The War On Children - 2hr documentary is AMAZINGLY produced/executed

Author: Amber
psychology
children
Woke
lgbtq
the mere-exposure effect

Posts

Total: 116
#31
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@WyIted
Rm, just so you know conservatives are not against sex education here is a principal saying it is fine to show 8 year olds porn. https://youtube.com/shorts/x29ZLCbX3Qc?si=0etrIqtBBI-g8qRo
The entire pornographic books in the library controversy is so bizarre to me. I’m not sure how much it specifically matters (are kids even checking out things in the library anymore? And how does this compare to what’s a click away on Google?) but…if you don’t have a deep and immediate suspicion of anyone who absolutely *insists* that your child has access to graphic novels where trans teenagers suck off each others strap on dildos, idk what to tell you lol. 

It goes back to liberals flagrantly violating the social contract of a pluralistic society as they have been for the last 15 years or so. I understand that in the progressive religion pre-existing gendered souls can be placed into the wrong bodies by some cosmic mistake, evolution didn’t impact humans at all, and there are no differences between men and women, but you have no right to indoctrinate my kids into your religion any more than I would someone else’s. I’m probably going to have to shell out like $10k a year per kid despite already paying thousands in taxes to public schools to avoid them getting groomed by freaks lol 
#32
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
but you have no right to indoctrinate my kids
Do you have a right to indoctrinate your kids?

Because if yes, then I dont see what is your opposition to indoctrination.

If no, then you agree that you have no right to teach religion to your children.

It seems that no matter where you turn, you lose.

Also, do you think that you have a right to ban your kids from education?

Obviously, no, you do not have that right.

So really, education about sex only triggers you because you think sex is a sin.

And what do you mean when you say "your kids"?

It obviously doesnt mean that you own kids or are allowed to dictate their life as if they are your property,

so I am curious what kind of rights do you think you have when it comes to "your kids"?

You raised a good point about that you pay money, but I think we can all agree that that doesnt turn kids into your property.
#33
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you have a right to indoctrinate your kids?

Because if yes, then I dont see what is your opposition to indoctrination...It obviously doesnt mean that you own kids or are allowed to dictate their life as if they are your property,

Yes, I do have that right. You do not have that right. The language of "ownership" etc does not accurately describe the relationship between parent and child. They are under the custody of my wife and I and we make decisions on behalf of their wellbeing. No one else. Parents will fight, die, and kill for their children which is why wise governments tread lightly around parental rights. There are rare instances, such as cases of physical abuse or severe neglect, where it's justifiable for the state to intervene and overrule a parents custody. Some school bureaucrat deciding that my child must be exposed to a book where transgenders suck off each others dildos (I'm not just making this up, that really was in school libraries) if I decide that isn't appropriate for my child doesn't come even close to that threshold.

Frankly your entire attitude of "you think you have a say in how your children are raised but unrelated adults don't? Curious." Is the exact problem 

So really, education about sex only triggers you because you think sex is a sin.
Not relevant to what I said at all but yes, fornication is a sin. But we should still recognize human nature for what it is, I would prefer that teenagers don't get lifelong STDs or unwanted pregnancies for doing stuff that dumb horny kids are known to do, so education about contraception, safe sex, etc is a good idea. But if a parent didn't want their kid exposed to that education I would roll my eyes but wouldn't really object to their decision 
#34
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I think people make too big a deal out of sex. The mechanics and consequences are simple. The instincts arise on their own.

The people falling over themselves to "inform" children about sexuality (especially the less than ideal variants) are just as guilty of irrational obsession as a bible thumper talking about masturbation making you unclean for seven days (or something).

The difference is this:

Parents will fight, die, and kill for their children which is why wise governments tread lightly around parental rights.

If teachers were assigning homework to read a book where a young homosexual gets sent to hell and begs for forgiveness too late, the kind of anger that would instill in the sexually liberal is the analog to what we're seeing now.


It's a completely predictable outcome with almost zero chance of success. It will be remembered as an overreach. 25% of those 30% identifying as LGBT will say they were conned into a cult, that they only did what they thought made them cool.

Most importantly it exposes that the movement is in fact a cult. Fighting imaginary injustice with obviously flawed tactics. Zero self-awareness.

There is one good thing that could come out of this though, correcting another obvious mistake: Government mandated curriculum of theft-funded schools. Of course it wouldn't end well. It should be condemned for the theft and the failure to teach basic skills not withstanding sexual indoctrination.
#35
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Everyone opposes grooming children, this is a Boogeyman right wingers made up because they don't have any real issues to run on.
I literally posted a video of a principal saying outright that it is okay to show porn to 8 year olds. It looks like a mod deleted the post. I can PM the video to you and attempt to circumvent the video being hidden. 
#36
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
Thett quotes it in the next post. So even with it erasednit looks like it still remains but you better look at it quick before a mod deletes thett's response to me
#37
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@WyIted
I literally posted a video of a principal saying outright that it is okay to show porn to 8 year olds. It looks like a mod deleted the post. I can PM the video to you and attempt to circumvent the video being hidden. 
Another funny bit is parents reading the content of some of this smut at school board meetings only to have their mics censored because the content is considered inappropriate...to be read out loud at a meeting for adults.

#38
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Never mind it is still there. Post 22
#39
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
I’m probably going to have to shell out like $10k a year per kid despite already paying thousands in taxes to public schools to avoid them getting groomed by freaks lol 
I can't afford that but I told the wife be prepared to homeschooling at a drop of the hat. Fortunately my son's school is pretty good. There are gay teachers there but they are not grooming children they are not part of the woke mob they are just normal dudes who are teachers and just happen to be gay. 

I am ready to pull him at any minute if this changes though. 

The entire pornographic books in the library controversy is so bizarre to me. I’m not sure how much it specifically matters
To be fair. I don't think it matters much with high-school kids. They appear to be targeting mostly elementary school kids in these incidents I jeep finding. 
#40
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
So you hold opinion that you have a right to control your child's indoctrination, so indoctrination is not something bad in your view.

And since your indoctrination is obviously not any better for the child, in fact, Christian indoctrinations are often worse, one can conclude that the only argument which you have is based on ownership.

You assume that you have right to ban education from children just because they are your children, but that is obviously wrong.

And since you cant own children in any sense, it follows that your argument falls apart.

Then you make the argument of well being, but everyone knows that sex education is good for well being, where Christian indoctrination is harmful since Christianity promotes child abuse.

Further, individual parent doesnt decide what is well being. Thats for science to decide, not for your triggered Christian ideology to decide.

Then you make the argument that "unrelated individuals dont get a say", but that is classical misunderstanding of a Communist society we are evolving to.

There are no unrelated individuals, because if you raise your kids badly, it harms everyone else.

Then you contradict yourself by saying "Sex education is good for well being. Parent does whats good for wellbeing" and then "Parent has right to deny sex education (to deny well being)".

Then you say how fornication is a sin, how you dont want for kids to get STDs...

And you follow a classical but naive mindset that "if you dont tell kids about sex, they wont know about it until they are 18".

Kids learn about sex from their peers, so your struggle to keep kids in ignorance is about as useless as Jesus's suicide.

As much as your Christian ideology is silly and one can make fun of it all day, you should at least try to defend it better because right now it seems like you are not even trying.

You should have taken notes from time when I was Christian.

Really, I put effort, but even I was eventually sick from all the sick things I had to justify when defending Christianity.
#41
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
As much as your Christian ideology is silly and one can make fun of it all day, you should at least try to defend it better because right now it seems like you are not even trying.
I’m not trying because there’s no need to. I have my beliefs, you have yours, you can raise your children as you see fit and I will raise mine. Seems simple, no? 
#42
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@WyIted
I can't afford that but I told the wife be prepared to homeschooling at a drop of the hat. Fortunately my son's school is pretty good. There are gay teachers there but they are not grooming children they are not part of the woke mob they are just normal dudes who are teachers and just happen to be gay. 

I am ready to pull him at any minute if this changes though
My bigger problem with public school is that (at least where I am) even the good ones will give kids laptops and iPads in kindergarten and the way they’ve started teaching math and reading ( common core, dropping phonics) don’t really seem to work that well. And the kids from public school are way way less well behaved than the children I’ve seen at the Catholic school. I don’t want them to be like the majority because I’m getting strong “not gonna make it” vibes from the mainstream/majority culture if I’m being honest. The current crop of college students struggles to read more than like eight pages in a row, having discipline and attention span will be a super power in the next generation 

This whole topic is a great example. If your cultural antibodies have weakened to the point where you don’t even reject this kind of thing being in the library idk man 

To be fair. I don't think it matters much with high-school kids. They appear to be targeting mostly elementary school kids in these incidents I jeep finding.
I don’t think it matters much at all in the era of internet pornography. It’s more what I said originally to me…if you don’t immediately have a deep suspicion of the type of adult who insists that your kid is exposed to this stuff…not going to make it. 
#43
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
Simple only if you believe that children are parent's property.

If they are not your property, then you do not get to dictate them at all or harm their well being just because your imaginary rules regarding well being arent in line with science.

Well, its not simple even if you believe that children are your property, because raising your property badly would harm other people's property.

But lets not promote slavery. I thought USA abolished that.
Topic's author
#44
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
This documentary video, done by a producer who has worked with some pretty famous people, has shown how and why this world is turning to shit.
  • Strongly disagree.  This video is merely MAGA propoganda (sic) for the weak in mind and spirit.  The producer, director, and principle (sic) actor is a (sic) ex-metalcore videomaker (sic) who ran for Congress last year.  Failed politicians, deep in throes of debt and power denied are predicatably (sic) unreliable journalists.
Addressing the source and not the content. Figures. You're entitled to your opinion, but until you address the actual content, you are wrong. 

It is the only place I could find to the full video, and yes, it is on X, but that makes no difference.
  • Obviously, sources make a difference to serious thinkers and rigourous (sic) truth-seekers. 
No, it does not matter or makes any difference. Only the content matters. People on the left who create actual leftist propaganda gets posted on X too. Even far right sources may post leftist POV. It gives balance. One only need see and consider the content, not the source of it. Once the content is dissected and analyzed and debunked, if debunkable, then it can be linked to the source as a final nail in the coffin but not before then. 

The documentary is professionally researched and put together. 
  • Starbuck told his subjects he was making a documentary called "It Takes a Village."  More than one subject was smart enough to tape their interviews as proof that Starburck edited their answers to his liking and inserted question he never asked to deliberately misrepresent the truth.  
If this were true, you would have provided ample sources to substantiate this spurious claim. 

Through psychological warfare, or as they call it, the mere-exposure effect western civilization is being destroyed from within. There is a war on Western Civilization,
  • That war is in Ukraine and MAGA is now clearly rooting for the fall of Western Civilizatiion.  (sic) 
Deflection with a red herring. 

America has never been so divided across so many lines. 
  • Objectively false.  
Objectively accurate (true). You clearly know nothing about the mere-exposure effect, the MSM propaganda where nearly every news source puts out the exact same content, word for word; and how the national security agencies (like the CIA) manipulate the public via the media and other sources. Compliance is being forced under complacency. Threats. Doxing. Violence. It is precisely why the left and black people get away with intolerant messaging, verbally and physically, to include violence and destruction. Those who don't want to deal with the insanity of the left just remain apathetic to it because no one in their right mind wants to be labeled a racist, bigot, transphobe, blah blah blah...leading to that complacency. 

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Especially when it comes to social-psychology and psyops on a massive scale. 
Topic's author
#45
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Honey, you haven't seen me confrontational...yet. 
Topic's author
#46
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
-->
@thett3
Simple only if you believe that children are parent's property.
By extension of the law governing the parents' legal fiduciary duties to a child until they turn 18. They are legally required to care for them, nurture them, cloth them, and provide for their health and education. They can even be legally held liable for crimes committed by said children. Children are the legal property of their parents. 

#47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Amber
By extension of the law governing the parents' legal fiduciary duties to a child until they turn 18. They are legally required to care for them, nurture them, cloth them, and provide for their health and education. They can even be legally held liable for crimes committed by said children. Children are the legal property of their parents. 
Don’t even dignify that bad faith argument with a response. The English language doesn’t have a great word for the parent child relationship. “Property”, “ownership” etc all miss the mark. The closest thing is custody. We have custody of our children, he does not. The onus is on him to prove why his opinions on what’s good for my child should overrule mine 
#48
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
They are legally required to care for them, nurture them, cloth them, and provide for their health and education. 
So that includes sex education.

This is too easy.

Children are the legal property of their parents.
This contradicts with what you said above.
#49
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
It looks like a mod deleted the post.
What? Who did that?

#50
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
The onus is on him to prove why his opinions on what’s good for my child should overrule mine
It was already proven by science.


The closest thing is custody
Since you werent able to provide any logic to that claim, but just contradicted yourself over and over, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Am I supposed to debate against  your feelings?

Science already disproved Christian feelings plenty of times.
#51
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Science has already proved that Christianity is child abuse.

Making children dumber is child abuse.

Religious people are dumber.

"To investigate, Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory.

The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist.

As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education.

Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks.

In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance.

However, while the religious respondents performed worse overall on tasks that required reasoning, there were only very small differences in working memory."

#52
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Science has already proved that Christianity is child abuse.
Fauci sure is busy, but is there sound arguments based on repeatable observations supporting that conclusion? With what definition of abuse?
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What? Who did that?
I am an idiot. The post was there the whole time. I think it is post 22
#54
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
Good luck to you. You honestly should have a large amount of kids if you can. I have 2 and honestly should have had 4 l promised myself bo new kids after 40 though because of increased issues with babies born even to older fathers and this is even among older fathers who impregnate younger women. 

40 was my cut off, and I don't have the right partner anyway. Essentially I am only with her because I think leaving her would put her in a position where she is unable to provide high quality parenting to my younger son. She has shitty decision making skills and isn't capable of making as much s me so getting rid of her would likely cause her to start fucking some white trash person, immediately moving in with them and not going g through the proper vetting process before exposing my son to him. 
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
I literally posted a video of a principal saying outright that it is okay to show porn to 8 year olds.
Then that principal is an idiot. What does that have to do with liberals vs conservatives?

This is why I asked for evidence that shows it is being done in some concerted way related to our politics. I'm not interested in anecdotes.

I don't have a problem with parents objecting to their kids being shown highly inappropriate sexual content at schools, I have an issue with people acting like these extreme examples are really the norm, and acting like this is some kind of plot by liberals to sexualize your children so that they can... well... whatever batshit crazy conspiracy plot follows from this.
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
but you have no right to indoctrinate my kids into your religion any more than I would someone else’s.
Can you please explain the difference between teaching kids and indoctrinating them?

When I was a kid I was taught that America is the greatest country on earth, how does this not qualify as indoctrination?
#57
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
The entire pornographic books in the library controversy is so bizarre to me. I’m not sure how much it specifically matters (are kids even checking out things in the library anymore? And how does this compare to what’s a click away on Google?) but…if you don’t have a deep and immediate suspicion of anyone who absolutely *insists* that your child has access to graphic novels where trans teenagers suck off each others strap on dildos, idk what to tell you lol. 
I don’t understand the pushback against determining what books available in schools are appropriate for certain age groups. It’s not like these books are being burned and erased from existence! They can still be available in public libraries or bookstores. Meanwhile, some groups are determined to prevent certain books and authors from even being published until they meet their capricious standards:




#58
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I don't have a problem with parents objecting to their kids being shown highly inappropriate sexual content at schools, I have an issue with people acting like these extreme examples are really the norm, and acting like this is some kind of plot by liberals to sexualize your children so that they can... well... whatever batshit crazy conspiracy plot follows from this.
The point to sexualize them is about spreading Marxist ideology. Marxists are against the traditional family unit because it gets in the way of making the government the authority. The same reason for the anti religious impulse. 

Why do I know this? I was a Marxist. The criticism isn't of all liberals. The criticism is mostly of the cultural Marxists. Although a lot of times I use the term liberal because it seems like when liberals speak against this sort of cultural Marxism than other liberals turn on the , I would say most liberals. 

Here are some examples

Jordan Peterson- is a liberal but liberals think of him as a bad person because apparently he doesn't want to use people's preferred pronouns

J.K. Rowling- very far leftist who liberals turn on because she doesn't buy into the woke agenda.

The guy who wrote the Bell Curve, legitimately a Marxist who was pointing out IQ dufference so governments would know where to pool their money to help the largest amount of people. 

It's over And over and over. So it's natural to think that if every liberal who speaks out on the woke agenda is basically tossed out of their own movement by fellow liberals than apparently most liberals view liberalism as being pro woke agenda.

I watch bread tube and I never see these people criticize showing children porn. They usually ignore these "book bannings" or label them something they aren't. 
#59
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Can you please explain the difference between teaching kids and indoctrinating them?

When I was a kid I was taught that America is the greatest country on earth, how does this not qualify as indoctrination?
It’s always somewhat in the eye of the beholder but most people would prefer, and tensions would be alleviated, if the focus of school was primarily on teaching facts and skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. 

An example of the differences between teaching a fact and indoctrination would be something like stating that in Catholicism the church is headed by the Pope who lives in Vatican City vs. saying the Pope is infallible, having photos of Pope Francis on your public school walls, having crucifixes everywhere, praying the rosary every class, inviting a priest in to give a mass at the public school and forcing the students to participate, etc.  

Being taught rah rah Murica #1 patriotism probably is indoctrination by most reasonable definitions 
#60
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
I don’t understand the pushback against determining what books available in schools are appropriate for certain age groups. It’s not like these books are being burned and erased from existence! They can still be available in public libraries or bookstores. Meanwhile, some groups are determined to prevent certain books and authors from even being published until they meet their capricious standards:
Yes by the definition of “book bans” these people are using like 99.99% of books ever published are “banned” because they aren’t in some random school library. Meanwhile these same people support the actual censorship of “disinformation” and “dangerous ideas”