A supportive dad indeed...

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xionaxa -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -20 points-19 points-18 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlaiseSaffron 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlaiseSaffron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanCentipedeLover -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrSy 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ItrollbecauseIcare 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]NWOslave -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mayonesa -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 13 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAlphaGareBear7 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

He just wants to wear a fuckin' dress.

If it is so trivial, then what's all the drama about? Just tell your son to dress differently and that's that. But we both know that the issue cannot be settled like this. Why? Because it isn't just about clothes or dolls, but about making a statement. The statement that deviancy must be accepted; that it shouldn't be shameful for a boy to act or dress like a girl because there is no true difference between the genders. This nonsense will fundamentally change the way a child perceives the world. Children are especially vulnerable to being affected by the messages, prejudices and thought-systems (intentional or unconscious) that surround them.

We have a simple choice to make: Do we pick a few arbitrary markers (such as color, clothes and toys) to illustrate the differences of certain categories (such as gender) and use societal pressure to make sure that these markers are not ignored, OR do we create a permissive society where everybody can do whatever he wants and is completely lost about who he is and what his place in the community should be?

[–]TheAlphaGareBear 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

If it is so trivial, then what's all the drama about?

The drama is about the dad saying that it's okay. You want society to create arbitrary gender differences for NO REASON. There is no reason to create arbitrary gender norms because all you do is alienate people who are different.

that it shouldn't be shameful for a boy to act or dress like a girl

I cut your sentence off a little early because your "because" is wrong. It shouldn't be shameful because BEING DIFFERENT is something we should not be shaming. There are differences between the genders, but that DOES NOT MEAN that it's a black and white thing and that being different from the norms of your gender is WRONG. It's not even the norms of your gender. It's the arbitrary norms of the shapes of clothing that has no objective meaning.

We have a simple choice to make: Do we pick a few arbitrary markers (such as color, clothes and toys) to illustrate the differences of certain categories (such as gender) and use societal pressure to make sure that these markers are not ignored, OR do we create a permissive society where everybody can do whatever he wants and is completely lost about who he is and what his place in the community should be?

That's a false choice. Those are not the only options. There's also at LEAST one more. That is, we allow people to be who they want to be so long as it doesn't affect the people around them. How does this kid wearing a fucking dress screw up your day? Are you sitting at home like "God dammit, my whole day is ruined. There's a BOY who is wearing a piece of material that is not in a shape that would be PLEASING TO ME! HOW DARE HE?!"?

Time for my ad hominem because I just realized, after typing all that, that you aren't going to change your mind anyway.

You're a cunt!

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

It's the arbitrary norms of the shapes of clothing that has no objective meaning.

It doesn't matter that the norms are arbitrary. Having a Y chromosome doesn't mean that your legs necessarily need to be seperately wrappen in cloth. That's not the issue here. The point is that this father is attempting to fashion deviant behavior as a normal and acceptable thing for this child.

"Daddy, I can't spell my name, tie my shoes or even understand how my peepee works, but I identify as a bicurious semi-tranny who feels oppressed by modern gender roles assigned at birth by the patriarchy! I feel therein I must dress as a female to best express my inner self!

"Yes son, that is perfectly nomral and acceptable behavior for someone who can't wipe his ass without help and cannot make his own medical decisions or any other complex choice. Therefore, we will indulge this 'phase' as who you really are on the inside and allow the media to sensationalize it by taking pictures that will haunt you for a lifetime!"

"Thanks, dad!"

True love is expressed by doing what is best for people, not what panders to their whims.

That is, we allow people to be who they want to be so long as it doesn't affect the people around them.

How does that work? If we use certain markers in our society to categorize the world, then everybody who doesn't conform will stick out and cause trouble, at least for himself. It's like an unwillingness to use the same language as everybody else. All our words are also arbitrary. Look, I watched Ma Vie En Rose too and sympathized with the little dude. I don't want people to stone a boy for wearing a dress. But it shoudn't be encouraged or treated as normal because it isn't.

You're a cunt!

Aww is baby getting emotional? I'm not a woman btw.

[–]TheAlphaGareBear1 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

That whole quoting thing you did between the dad and son? Yeah, that's bull shit. The kid isn't saying that bicurious, that he's a tranny, or anything else. He wants to wear a dress. All he wants to do is wear something that he likes to wear. Period. Full stop. You are attributing all this extra stuff to that and then acting like what you're saying isn't just the inane ramblings of someone who should probably be wearing a helmet. He wants to wear a dress. That does not mean he wants to suck cock, or go fuck a dog, or shove pencil lead up his urethra. It means he wants to wear a dress. Stop pretending there's more to it than that, because that's dishonest.

True love is expressed by doing what is best for people, not what panders to their whims.

Well isn't that the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard? What is "best for people" is subjective. If someone were to think that what is best for someone else is to stab them in the foot, does that mean they should do that? Fuck no! YOU DON'T GET TO DO THAT. Each person must decide, for themselves, what is best for them. We're not even talking about anything meta. It's a kid that's wearing a dress. He decided he liked them.

Aww is baby getting emotional?

No, I just think you're a cunt. I also think you're too stupid to change your mind. I am writing this because someone might think that something you have to say holds any water whatsoever, and I want to make sure that they understand what a horrible person you really are.

I'm going to be totally honest with you right now. I really, really hope you're infertile. Any child you raise will only learn to hate anything about themselves that you dislike, which will end up resulting in a wholly non-functioning adult. I mean, if they were gay you'd tell them that that's wrong because it doesn't conform to what society thinks they should be, and that they have to change. You'll raise your children to think of themselves as disgusting.

dwarf33: No I wouldn't!

Yeah, you would.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

True love is expressed by doing what is best for people, not what panders to their whims.

Well isn't that the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard? What is "best for people" is subjective. If someone were to think that what is best for someone else is to stab them in the foot, does that mean they should do that? Fuck no!

So you're suggesting that people should not do what they think is best for their loved ones? What's the alternative? Do what you think is bad for them? Not do anything at all?

Each person must decide, for themselves, what is best for them.

A child should be able to make all decisions for himself? So if he doesn't want to go to school, then he doesn't have to? Let them smoke too? No coercive bed time?

No, I just think you're a cunt. I also think you're too stupid to change your mind. I am writing this because someone might think that something you have to say holds any water whatsoever, and I want to make sure that they understand what a horrible person you really are.

You're not doing a particularly good job. I discuss the issue like an adult while you give the impression of a child having a temper tantrum.

I'm going to be totally honest with you right now. I really, really hope you're infertile. Any child you raise will only learn to hate anything about themselves that you dislike, which will end up resulting in a wholly non-functioning adult.

Don't worry. I won't raise kids.

I mean, if they were gay you'd tell them that that's wrong because it doesn't conform to what society thinks they should be, and that they have to change.

Nice straw man. I'm gay btw. :3

[–]TheAlphaGareBear -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So you're suggesting that people should not do what they think is best for their loved ones? What's the alternative?

A. Explain to them why something will be bad for them (smoking, drugs, etc. etc.)

B. If they still want to do it, then you should let them.

Loving someone is about loving who they are, not trying to change them because you don't like them as a person. Do you realize how fucked up that is? To even imply that you can love someone and dislike WHO THEY ARE, tells me that you REALLY don't understand what love is.

A child should be able to make all decisions for himself? So if he doesn't want to go to school, then he doesn't have to? Let them smoke too? No coercive bed time?

I think you think children are WAY stupider than they really are. Turns out, if you actually sit a kid down and explain to them why they should or should not do things, they'll fuckin' listen. When you tell a kid not to smoke and when they ask why and you say "Because I told you so." the kid probably won't listen to you, and with good reason. Children are actually pretty fuckin' smart.

To point out one in particular, I would never make a kid go to the schools we have. That's almost child abuse.

You're not doing a particularly good job. I discuss the issue like an adult while you give the impression of a child having a temper tantrum.

Why should I treat you with respect when I have none for you? You're against treating this child like he's an actual human being. The dad told his son that it's fine that he likes dresses and you're AGAINST that.

I'm gay btw.

Holy fuck.

So, you argue that this child should be told that he is not normal and that he should CHANGE WHO HE IS, JUST because society wants him to change.

The statement that deviancy must be accepted; that it shouldn't be shameful for a boy to act or dress like a girl because there is no true difference between the genders. This nonsense will fundamentally change the way a child perceives the world.

That's you, big guy. You said that.

Fucking dudes? That is a DISTINCTLY feminine trait. Not even an arbitrarily constructed one. So, you should change and we should not accept your deviant behavior.

Right?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A. Explain to them why something will be bad for them (smoking, drugs, etc. etc.)

B. If they still want to do it, then you should let them.

That experiment has already been done by hippies and it doesn't work. A child needs clear limits and rules.

Am I the only one who finds it worrying that TheAlphaGareBear would let young kids smoke and skip school as much as they want?

Loving someone is about loving who they are, not trying to change them because you don't like them as a person.

Smoking, skipping school or wearing a dress defines you as a person? That's rubbish.

I think you think children are WAY stupider than they really are. Turns out, if you actually sit a kid down and explain to them why they should or should not do things, they'll fuckin' listen. When you tell a kid not to smoke and when they ask why and you say "Because I told you so." the kid probably won't listen to you, and with good reason. Children are actually pretty fuckin' smart.

Should children (all children) have autonomy or not?

To point out one in particular, I would never make a kid go to the schools we have. That's almost child abuse.

Being raised by an incompetent baboon such as you is child abuse.

You're against treating this child like he's an actual human being.

Straw man.

I'm gay btw.

Holy fuck.

So, you argue that this child should be told that he is not normal and that he should CHANGE WHO HE IS, JUST because society wants him to change.

The child shouldn't be told that he is not normal. I never argued for that. I said that it's not normal for him to wear dresses. That's it. You're the one who is acting as if we're suppressing the kid's personality for not letting him wear a certain piece of cloth; something you yourself described as being trivial. You also seem to imply that I'm in favor of the very thought process that leads to the discrimination of gays. I'm not. Just because I'm arguing that there should be a certain order, doesn't mean that I endorse everything that is part of the current status quo.

The statement that deviancy must be accepted; that it shouldn't be shameful for a boy to act or dress like a girl because there is no true difference between the genders. This nonsense will fundamentally change the way a child perceives the world.

That's you, big guy. You said that.

Yes, I'm aware.

Fucking dudes? That is a DISTINCTLY feminine trait. Not even an arbitrarily constructed one.

Well, it isn't any more distinctly feminine as loving to eat lasagne because we know that a certain percentage of both genders does and always has done it.

So, you should change and we should not accept your deviant behavior.

As I said before. Arguing that there should be a certain order =/= support of every aspect of the status quo.

I could give a few arguments why it's good for society overall to let people choose their partners freely. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why we should abandon dress codes. As you have pointed out in your very first post, it's nothing of importance. It's arbitrary. Just like the words we use to refer to objects and concepts are arbitrary. But it makes sense for everybody in a certain region to speak the same language and, in fact, it's crucial for a child to be able to understand the language that is spoken in its surroundings. A child that is never corrected by its parents when it uses the "wrong" word will end up confused and misunderstood. Similarly, a boy whose parents never correct him when he dresses in the "wrong" clothes will also end up confused and misunderstood.

[–]TheAlphaGareBear -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That experiment has already been done by hippies and it doesn't work. A child needs clear limits and rules.

Good job on quoting one person who was raised by horrible parents and actually (as far as that article says) they did NOT raise their children in the way I said they should.

If I may offer a rebuttal? There was a parent who made sure that their children did not wear dresses. That parent also whipped and beat their children every night in a sex dungeon. This is obviously very similar to what you believe and how you think children should be raised. I think that's horrible.

Am I the only one who finds it worrying that TheAlphaGareBear would let young kids smoke and skip school as much as they want?

First off, they can't skip a school they don't attend.

Second, you lack reading comprehension in a pretty big way. I said that I don't buy for one second that a kid wouldn't be willing to listen to their parents when they explain why something will be bad for them. Kids trust their parents a whole hell of a lot. That means that you don't actually need to tell them not to do things, you should really explain to them why they shouldn't do things.

Smoking, skipping school or wearing a dress defines you as a person? That's rubbish.

Everything you do defines you as a person.

Straw man.

No, it's not. Treating someone like a human being means not initiating force to stop them from doing something that doesn't affect you.

The child shouldn't be told that he is not normal. I never argued for that. I said that it's not normal for him to wear dresses. That's it. You're the one who is acting as if we're suppressing the kid's personality for not letting him wear a certain piece of cloth; something you yourself described as being trivial.

It's trivial until you try to stop him.

Let's say you really enjoy drinking Gatorade. That's fine. No one cares. It's trivial. Then someone tries to stop you from drinking Gatorade. Now it's a thing. Now it's a big thing. They had no right to stop you from doing that, since it has no adverse affects on them. Them stopping you is wrong.

You also seem to imply that I'm in favor of the very thought process that leads to the discrimination of gays. I'm not. Just because I'm arguing that there should be a certain order, doesn't mean that I endorse everything that is part of the current status quo.

That's the thought process that you're using. Do you not understand that? Someone is different. I have to stop them from being different. That is the exact same thing. You're against it being used against you and other homosexuals, but you're apparently not against using it against other people for things that you think should change. So don't say that you're against the thought process. You're for the thought process, you're just against one specific instance.

Well, it isn't any more distinctly feminine as loving to eat lasagne because we know that a certain percentage of both genders does and always has done it.

It's WAY more distinctly feminine than loving to eat lasagna. That you can compare the two things means that you don't understand what gender/sex (I don't fuckin' know which is which anymore) is.

I could give a few arguments why it's good for society overall to let people choose their partners freely.

I see. I think this is the difference between us. You think something must have an actual benefit to be changed. I think things should be changed depending on whether or not they are moral. For instance, a child of any gender being allowed to wear a dress. Forcing them to not wear a dress is immoral. Just like forcing people to fuck who you think they should fuck is immoral. It has nothing to do with a benefit to society. It's about not being a dick. I don't care if there are benefits, or if it's a horizontal move, or even if there are negative consequences, it's the moral thing to do.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why we should abandon dress codes.

That's the exact same as saying "I have yet to hear a compelling argument why we shouldn't have dress codes." That's not my job. I don't have to tell you why we SHOULDN'T have them, you have to explain why we SHOULD. It's the same thing with religion. I don't have to prove that there isn't a god, they have to prove that there is.

Just like the words we use to refer to objects and concepts are arbitrary. But it makes sense for everybody in a certain region to speak the same language and, in fact, it's crucial for a child to be able to understand the language that is spoken in its surroundings. A child that is never corrected by its parents when it uses the "wrong" word will end up confused and misunderstood.

Right, but there's a reason for that. Language is how we communicate. Equating the style of clothing someone prefers to wear to being able to function in society, is nothing short of ludicrous.

Similarly, a boy whose parents never correct him when he dresses in the "wrong" clothes will also end up confused and misunderstood.

Except the "wrongness" of the clothes is created for no reason and it's created arbitrarily.

If you insist, then you must explain why a dress is feminine and why women should be allowed to wear pants.

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good job on quoting one person who was raised by horrible parents and actually (as far as that article says) they did NOT raise their children in the way I said they should.

You said that parents should let their children do whatever they want instead of telling them what to do. The article perfectly illustrates the problems with that approach.

I said that I don't buy for one second that a kid wouldn't be willing to listen to their parents when they explain why something will be bad for them. Kids trust their parents a whole hell of a lot. That means that you don't actually need to tell them not to do things, you should really explain to them why they shouldn't do things.

That's the hippie method and it failed. You obviously have no real experience with rearing children. They often deliberately test how far they can go until they meet serious opposition. Somebody like you, who wants to reason with 5 year olds, would utterly fail at getting anything done.

Everything you do defines you as a person.

Taking a shit defines what your true inner nature is? You're really grasping at straws now.

Treating someone like a human being means not initiating force to stop them from doing something that doesn't affect you.

Where did you get that idea from? Sounds like you took the anarchist's rosary, the NAP, and used it to define what "treating somebody like a human" means. According to this idiotic definition, I'm not treating children like humans. Actually, no parents I know treat their children like humans when we use your witless understanding of these terms. Did your parents never discipline you? I bet they did. How inhumane of them!

Someone is different. I have to stop them from being different.

If that's the extent of your ability to parse meaning from simple English sentences, it is no wonder your arguments are such shoddy work. You should re-read what I actually wrote until the implications set in.

It's WAY more distinctly feminine than loving to eat lasagna.

How so?

Forcing them to not wear a dress is immoral.

Don't go there. I actually spend a lot of time developing my moral framework. Yours sounds like anarchist crap. Coercion, in and of itself, isn't immoral. It keeps the bloody minded from harming others, detaines the insane and is an indispensable technique in the rearing of children.

It's about not being a dick.

Wow, what a compelling argument!

I don't care if there are benefits, or if it's a horizontal move, or even if there are negative consequences, it's the moral thing to do.

You use "moral" as a buzzword. You never actually bother to explain what's moral or immoral about it. Your failure to pursue this discussion in good faith shows that you try to sidestep the issue instead of resolving it.

That's not my job. I don't have to tell you why we SHOULDN'T have them, you have to explain why we SHOULD.

To categorize the world around us. Clothing not only denotes the difference between the genders, but also represents authority (a general's uniform), epxertise (a doctors white coat), grief (funeral attire), exuberance, religious affiliation, respect and many other things.

Right, but there's a reason for that. Language is how we communicate.

Precisely. Now you only need to understand that humans do not just communitcate with words, but with all kinds of other things as well. They communicate with gestures (i.e. applauding, nodding, or showing the long finger), with facial expressions, intonation and, yes, also with clothes. When you show up at a funeral in a clowns costume, you're sending a certain message to the people around you. As Paul Watzlawick aptly said, "you cannot not communicate. Every behaviour is a kind of communication. Because communication does not have a counterpart (there is no anti-behaviour), it is not possible not to communicate." Outward appearance is part of how you commune with others in a particular society. It is important for children to learn this. The poor 5 year old boy in OP's article will probably be lost and confused to why others keep treating him differently until he learns on his own what his parents should have told him.

Except the "wrongness" of the clothes is created for no reason and it's created arbitrarily.

But the "wrongness" of words is also created for no particular reason and is completely arbitrary. Does it really matter if you say "snow" or "neige"? Of course not. But we all need a uniform way of speaking to understand each other.

[–]TheAlphaGareBear-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You said that parents should let their children do whatever they want instead of telling them what to do. The article perfectly illustrates the problems with that approach.

Still failing to grasp what I said, huh? Welp, I'm not going to attempt to explain that again, because I really can't do a better job than what I said. Good luck to you in learning how to read.

Taking a shit defines what your true inner nature is? You're really grasping at straws now.

Alright, how about "Everything you do that isn't a basic biological need defines you as a person." I guess I overestimated you, again. That's my fault.

Where did you get that idea from? Sounds like you took the anarchist's rosary, the NAP, and used it to define what "treating somebody like a human" means. According to this idiotic definition, I'm not treating children like humans. Actually, no parents I know treat their children like humans when we use your witless understanding of these terms. Did your parents never discipline you? I bet they did. How inhumane of them!

Yep.

the NAP

This will be important later.

How so?

Because sex evolved as a male/female thing. The female and male have sex. The female has sex with the male, and the male has sex with the female. That is, fucking dudes is a female thing to do. It's feminine.

Coercion, in and of itself, isn't immoral.

Wrong. Of course, that's the difference, isn't it? You think you can force other people to do what you think they should be doing. I disagree with that.

You use "moral" as a buzzword. You never actually bother to explain what's moral or immoral about it.

That's my bad. I forget to do that quite often. I'm trying to get better at that.

Right, so, this is when the NAP becomes important, because that is the basis of my morality. I assume you know what that is.

To categorize the world around us. Clothing not only denotes the difference between the genders, but also represents authority (a general's uniform), epxertise (a doctors white coat), grief (funeral attire), exuberance, religious affiliation, respect and many other things.

Those are all still entirely subjective. I reject the supposed "authority" you give the general's uniform, anyone can buy a lab coat, everyone has a different definition for funeral attire, I've never seen anyone dressed for "exuberance", I will admit that all religious leaders have silly hats, I have no idea what dressing for "respect" means. So, none of those that you said mean anything to me, or, as a matter of fact, most of the people that I know.

The poor 5 year old boy in OP's article will probably be lost and confused to why others keep treating him differently until he learns on his own what his parents should have told him.

Yeah... No. The boy is doing nothing wrong. All of those people treating him differently? They're the ones in the wrong.

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You said that parents should let their children do whatever they want instead of telling them what to do. The article perfectly illustrates the problems with that approach.

Still failing to grasp what I said, huh? Welp, I'm not going to attempt to explain that again, because I really can't do a better job than what I said. Good luck to you in learning how to read.

A. Explain to them why something will be bad for them (smoking, drugs, etc. etc.)

B. If they still want to do it, then you should let them.

Oh damn, if only I would be able to read! To me, it looks like you said that parents should first explain to their kids what is bad for them, and then let them do it anyway when the children want to. But, of course, that's just due to my inability to understand plain language.

Alright, how about "Everything you do that isn't a basic biological need defines you as a person." I guess I overestimated you, again. That's my fault.

So if your kids want to paint on the wallpaper of your neighbor, then you better let them because, otherwise, you're enchaining their true personality?

Where did you get that idea from? Sounds like you took the anarchist's rosary, the NAP, and used it to define what "treating somebody like a human" means. According to this idiotic definition, I'm not treating children like humans. Actually, no parents I know treat their children like humans when we use your witless understanding of these terms. Did your parents never discipline you? I bet they did. How inhumane of them!

Yep.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to announce this year's winner of the Looney Tunes McFucking Nuts prize!

drum roll

It's TheAlphaGareBear!

♩♫ ♬ There he is, the dumbest kook in the entire world! ♬♫ ♩

Because sex evolved as a male/female thing.

And homosexuality 'evolved' as a male/male thing. Your point? Besides, whether or not something is natural doesn't really matter.

Coercion, in and of itself, isn't immoral.

Wrong.

Wow. Another great argument. Let's see, what should my repartee be...hmm...oh I got it: WRONG!

You think you can force other people to do what you think they should be doing. I disagree with that.

Luckily, nobody cares about what some dumbass on the internet agrees or disagrees with. Otherwise, our society would be ruined with people running wild without a sense of accountability or consequence. Besides, I don't believe you. I bet you're one these hypocrites who just play with words in order to justify it when they use force against others. I meet one of those on reddit at least once a week.

Right, so, this is when the NAP becomes important, because that is the basis of my morality.

hahahaha. Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Those are all still entirely subjective. I reject the supposed "authority" you give the general's uniform, anyone can buy a lab coat, everyone has a different definition for funeral attire, I've never seen anyone dressed for "exuberance", I will admit that all religious leaders have silly hats, I have no idea what dressing for "respect" means. So, none of those that you said mean anything to me, or, as a matter of fact, most of the people that I know.

Sure. Next time you go to school (or maybe you're still in kindergarten?) wear something like this or this and see what happens. People who are completely disconcerted with their appearance, literally or figuratively, are probably in poor mental health in more than one way. How you appear and present yourself to your pack is a normal thing to be concerned about for well adjusted human beings. Being one to reject all input from the community is akin to a kid in a playground putting his fingers in his ears and screaming to drown it out. See a doctor.

Yeah... No. The boy is doing nothing wrong. All of those people treating him differently? They're the ones in the wrong.

You're telling others that they are acting wrong? What about "everything a person does defines their personality"? I thought we should let everybody do whatever they want.

But hey, I really shouldn't expect somebody to be consistent whose moral bedrock is something as stupid as the NAP.

[–]TheAlphaGareBear-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So if your kids want to paint on the wallpaper of your neighbor, then you better let them because, otherwise, you're enchaining their true personality?

You really just don't get it. You think that when you tell a child why they shouldn't do something, they're going to do it anyway, which is a huge crock of shit. Children are actually pretty smart.

A lot of this lacks any semblance of an intelligent conversation, so I'll ignore it.

Sure. Next time you go to school (or maybe you're still in kindergarten?) wear something like this or this and see what happens. People who are completely disconcerted with their appearance, literally or figuratively, are probably in poor mental health in more than one way. How you appear and present yourself to your pack is a normal thing to be concerned about for well adjusted human beings. Being one to reject all input from the community is akin to a kid in a playground putting his fingers in his ears and screaming to drown it out. See a doctor.

Of course, this exact same argument could be used for you getting yourself a beard and pretending to be straight. It's just as sound of an argument.

You're telling others that they are acting wrong?

Yes. They're violating the NAP.

What about "everything a person does defines their personality"?

Still true.

I thought we should let everybody do whatever they want.

Still never said that.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheAlphaGareBear-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We don't have a responsibility to make the rest of the world happy, just ourselves.

Parents have a responsibility to adequately prepare their children for the world that is out there. As I already told TheAlphaGareBear, the point isn't that the kid wears a dress. Having a Y chromosome doesn't mean that your legs necessarily need to be seperately wrappen in cloth. It's arbitrary. Just like the words we use to refer to objects and concepts are arbitrary. But it makes sense for everybody in a certain region to speak the same language and, in fact, it's crucial for a child to be able to understand the language that is spoken in its surroundings. A child that is never corrected by its parents when it uses the "wrong" words will end up confused and misunderstood. Similarly, a boy whose parents never correct him when he dresses in the "wrong" clothes will also end up confused and misunderstood.

Also he's right, you're a cunt.

And you seem to have the IQ of a turnip. I'm not interested in a "who can one-up the other in insults" competition. When you have learned how to discuss an issue like an adult, then I might listen to you again.

[–]Theophagist -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A supportive dad indeed...
Author	Leinadro
Upvotes	28
Comments	43
Date	September 1, 2012 3:06 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/z6p6n/a_supportive_dad_indeed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-supportive-dad-indeed.1014503 https://theredarchive.com/post/1014503

Comments