RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[oggsmash]

  Yeah, the Scouts being a heavily faith connected organization, to Christianity especially was the reason it was of the most importance to make sure we had gay scouts and scout leaders.   The fact those behaviors are in hard contrast to all Abrahamic faiths as written?  Not here, the faith based orgs just have to do it anyway, despite it being in direct conflict with tenants of the organization.  So yeah, pretty sure it was just another form of infiltration and decay of an institution that "HAD TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES!!"

  Pedos in scouting and the priesthood (and school teachers, where they are as out of control as the other two) are a separate issue and deplorable actions were taken for damage control for all of those.  That still is not relevant to forcing an organization that has to institute changes that directly conflict the religious beliefs of the members (as in homosexuality is considered an abomination).

[Ghostmaker]

LOL. Poor JonB. Sorry, fella, you're just on the wrong side of the mods and they're not going to entertain any appeals. Might as well jump ship.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/appeals-process-communication-to-admin-gmail-com-and-lack-of-feedback.895753/

Also, they are STILL having problems with email codes getting sent out for logins.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/not-receiving-email-code.895868/

Incompetent hacks.

[jhkim]

Except that statistically, the numbers of predators were far greater among teachers (especially public school teachers) than they were among the Catholic church or the Scouts.

I won't excuse the latter, especially as the church's response was so bad it should've kicked off another full blown schism or Reformation.

However, the church and the Scouts did not enjoy the media protections and union shielding that the teachers did.

(I'm not going to get into the question raised about WHY it was considered so important to let homosexuals become Scout leaders or priests. One might speculate there was a long-term goal to damage both institutions through scandal.)

Your statement makes it sound like the Catholic church and Boy Scout scandals were caused by the gay rights movement. The Catholic church scandals started coming out in the 1990s, and it was documenting behavior that went back several decades to the 1950s. During that time period, the church was a major opponent of gay rights, not a supporter. In these cases, the abusers who were revealed were not gay rights activists or members of the gay community.

Also, I disagree that the church didn't have protections. The church was and is an enormously powerful organization, and more powerful than teacher's unions in my opinion.

I agree that abuse also happens among teachers -- but the 1970s "Save Our Children" campaign was not effective in finding and prosecuting them. That is because it didn't care if teachers were abusers or not. What it cared about was whether teachers were gay. If they were gay, they were fired - with no effort to investigate or prove whether they were abusive. I would welcome legislation to prosecute *actual* abusers among teachers, gay and straight. But just being anti-gay isn't being anti-abuser. It is distracting and dividing.

[GeekyBugle]

Fire up the woodchippers brothers & sisters!

[oggsmash]

  I remember the hits like "boys beware".  They just never knew the dudes would want to talk to kids K-3 so badly. 

[oggsmash]

Back when propaganda went the other way.

[jhkim]

Back when propaganda went the other way. https://youtu.be/fTn7ALbLYPI

The ironic thing is that under the Florida law, this video would be banned from being shown to kids - because it defines what "homosexual" means, which is instruction on sexual orientation.

I disagree with its suggestion that all homosexual people are pedophilic killers, but otherwise, it illustrates exactly the approach that I advocated for -- teaching kids about how to watch out for pedophiles, and telling them to report them to the authorities.

Childhood sexual abuse remains a huge problem today -- by some estimates, around 20% of women and 5-10% of men report having been abused as children. cf. https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/

However, making it illegal for teachers to define gay to kids does nothing to stop and catch the actual sexual predators out there. GeekyBugle posted his video about how supposedly this isn't a Red Scare -- which cites a bunch of different cases of child abuse going back decades. But what's notably missing is that *none* of the cases cited is a Florida public school teacher molesting their students. In 2002, the Boston Globe report found 5 abusive Catholic priests in Boston alone. That was an actual scandal which resulted in criminal prosecution.

I'm not saying that teachers abusing their kids doesn't happen - but this law does nothing to stop and catch them. For example, three Florida teachers were arrested in just one week in February:

https://people.com/crime/3-fla-teachers-arrested-in-same-week-for-allegedly-making-sexual-advances-toward-students-in-classrooms/

The law does nothing to try to stop such incidents - since they are male teachers molesting female students.

[oggsmash]

Back when propaganda went the other way. https://youtu.be/fTn7ALbLYPI

The ironic thing is that under the Florida law, this video would be banned from being shown to kids - because it defines what "homosexual" means, which is instruction on sexual orientation.

I disagree with its suggestion that all homosexual people are pedophilic killers, but otherwise, it illustrates exactly the approach that I advocated for -- teaching kids about how to watch out for pedophiles, and telling them to report them to the authorities.

Childhood sexual abuse remains a huge problem today -- by some estimates, around 20% of women and 5-10% of men report having been abused as children. cf. https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/

However, making it illegal for teachers to define gay to kids does nothing to stop and catch the actual sexual predators out there. GeekyBugle posted his video about how supposedly this isn't a Red Scare -- which cites a bunch of different cases of child abuse going back decades. But what's notably missing is that *none* of the cases cited is a Florida public school teacher molesting their students. In 2002, the Boston Globe report found 5 abusive Catholic priests in Boston alone. That was an actual scandal which resulted in criminal prosecution.

I'm not saying that teachers abusing their kids doesn't happen - but this law does nothing to stop and catch them. For example, three Florida teachers were arrested in just one week in February:

https://people.com/crime/3-fla-teachers-arrested-in-same-week-for-allegedly-making-sexual-advances-toward-students-in-classrooms/

The law does nothing to try to stop such incidents - since they are male teachers molesting female students.

  It should be banned for K-3.  Arguably banned for any age in a school setting.  It does not, in any way suggest the men are pedophiliac killers.  It suggests they can not reproduce, so they must "infect" others with their "sickness" through recruitment.   It calls gay men groomers.  No suggestion of them being killers. 

  The law has nothing to do with catching pedos.  They do not want gay people, or otherwise talking about sex, sexual orientation, or gender fee fees with their K-3 kids.

[SHARK]

Back when propaganda went the other way. https://youtu.be/fTn7ALbLYPI

The ironic thing is that under the Florida law, this video would be banned from being shown to kids - because it defines what "homosexual" means, which is instruction on sexual orientation.

I disagree with its suggestion that all homosexual people are pedophilic killers, but otherwise, it illustrates exactly the approach that I advocated for -- teaching kids about how to watch out for pedophiles, and telling them to report them to the authorities.

Childhood sexual abuse remains a huge problem today -- by some estimates, around 20% of women and 5-10% of men report having been abused as children. cf. https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/

However, making it illegal for teachers to define gay to kids does nothing to stop and catch the actual sexual predators out there. GeekyBugle posted his video about how supposedly this isn't a Red Scare -- which cites a bunch of different cases of child abuse going back decades. But what's notably missing is that *none* of the cases cited is a Florida public school teacher molesting their students. In 2002, the Boston Globe report found 5 abusive Catholic priests in Boston alone. That was an actual scandal which resulted in criminal prosecution.

I'm not saying that teachers abusing their kids doesn't happen - but this law does nothing to stop and catch them. For example, three Florida teachers were arrested in just one week in February:

https://people.com/crime/3-fla-teachers-arrested-in-same-week-for-allegedly-making-sexual-advances-toward-students-in-classrooms/

The law does nothing to try to stop such incidents - since they are male teachers molesting female students.

  It should be banned for K-3.  Arguably banned for any age in a school setting.  It does not, in any way suggest the men are pedophiliac killers.  It suggests they can not reproduce, so they must "infect" others with their "sickness" through recruitment.   It calls gay men groomers.  No suggestion of them being killers. 

  The law has nothing to do with catching pedos.  They do not want gay people, or otherwise talking about sex, sexual orientation, or gender fee fees with their K-3 kids.

Greetings!

Exactly, Oggsmash! But you see, the cock-sucking Liberals want to brainwash and corrupt our children with their sick, depraved lifestyles and moral degeneracy. Making laws like the law in Florida makes that goal more difficult for the depraved Liberals. So, they squirm and cry about anything that makes spreading their evil propaganda more difficult.

It's too bad. This is light-weight stuff though, but it's at least a start. Hopefully, we can look forward to more people throughout the country making life much more difficult for the depraved Liberals. Every day, and in every way, fierce resistance and wrath needs to grow against the depraved Liberals.

Diseased, filthy rats always need to be stomped on and crushed--it's for the greater good, so that the rest of society can grow in unity, strength, and prosperity. I don't let diseased, filthy rats make their nests and live amidst my home. They must be ruthlessly hunted down and crushed, without mercy. Think of what evil rats may do to your family, to your children. Psychologically, emotionally, and physically, Liberals are a threat of corruption and disease to our children.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

Back when propaganda went the other way. https://youtu.be/fTn7ALbLYPI

The ironic thing is that under the Florida law, this video would be banned from being shown to kids - because it defines what "homosexual" means, which is instruction on sexual orientation.

  It should be banned for K-3.  Arguably banned for any age in a school setting.  It does not, in any way suggest the men are pedophiliac killers.  It suggests they can not reproduce, so they must "infect" others with their "sickness" through recruitment.   It calls gay men groomers.  No suggestion of them being killers.

From watching it, I see no suggestion that the homosexual men will "infect" or "recruit" or "groom" the boys. Those words are never used, nor do I see that made clear that the boys will become homosexuals themselves. What happens to the boys eventually if they go with the homosexual is that their life ends. The first two boys contact the police. The third boy is killed. The fourth boy escapes on his own after recognizing the threat.

At 6:20 into the video: "The companionship, the praise, the friendly attitude dispelled any misgivings Mike might have had about going with a stranger. He probably never realized until too late that he was riding in the shadow of death. But some time that evening, Mike Merrick traded his life for a newspaper headline."

At: 9:00: "When Bobby recognized the stranger as the man in the restroom, the short cut under the pier didn't seem like a good idea at all. After all, it's more fun to stay with your friends anyway. Bobby had made a wise decision. It may have saved his life."

I feel like it's hard to converse if we can't even see the same concrete stuff in the same video. Maybe I missed something, but those quotes seem clear to me.

[yancy]

From watching it, I see no suggestion that the homosexual men will "infect" or "recruit" or "groom" the boys. Those words are never used

Well no, it doesn't say homosexuals seek to "infect" boys, other than maybe the part where it says that homosexuality is as contagious as smallpox

Did you skip over the Jimmy story? After bribes and cajoling, Jimmy "feels a fondness for" Ralph the liberal groomer, gets curious from looking at some porn the liberal shows him, then apparently turns queer (at least for a bit) and has sex with the guy for an indeterminate period of time. When he tells his parents and they contact the police, the groomer gets arrested, but Jimmy gets probation as well, presumably for violating some anti-sodomy ordinance, and the film scolds him for it the whole time.

Then it moves on to a story about a homosexual who isn't a passive groomer, but resorts to violence.

I feel you skimmed this film looking for parts that would prove whatever the hell points it is you're trying to make here on this message board or refute what someone else said, and ignored the story.

That's a shame because this is an excellent film, well worth watching, with a compelling story to tell and important life lessons that might be valuable to both kids and adults to this day.

[oggsmash]

Back when propaganda went the other way. https://youtu.be/fTn7ALbLYPI

The ironic thing is that under the Florida law, this video would be banned from being shown to kids - because it defines what "homosexual" means, which is instruction on sexual orientation.

  It should be banned for K-3.  Arguably banned for any age in a school setting.  It does not, in any way suggest the men are pedophiliac killers.  It suggests they can not reproduce, so they must "infect" others with their "sickness" through recruitment.   It calls gay men groomers.  No suggestion of them being killers.

From watching it, I see no suggestion that the homosexual men will "infect" or "recruit" or "groom" the boys. Those words are never used, nor do I see that made clear that the boys will become homosexuals themselves. What happens to the boys eventually if they go with the homosexual is that their life ends. The first two boys contact the police. The third boy is killed. The fourth boy escapes on his own after recognizing the threat.

At 6:20 into the video: "The companionship, the praise, the friendly attitude dispelled any misgivings Mike might have had about going with a stranger. He probably never realized until too late that he was riding in the shadow of death. But some time that evening, Mike Merrick traded his life for a newspaper headline."

At: 9:00: "When Bobby recognized the stranger as the man in the restroom, the short cut under the pier didn't seem like a good idea at all. After all, it's more fun to stay with your friends anyway. Bobby had made a wise decision. It may have saved his life."

I feel like it's hard to converse if we can't even see the same concrete stuff in the same video. Maybe I missed something, but those quotes seem clear to me.

  Ralph, at 3:48, shows Jimmy porn pictures.  he "has a sickness, not visible like smallpox but no less contagious or dangerous".   Ralph just takes Jimmy to the hotel.  The other case with Mike, I honestly did not remember the guy being gay, I thought he was just a child killer, same with the guy under the pier.   My apologies on the wrong quotes (though what I said incorrectly, remembering a vid I watched 10+ years ago was hard and I should have re-watched) but given the man's actions and statements about his condition, seems I had the gist of the propaganda being put out correct.  I guess the propaganda failed with me connecting child killers to violent homosexuals as a member-berry. 

    As to hard to converse, sorry about putting things in quotes about poor Ralph there.  I should have watched the vid again, though as I explain, I think the gist of what I mis-quoted is exactly the same.   If you see that line about him being infected with a deadly disease that is contagious, after spending lots of time with a young boy and giving him porn as something other than the exact thing my bad quotes convey, then we can not converse for sure. 

[I]

A lot can be done to protect little kids from child predators simply by giving them age-old advice:  don't accept rides from, take candy from, allow yourself to be touched by, or be alone around strangers.  If the kid wonders why, answer "you  might be kidnapped"  or something similar.   Sex does not even have to enter into the matter.  Why does a little kid need a lecture on that, which would mean nothing to them and only confuse them more?  I was taught to wash my hands after using the bathroom when I was little, but I didn't need a lecture on bacterial and viral infections and the scientific reason why soap and water cleans your hands -- I just DID it because adults told me to and said it was necessary to remain healthy.  A kid doesn't need a lecture on anal sex just to learn how to spot suspicious behavior from adults either.

And yes, I know a lot of child molestation is done by people the kid knows and trusts, like relatives.  That's a tougher one.  Kids are helpless and have to trust some adults in order to survive.  I do know that lectures on sex to five-year-olds isn't going to help the situation, though.

[Mistwell]

And fuck you and you're bullshit virtue signalling about how delightfully woke your family is. You know why? Because you are the same hypocritical twat who posted on Dellaforno's Facebook page to declare about how you posted here to troll us neanderthals in an effort to show much of a social justice warrior you were.

I'm not buying it. You perfectly understand what I'm saying. You just don't want to look at the reality of the situation because an honest appraisal of it will destroy your outlook on fighting for the cause using these tactics.

Fuck you, jeff. What I said to Dellaforno's friend is that we're a bunch of assholes here - which is exactly the same thing I say to your face. Most of us here will proudly admit to that. I didn't say anything on Facebook that I don't say here.

The only thing I said just now was that I had gay friends - so you're claiming that having gay friends is being "woke". But I know plenty of libertarian or even conservative folks who have gay friends, or are gay themselves. You can accuse me of being woke over other things, but being gay or having gay friends doesn't mean that someone is woke.

Bullshit.

My son learned about gender before he could speak, like all kids as far as I know. He knew that there was male and female, and had to learn appropriate pronouns as part of speaking. During the process of learning to speak, he also learned traditional classification of people as boys or girls, men or women, based on their appearance.

He was also exposed to stories of romantic love well before kindergarten - like in movies, picture books, and TV. We had brought him to two weddings I think before he was in 1st grade - his aunt's and a friend's. He was ringbearer for his aunt. So he knew about love, romance, and marriage. The friend's wedding was a same-sex wedding, so he knew that two women could get married (though it had no legal meaning at the time). After he got to elementary school, he made a friend whose parents were lesbians - so he also knew through that.

Is you using your son as a standard bearer to impress upon the reader how socially just your son has been raised by you. It is virtue signalling at its lowest and is woke as Hell.

Meanwhile, you're acting as if the Florida bill prevents explicit sex ed in grades K-3, but that's not what the bill does. It allows any degree of sex ed to kids, as long as it's hetero sex. What it does is ban any discussion of gayness. And my position is there's nothing inappropriate to kids in K-3 about stuff like marriage, parents, growing up, and similar.

Wow. It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Hey look, it is the other flavor of jell-o!

Nowhere in your quotes, which don't link back to a verified representation of the bill, does it say "don't say gay". Your quotes appear to say that discussion of that subject matter of ANY orientation will not occur.

So thank you for supporting my argument.

Hey Jeff, believe it or not I was not posting to agree or disagree with anyone. If you think those are not the actual quotes from the bill then feel free to google them. All I was doing was trying to be helpful by posting the relevant sections people were discussing so everyone was on the same page for their discussion. The only "position" I've posted on this topic at all is I wish the authors of the bill had been more clear and used specific examples of behavior which is acceptable or not acceptable rather than leaving it to each district and each school to interpret those clauses for themselves, because I've repeatedly seen what poorly phrased vague bills do in the education system and all that does is waste everyone's time.

For instance, I wish the bill said something like, "if the topic of sexuality comes up in the classroom, teachers should refer students to discuss that matter with their parent or guardian rather than discussing it in class." or something like that. Let teachers and parents know what's expected concerning these matters.

Hey Mistwell, believe it or not, I think you are just trying to obfuscate the discussion because you post quotes but do not bother to post a link to where you got those quotes.

LOL I got them directly from the bill. I am not obfuscating anything. I didn't think you wanted to pour through walls of text but here you go. Knock yourself out. Also, you're welcome. Sorry your Google is broken:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

And nowhere within that bill does it say, "Don't say gay."

Sorry your reading comprehension is broken.

Oh that's rich! Tell me Jeff, where have I ever said the bill said "Don't say gay?"

You literally have no idea what my position is on this topic. You've simply decided I have an opinion I don't have and have never said or even implied I had.

Ask yourself why you did that Jeff? Just be honest with yourself. WHY did you think I had said the bill says "don't say gay?" What could have led you to accuse me of having bad reading comprehension when you just demonstrated with 100% objective crystal clear proof for all to see that you indeed did not read or comprehend ANYTHING I've said about that topic?

We're on the same side on this topic Jeff, with the one minor quibble being I wish they had written the law better with examples. But you apparently could not conceive of that possibility, and so I guess just made up an opinion for me?

Methinks thou dost protest too much....

You're literally arguing if I call you on blatantly lying about what I said that I must be lying for protesting that you lied about what I said?

That's both circular logic AND unethical! A double play!

Misrepresenting yourself has been your modus operendi for about a decade now. You just squeel when you get caught at it.

OK Jeff I will ask again, where the F did I say ANYTHING like what you claimed I said? Show me? Or are you what, claiming to secretly read my hidden thoughts?

[Mistwell]

EDITED TO ADD: Anita Bryant's 1970s campaign of "Save Our Children" was aimed mainly at getting teachers and others fired for being openly gay. But in the fifty years since then, investigating Catholic priests and scout master caught far more sexual predators than the supposed "Save Our Children". The point is the predators hide, and catching them means actual investigation and prosecution. I want to see real predators caught and dealt with.

Except that statistically, the numbers of predators were far greater among teachers (especially public school teachers) than they were among the Catholic church or the Scouts.

When you say statistically do you mean as a percentage of teachers compared to the percentage of Catholic church employees or Scout leaders, or you mean just raw numbers? Not that, again, that excuses any bad behavior I am just curious on the stats here.