinion is literally you making an ethical claim. You are claiming that we ought to do something, that is an ethical claim.

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 14.06.2019 at 09:24

Indeed, if I got the definition of "ontological" correctly, I do not believe in ontological existence of abstract concepts of Good, Justice, Truth, etc. I think this only exists in the strucure of our brains. I believe in pure determinism, that we live in a world where we have no
liberty, where everything is determined in advance by the laws of our universe. The only thing that makes our life a nice show is the incomplete consciousness that nature gave us, which by its imperfect state, does not allow us to predict everything that will come, therefore leaving us with an illusion of choice and liberty.

That is indeed 'pure' nominalism, more specifically called ''physicalism''.

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 14.06.2019 at 09:24

With that in mind, I agree with your conclusion: nominalism would self-contradict the truthfullness of my own claim. The thing is, I do not claim it to be true: it's just my (predetermined) opinion that I laid out there.

Now, is this claim true or false? Are you seriously saying that in your entire conversation with me you never made a truth claim? Then what were you saying exactly? Those words obviously had meaning, otherwise I wouldn't have understood you. Those sentences are communicating ideas. Ideas are claims too, you don't have to redundantly add ''...is true'' to a claim for it to be a truth claim. If I said ''water makes me wet'' it would be redundant for me to further explain with ''and I believe that to be true''. You coming on here, claiming all of these things, such as the PoI being true, then claim you aren't actually claiming anything to be true? That in its self is a truth claim. Yes, the claim ''I'm not claiming anything'' is a truth claim.

Geschrieben von Noir Brillant, 14.06.2019 at 09:24

Not sure what to answer to all of this paragraph, I think I would just repeat myself. I am not playing pretend nor forcing you to accept my claim as morally true. I merely think that the world would be better off if we "live and let live" a little more.

You merely typing the words ''better off'' means you are making an ethical claim despite calling it an opinion. You first attacked the anti-LGBT morality as opinionated, therefore we OUGHT to let them ''live and let live'' which in it's self is an opinion that you would have attacked. Get it now? You self-contradict. When I say you are presupposing truth to be good, I am saying that you have the morality of choosing to believe in what you perceive to be truth. That's a moral, that's an ethic. Call it whatever, but if you call it an opinion know that the same claim applies to you.

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 14.06.2019 at 08:08

Pls take stick out of your ass, unless u couldn't tell I was using your joke intentionally to casually poke fun... no need to take everything so damn personally

Tfw this fucking turk thinks I take anything personally on this game. Why don't you take your homo Constantinople and shove it up your ass, soycuck.

Geschrieben von Crow, 14.06.2019 at 04:34

I wonder (((who))) is behind it.

George Soros

Geschrieben von Garde, 14.06.2019 at 10:15

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 14.06.2019 at 08:08

Pls take stick out of your ass, unless u couldn't tell I was using your joke intentionally to casually poke fun... no need to take everything so damn personally

Tfw this fucking turk thinks I take anything personally on this game. Why don't you take your homo Constantinople and shove it up your ass, soycuck.

Damn you got me !!