a defense of drag show/drag queens..

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:57 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:52 pm This still isn't specific
Why must I satisfy your (apparent) requirement for greater specificity? Isn’t what I say enough?
No. I don't know what deviancies you think it's a slippery slope to. How could I possibly stand a chance at agreeing with you that homosexual acceptance is a dangerous slippery slope if I don't know what it's a dangerous slippery slope TO? Are you talking about pineapple on pizza?
Do you agree with anything, any particular part, of what I have said so far? If so, what? If not, why?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:45 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:57 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Why must I satisfy your (apparent) requirement for greater specificity? Isn’t what I say enough?
No. I don't know what deviancies you think it's a slippery slope to. How could I possibly stand a chance at agreeing with you that homosexual acceptance is a dangerous slippery slope if I don't know what it's a dangerous slippery slope TO? Are you talking about pineapple on pizza?
Do you agree with anything, any particular part, of what I have said so far? If so, what? If not, why?
I agree with the principal that if something really is a danger, or really does lead to a slippery slope to a danger, it's worth considering if we should do something about it.

But right now it's all vagueries and fear mongering. Without specifics you're just saying a whole lot of nothing. What is homosexual acceptance a slippery slope to?
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

while I wait for seed, what does the concept of freedom
mean to us in terms of drag shows/queens?

we have three types of freedom, one is freedom from,
the second, is freedom to, and the third, is the
freedom to be... to be free to become something...

I am free to safe from attack... I am free to
make a living, and I am free to be something... a drag queen
or a philosopher (or both)

now we know that freedom is not absolute, we have limits
on us, such limits are the law of gravity and thermodynamics
and evolution....and we have limits on us politically, we
can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or go about shooting people...
and these limits are reasonable limits...they make sense....

we are free to criticize the government...or to practice whatever
religion we choose to...the 1st amendment gives us that right...
I am free to hope on a plane and visit my family in Chicago,
all I need is the money to buy a plane ticket and off I go...

the freedom to, the freedom from and the freedom to be....

we are freed to dress up on Halloween, to cross dress to our hearts
content...and no one will say a word, men dressing as women
and women dressing as men.... if is socially acceptable to dress
up as a man or a woman on Halloween, then why the fuss about drag queens?
Kropotkin, we must protect the children? what about the children?

the problem is that we, as a society, in movies/TV shows, engage in dressing up
with children in mind and we dress up as monsters and animals and
power rangers... and we have children stories like the brothers
Grimm wrote... very violent, very brutal stories... or is stories
about witches eating children, your cup of tea? look at children
stories with this thought in mind, and one realizes, that the vast
majority of children's stories are violent, brutal stuff... so, we
try to read children's stories that have other impact, reading from
the bible for example, but as I have mentioned, the bible is full
of horrible things, incest, masturbation, mass murder, the torture of
Job with god's blessing... the question becomes, if god approves of
torture, why can't we torture as well? the recommended action for
many transgressions of god is stoning... this seems to me to be
another "blessing" from god, that we should stone violators of the law,
either gods law or human law.... Apparently, there are 22 bible verses
about stoning...is that the lesson we wish to teach the children?
commit a crime and be stoned?

the bible, that sanctuary of love, isn't... it is a violent, brutal
writing....where all the "crimes" of humanity is on display...
but not cross dressing, it isn't listed in the bible... such a crime
not listed in the bible, makes one wonder, doesn't it?

anyway, all of this ignores the real question facing us, that
of ethics/morality? on what ethical/moral grounds do
we approve of or disapprove of such things as drag queens,
or drag shows or torturing people, or mass murder, or even war?
what was the ethical/moral basis for the 20 year long war in
Iraq/Afghanistan? to this day, no one can say....to "revenge"
9/11? Ok, to tough, how about on what moral/ethical basis,
do we ban abortions? or on what ethical/moral basis do we
ban drag shows? Kropotkin, we are protecting the children,
what about the children? what about the children?

Those same children we expose to violent literature like the
''Brothers Grimm" and the bible? or we expose to the torture of Job?
or we offer up make believe like Santa Claus, or the easter bunny? or
perhaps the Queen of hearts who proclaims loudly and often,
"off with their head" ''off with their head'' Alice in Wonderland,
is that the "role" model we should be seeking? seeking punishment
at every single office?

I submit that the confusion over this problem of drag queens,
lies with those who demand their punishment...
for on what grounds do we ban drag queens/drag shows?

what is the ethical/moral basis for banning drag shows/queens?
name the ethical/moral law being broken by drag queens/shows?

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

seeds wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:53 pm
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:39 pm ok, how about this... what exactly is the difference
between dressing up for Halloween and dressing up as
a drag queen? I can't see any difference at all..
Let me ask you, what if these guys...

Image

Image

Image

...wanted to come to elementary schools and libraries to read stories to children in order to show 5-year-olds that grown men afflicted with the psychopathology of Infantilism are nothing but ordinary joes who simply like to dress up as babies, suck on baby bottles, and crap in their diapers.

In which case, will you also defend their desire to access our kids in the same way you defend the drag queens?

Or how about this...

Why not let a school or public library function as a kind of kiddie "job fair" venue with multiple booths where drag queens, nudists, adult infants, flashers, men with foot fetishes, etc., etc., can don their preferred costumes and demonstrate to the kids all of the wonderful options that await them when they get older?

K: and you hit the nail on the head commenting on the "wonderful options
that await them"... story time is for very young children, who often
are at this stage of their lives, or have just grown out of it... there is
no point in recounting a stage they are either already at or have just
left... think about it.. why do grown men take to this "infantilism"
as adults?

it makes them feel safe and secure... the world of being an adult is,
frankly scary... you have responsibilities and consequences and
families to take care of.. being an adult is quite a burden...
and by taking to this "infantilism'' they can escape, at least for the
moment, taking these responsibilities and consequences....
I think of being an adult like being Atlas, a Titan condemned to
having the entire world on one's shoulders... and adults quite often
buckle under the pressure... hence the use of booze, drugs, gambling,
anything to escape this weight of the world on one's shoulder...

or to put it another way, to have 'infantile'' adults read to children,
is showing children the past, the very recent past whereas we
want children to think about what is to come....what possibilities
exists before them, not what has already happened...to be an infant,
at the age of 4 or 5 is going backwards, we want to go forward
and drag queens reading books is about going forwards...that is
possible for you, but you also have other options, other possibilities..
my contention is that by itself, drag queens don't harm children
thinking or beliefs...for we already have an event which celebrates
cross dressing in Halloween and for children, Halloween is a big event...
you can put on a costume and become someone else... this is the
message of Halloween... and how do drag queens change this message?

I would suggest that drag queens reinforce the already established
message offered up by Halloween... you can dress up and it ok...
you can become someone else.. society and the state and the culture,
all support this message by their engagement with Halloween...

Kropotkin
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:49 pm But right now it's all vagueries and fear mongering. Without specifics you're just saying a whole lot of nothing. What is homosexual acceptance a slippery slope to?
No, it really isn't. But I accept that you wish to make that bold statement about it. Therefore, I make the suggestion to you that you examine your own predicate-set. Just as you wish me to do that and to inform you of what I think the slippery-slope actually is, and why it is such a slope.

To make declarations like those you make -- vagaries, fear-mongering -- fits into a program of resistance to the value-assertions that you do not go along with. And as such it is quite common.
What is homosexual acceptance a slippery slope to?
Though I made reference to a sea-change in American culture with the book I referenced -- and it is valid to have referred to the movement in ideas or desires that is part of the sexual liberation movement generally -- I would not myself write the sentence that you wrote.

Homosexual liberation seem to be part of a larger sexual liberation movement, and the sexual liberation movement (if I can call it such) bespeaks tendencies that have arisen in liberalism and also in what I call hyper-liberalism. So I am not at all sure if homosexuality per se is what I would focus on when I critique a culture of sexual permissiveness, sexual promiscuity, and the separation of sexuality from the strict reproductive act in families the purpose of which is to produce children.

True, I have settled on a declared value: the male and female union in a productive relationship as a special, indeed an honored category. It is also true that refining this idea shares some commonality with religiously declared positions (such as marriage as a sacrament) but my argument is not specifically religious though I would not deny that it has metaphysical dimension.

Thus to issue, in my view, is the de-linking of sexuality and sex-expression from reproduction, family life, female rhythms, and the structures that have been and still are at the very base of social and civilizational life. So to make certain assertions about 'the family' and the 'importance' of family life, right there, is not to engage in vagaries -- but why did you not notice? It could be argued that the family, if anything is so in human life, is quintessentially important. Perhaps you disagree, and you are entiled to that, but to say that the concerns I outline, and the concerns of people who also think like me is vague and unintelligible or mere 'fear-mongering' is flatly wrong.

For this reason I have also said that it seems to me that homosexuals themselves, though involved in a sterile union, should themselves have the foresight to recognize that a productive male-female union is on a higher (i.e. more important) level and that it should be valued as such. But I am not saying that homosexuals devalue that union either. But what is the main issue?

Again it is that of de-coupling sexual expression from the productive relationship. Since homosexual relationships (when they fuck one another to put it bluntly) do not entail the reproductive outcome or potential, their union is purely pleasure-based. And when purely pleasure-based relationships, and relatedness, become the norm, that in itself is a trend in society that can be examined philosophically, ethically, and critically.

And it seems to me that in a great deal of the expressions of sexuality that abound today that that is their purpose, if you will. Therefore, it is fair game and a valid project to examine what has gone on in our culture post-sexual revolution from a philosophical perspective. And you? Where do you stand? I reckon if your ideas are anything like Kropotkin that you too locate yourself on the hyper-liberal plane of declared values. Thus what I have said here will be understood by you to be (fill in the blanks with your own negative terms) but perhaps 'drivel' since that is often a word used when one disagrees adamantly with the ideas of the other.

🙃
driv·el (drĭv′əl)
v. driv·eled, driv·el·ing, driv·els or driv·elled or driv·el·ling
v.intr.
1. To slobber; drool.
2. To flow like spittle or saliva.
3. To talk stupidly or childishly.
v.tr.
1. To allow to flow from the mouth.
2. To say (something) stupidly.
n.
1. Saliva flowing from the mouth.
2. Stupid or senseless talk.
[Middle English drevelen, from Old English dreflian.]
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Alexis Jacobi:
Homosexual liberation seem to be part of a larger sexual liberation movement, and the sexual liberation movement (if I can call it such) bespeaks tendencies that have arisen in liberalism and also in what I call hyper-liberalism. So I am not at all sure if homosexuality per se is what I would focus on when I critique a culture of sexual permissiveness, sexual promiscuity, and the separation of sexuality from the strict reproductive act in families the purpose of which is to produce children.

True, I have settled on a declared value: the male and female union in a productive relationship as a special, indeed an honored category. It is also true that refining this idea shares some commonality with religiously declared positions (such as marriage as a sacrament) but my argument is not specifically religious though I would not deny that it has metaphysical dimension.

Thus to issue, in my view, is the de-linking of sexuality and sex-expression from reproduction, family life, female rhythms, and the structures that have been and still are at the very base of social and civilizational life. So to make certain assertions about 'the family' and the 'importance' of family life, right there, is not to engage in vagaries -- but why did you not notice? It could be argued that the family, if anything is so in human life, is quintessentially important. Perhaps you disagree, and you are entiled to that, but to say that the concerns I outline, and the concerns of people who also think like me is vague and unintelligible or mere 'fear-mongering' is flatly wrong.

For this reason I have also said that it seems to me that homosexuals themselves, though involved in a sterile union, should themselves have the foresight to recognize that a productive male-female union is on a higher (i.e. more important) level and that it should be valued as such. But I am not saying that homosexuals devalue that union either. But what is the main issue?

Again it is that of de-coupling sexual expression from the productive relationship. Since homosexual relationships (when they fuck one another to put it bluntly) do not entail the reproductive outcome or potential, their union is purely pleasure-based. And when purely pleasure-based relationships, and relatedness, become the norm, that in itself is a trend in society that can be examined philosophically, ethically, and critically.

And it seems to me that in a great deal of the expressions of sexuality that abound today that that is their purpose, if you will. Therefore, it is fair game and a valid project to examine what has gone on in our culture post-sexual revolution from a philosophical perspective. And you? Where do you stand? I reckon if your ideas are anything like Kropotkin that you too locate yourself on the hyper-liberal plane of declared values. Thus what I have said here will be understood by you to be (fill in the blanks with your own negative terms) but perhaps 'drivel' since that is often a word used when one disagrees adamantly with the ideas of the other.

K: which is a long way of saying, only families/people who can reproduce
have value.. all others have no value within society... my daughter who is
38 hasn't reproduced, thus she has no value, or redeeming value to society...
that is exactly what you are saying...
gays because they can't reproduce, have no value within society..
or anyone else who cannot for other reasons, have children,
which not only leaves out my daughter, but removes one of my sisters,
who physically can't reproduce....she has no value, even thou she
is a well known psychologist who appears on TV a fair amount...

is that your only criteria for exclusion from society, or do you have
other exclusions?

Kropotkin
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:19 pm K: which is a long way of saying, only families/people who can reproduce
have value.. all others have no value within society... my daughter who is
38 hasn't reproduced, thus she has no value, or redeeming value to society...
that is exactly what you are saying...
gays because they can't reproduce, have no value within society..
or anyone else who cannot for other reasons, have children,
which not only leaves out my daughter, but removes one of my sisters,
who physically can't reproduce....she has no value, even though she
is a well known psychologist who appears on TV a fair amount...

is that your only criteria for exclusion from society, or do you have
other exclusions?
When I read what you write, and what people who reason like you write, I realize I am dealing with people with *binary minds*. So, I made no such statement as you have made, and what you have done is to have 'reduced' what I said to something that you can then describe as terrible, unworthy, unethical, cruel, etc. Your mind receives ideas which you have already determined are 'bad' if not 'evil', and then you set to work on them, twist them, rewrite them, into declarations that you can rail against.

I do say that the productive family and the male-female union should be given a higher value-status by all parties. It is a philosophical assertion, or one supported by coherent ideas.

Women who arrive at their late thirties without a solid marriage, without a family, and often without children, often describe their situation as lonely and unfulfilling. Therefore -- and if this is a general trend and one result of the sexual liberation movement in our societies -- this is an 'outcome' that can be, and should be, examined from a fair-minded perspective. If all relationships, and relatedness, become like the incels -- that too can be seen a) as a result of the sexual revolution, and b) as a negative, undesired, unhealthy outcome. But that is not to say that it is to be entirely condemned or de-valued. As always there are positives and negatives. It requires a balanced and non-binary (non-reductionist) mind to see straight, it seems to me.

If relationships and relatedness has failed -- that is a topic worthy of real concern.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:01 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:49 pm But right now it's all vagueries and fear mongering. Without specifics you're just saying a whole lot of nothing. What is homosexual acceptance a slippery slope to?
No, it really isn't. But I accept that you wish to make that bold statement about it. Therefore, I make the suggestion to you that you examine your own predicate-set. Just as you wish me to do that and to inform you of what I think the slippery-slope actually is, and why it is such a slope.

To make declarations like those you make -- vagaries, fear-mongering -- fits into a program of resistance to the value-assertions that you do not go along with. And as such it is quite common.
What is homosexual acceptance a slippery slope to?
Though I made reference to a sea-change in American culture with the book I referenced -- and it is valid to have referred to the movement in ideas or desires that is part of the sexual liberation movement generally -- I would not myself write the sentence that you wrote.

Homosexual liberation seem to be part of a larger sexual liberation movement, and the sexual liberation movement (if I can call it such) bespeaks tendencies that have arisen in liberalism and also in what I call hyper-liberalism. So I am not at all sure if homosexuality per se is what I would focus on when I critique a culture of sexual permissiveness, sexual promiscuity, and the separation of sexuality from the strict reproductive act in families the purpose of which is to produce children.

True, I have settled on a declared value: the male and female union in a productive relationship as a special, indeed an honored category. It is also true that refining this idea shares some commonality with religiously declared positions (such as marriage as a sacrament) but my argument is not specifically religious though I would not deny that it has metaphysical dimension.

Thus to issue, in my view, is the de-linking of sexuality and sex-expression from reproduction, family life, female rhythms, and the structures that have been and still are at the very base of social and civilizational life. So to make certain assertions about 'the family' and the 'importance' of family life, right there, is not to engage in vagaries -- but why did you not notice? It could be argued that the family, if anything is so in human life, is quintessentially important. Perhaps you disagree, and you are entiled to that, but to say that the concerns I outline, and the concerns of people who also think like me is vague and unintelligible or mere 'fear-mongering' is flatly wrong.

For this reason I have also said that it seems to me that homosexuals themselves, though involved in a sterile union, should themselves have the foresight to recognize that a productive male-female union is on a higher (i.e. more important) level and that it should be valued as such. But I am not saying that homosexuals devalue that union either. But what is the main issue?

Again it is that of de-coupling sexual expression from the productive relationship. Since homosexual relationships (when they fuck one another to put it bluntly) do not entail the reproductive outcome or potential, their union is purely pleasure-based. And when purely pleasure-based relationships, and relatedness, become the norm, that in itself is a trend in society that can be examined philosophically, ethically, and critically.

And it seems to me that in a great deal of the expressions of sexuality that abound today that that is their purpose, if you will. Therefore, it is fair game and a valid project to examine what has gone on in our culture post-sexual revolution from a philosophical perspective. And you? Where do you stand? I reckon if your ideas are anything like Kropotkin that you too locate yourself on the hyper-liberal plane of declared values. Thus what I have said here will be understood by you to be (fill in the blanks with your own negative terms) but perhaps 'drivel' since that is often a word used when one disagrees adamantly with the ideas of the other.

🙃
driv·el (drĭv′əl)
v. driv·eled, driv·el·ing, driv·els or driv·elled or driv·el·ling
v.intr.
1. To slobber; drool.
2. To flow like spittle or saliva.
3. To talk stupidly or childishly.
v.tr.
1. To allow to flow from the mouth.
2. To say (something) stupidly.
n.
1. Saliva flowing from the mouth.
2. Stupid or senseless talk.
[Middle English drevelen, from Old English dreflian.]
This is still vague.

What specific negative consequences do you think will come of public full acceptance of homosexuality? You've brought up families, but you've been vague and it again - what negative outcome in regards to families do you expect? Specifically? And you have not at all defended the idea that accepting homosexuals will result in some worse "deviancies", that's still vague. You haven't gone into any specific deviancy.

If you are not specific, you are vague. Vague isn't a blanket insult that I apply to all people with traditional values, like you seem to think. To the contrary, plenty of people with traditional values are plenty specific! Vague is how I describe your ideas here, because you talk about deviancies without specifying which ones. You talk vaguely about family values without specifying what family values are at risk by public acceptance of homosexuality. This is what it means to be vague. You can rectify it by being specific, maybe some examples might help.

If you want an example of a specific statement you could make, it's something like "I fear that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of THIS terrible sexual deviance" or "acceptance of homosexuality will lead to THIS benefit of family values being lost" or "acceptance of homosexuality will result in a population decrease" - obviously it's for you to fill in the THISs.

What deviances? What family values? Specific, please
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:37 pm
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:19 pm K: which is a long way of saying, only families/people who can reproduce
have value.. all others have no value within society... my daughter who is
38 hasn't reproduced, thus she has no value, or redeeming value to society...
that is exactly what you are saying...
gays because they can't reproduce, have no value within society..
or anyone else who cannot for other reasons, have children,
which not only leaves out my daughter, but removes one of my sisters,
who physically can't reproduce....she has no value, even though she
is a well known psychologist who appears on TV a fair amount...

is that your only criteria for exclusion from society, or do you have
other exclusions?
A:
When I read what you write, and what people who reason like you write, I realize I am dealing with people with *binary minds*. So, I made no such statement as you have made, and what you have done is to have 'reduced' what I said to something that you can then describe as terrible, unworthy, unethical, cruel, etc. Your mind receives ideas which you have already determined are 'bad' if not 'evil', and then you set to work on them, twist them, rewrite them, into declarations that you can rail against.

K: ahhhk, you said it, but somehow its my fault?


A: I do say that the productive family and the male-female union should be given a higher value-status by all parties. It is a philosophical assertion, or one supported by coherent ideas.

K: which is exactly what I said... "higher value-status" is exactly
what I said it was... families and individuals who reproduce are
given ''higher value-status"... how is that different than what I said?

A: Women who arrive at their late thirties without a solid marriage, without a family, and often without children, often describe their situation as lonely and unfulfilling. Therefore -- and if this is a general trend and one result of the sexual liberation movement in our societies -- this is an 'outcome' that can be, and should be, examined from a fair-minded perspective. If all relationships, and relatedness, become like the incels --

K: now you are comparing women in their ''late thirties without a
a solid marriage, without family, and often without children, often describe
their situation as lonely and unfulfilling" and exactly how many women so
describe their situation and how do you know this?
surveys, ads, "everyone knows", actual science, right wing propaganda...
and then you compare them to "incels" you make this insult quite
bland but it is there...by using the words "fair-minded" as if that can cover
up the insult somehow....

A: that too can be seen a) as a result of the sexual revolution, and b) as a negative, undesired, unhealthy outcome. But that is not to say that it is to be entirely condemned or de-valued. As always there are positives and negatives. It requires a balanced and non-binary (non-reductionist) mind to see straight, it seems to me.

K: as a "negative, undesired, unhealthy outcome" and
you know this how, exactly? and again, you hide this insult behind
quite reasonable language of "requires a balanced, non-binary
(non-reductionist) mind to "see straight"... in other words, everyone
not name Alex Jacobi, is unbalanced and binary... only you are the
clear minded judge of all things written here....

how kind of you....

Kropotkin
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:03 pm What deviances? What family values? Specific, please
There are certain games that are played on forums. One of them is when someone, you in this case, sets themselves up as interrogator. You ask a question. An answer is given. But you reject the answer (as you did) with some pretext. You can surely find people who will play this game. However not with me. If you want to work with the ideas I did submit then do so. But I will answer no more questions. My suggestion? To engage with what was provided. I suspect though that you are unreasonable and you will not accept any 'answers' because you already have your own ideas on the general topic of sexual liberation in the present phase of American cultural history. That is another area where you can open up the floodgates of your thought and reveal where you stand, and why.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:14 pm Kropotkin
So, do you have a question or a comment?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:46 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:03 pm What deviances? What family values? Specific, please
There are certain games that are played on forums. One of them is when someone, you in this case, sets themselves up as interrogator. You ask a question. An answer is given. But you reject the answer (as you did) with some pretext. You can surely find people who will play this game. However not with me. If you want to work with the ideas I did submit then do so. But I will answer no more questions. My suggestion? To engage with what was provided. I suspect though that you are unreasonable and you will not accept any 'answers' because you already have your own ideas on the general topic of sexual liberation in the present phase of American cultural history. That is another area where you can open up the floodgates of your thought and reveal where you stand, and why.
You're not a victim. You just haven't been specific. Deviances. Family values. Sex without reproduction. No explanation for why sex without reproduction is going to result in terrible consequences that rational people should all want to avoid. Just the bald assertion that if we accept gay people, that will promote non reproductive sexual activity, and that's BAD.... for some reason.

I'm giving you the opportunity to talk about why. Why is it bad? What deviancies are bad? What consequences will be bad? You surely don't think you've said enough to convince anyone.

I don't think what you provided was enough. But I don't think it's outside your grasp to start getting actually specific. It's within arm's reach, you just have to try a little bit.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I can respect all that you say -- if you are indeed operating in good faith. My suggestion is to discuss on your own any ideas you have in relation to those I did bring up.

I think you are aware how fruitless, even ridiculous, are so many conversations that go on here. If you really & truly want to know what I think, and all my thinking is tentative, then share some of your own ideas. It is a question of reciprocity.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:55 pmNo explanation for why sex without reproduction is going to result in terrible consequences that rational people should all want to avoid.
I find this statement curious because I find it difficult to believe that someone -- you -- could be unaware of the result of sexual activity without reproduction (childbearing and family). Are you serious? Is the issue in reality opaque to you?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:10 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:55 pmNo explanation for why sex without reproduction is going to result in terrible consequences that rational people should all want to avoid.
I find this statement curious because I find it difficult to believe that someone -- you -- could be unaware of the result of sexual activity without reproduction (childbearing and family). Are you serious? Is the issue in reality opaque to you?
Yes, why should I care that some people want to have sex without creating a baby sometimes? Even in heterosexual relationships most sex doesn't result in a baby. It's not obvious to me that that's a problem. What percent of sex ideally should result in a pregnancy for you? 100%? 90%?

Now maybe, if you were adept at being specific, you might tell me "no no, the problem with accepting homosexuality is that it's going to result in NO babies being born ever." Is that what you think? Is that the specific negative consequence you've been unable to say up to now? If it's not that, then please tell me specifically what you think it is.
Post Reply