👍

GG @Eddiemaster91, you just advanced to level 4!

I would probably say that I'm on the right side hey? The blue collar side?

😝 that's a little bit "Truthiness" meaning not exactly true

Then I would be half and half leaning towards blue from the purple side

Depends on what's right.

In this age I'd say economic right

Yeah no it's just a broad assumption but the purple definitely defines me...consider myself libertarian

libertarian-right

But if there is good law and order then blue

Yeah no I don't like the state, they're the reason things are so messed up in the first place😂

Jip

Messed up

-People should be treated equally in the sense they are provided with equal opportunity to make their way in life. They shouldn't be given equality of outcome.
-People should have the freedom to say almost whatever they wish, no matter how offensive. This excludes death threats and defamation.
-People should be allowed to own private and personal property.
-People should be able to love who they want, regardless of gender, so long as it's consensual and so long sexual activities don't happen until over the age of 18 years old.

Basically my view point

Would also add, don't expect free stuff and get rid of as much taxes as possible

True
True
True
Ok sure

Yes

😅

But according to leftists that makes me a nazi<:kek:482910570211966986>

Haha hey you're Right😁

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

@Darkseid isn't that "so long as" just as good as a but? 🤔 making a rule is one thing, making exceptions to a rule only opens up the possibility to exploit the exception for more exceptions using the same reasons.

@Sheamus it is a but, "But it has to be consensual, and legal age" there really isn't much to work with there not really much that can be exploited

@Darkseid lol you obviously missing the current argument that kids and animals can consent... I am not saying they understand what they consent to, but the argument is being made, and sadly more and more it is being embraced, after all, "love is love". That is the problem with supporting any forms of degeneracy and making an exception to the rule.

@Sheamus I don't think kids and animals can be 18🤔

Children can't consent because they're still developing the cognitive abilities to be able to fully understand consent and what it entails

@Darkseid yes, the age restriction is a rule of law that's non negotiable that needs to be enforced with authority and that rule of law protects children, and yet we see liberal attempts to negotiate around it. The argument that kids can consent is demonstrated with the fact that they can consent to gender transitions and what not inspite of many of them regretting it when they grow up.

And then there is the argument the that the degenerates attracted to same sex are born that way which is not a fact, it is a choice because the whole human genome has been mapped and no gene responsible for sexuality been uncovered as its a moral decision, but anyways they argue they are unfairly discriminated against because they are born that way and that love is love it shouldn't matter.

So those inclined to beastiality and pedophilia now also claim they are just born to be attracted to animals and children. So as it is currently going, the same arguments used to justify one form of degeneracy is being used to justify another, and if you allow one but not the other, that becomes inconsistent and leaves your argument wide open for actual discrimination and intolerance. How can you say you don't discriminate and you oppose discrimination, and you are tolerant when you clearly are inconsistent with your own claims?

This is the problem. This is why we reasonable folk actually oppose homosexuality, because that argument becomes really difficult to win in a reasonable and consistent fashion. You give them a hand and they take your whole arm.

@Cal agreed, and yet the argument is made and practiced where kids consent to things that destroy them. Why this even allowed us beyond me.

We're not homophobic, our reasons to oppose homosexuality is not some irrational fear, it's very much rational, it's the degeneracy that we fear encouraging that leads to further degeneracy. I've converted a few degenerates to become regenerate with reason, but you okes empowering them with your liberalism and tolerance for degeneracy makes it increasingly difficult by defending them. So would be nice if you guys can realize the principle that is the problem, instead of arguing over the context.

@Sheamus "Show me an instance of natural cross species breeding and how it was successful"...It does not occur in any form in nature without human involvement and the new species is always sterile, therefore the argument that people born with a natural attraction animals is redundant. I just disproved that without sacrificing my stance. Secondly countless amounts of research has already proven that children cannot in fact consent, hell they need parental permission for school trips and medication, forget about relationships. The phrasing is clear and concise, do you, but it has to be legal age and consensual. That is not a but, it's not an opening it is a requirement.

It's quite a simple concept, what you want to do with another consenting adult is up to you, but it has to be a consenting adult. Not an animal, not a child. Adult (18)

I do not agree with gender transition before puberty or hell even before age 18...our brains aren't even fully matured until after age 18 so I think transitioning before then can be dangerous and confusing..

@Darkseid it's not like i disagree with you lol, but whether you like it or not, other people are using the same rhetoric that justifies one thing, to justify another. The legal age of consent drops lower and lower, whether it be sexual or not, even with meds and other things, if and when children can demonstrate that they understand something, they can consent to it, for example if a boy can understand the feeling of being a girl, then he can consent to being a transgender, and then there are laws i think in Canada, where if you as a parent dont allow it, you get into trouble and your child is removed from your care.

"The new law stipulates that children’s services workers and family judges take into consideration a child’s “race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression” when determining whether or not a child will remain with their parents or foster families.

Michael Couteau, the Minister of Child and Family Services, and who initially introduced the bill, said that he would consider parental discrimination on the basis of gender identity “a form of abuse when a child identifies as one way and a caregiver is saying ‘No, you need to do this differently.'”

He continued, “If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

The new law now requires a parent or legal guardian to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017 has also deleted previously established verbiage that allowed parents and guardians to raise their children under their own umbrella of faith."

These are things actually happening, now observe the slippery slope this becomes and where it leads to... It's not just about your virtues here... But anyways, shit's happening and you have to question how these things come to be

@ZombieQueen Agreed, this is a load of crap honestly. It's not based on reason and logic, it's based on feelings

@Sheamus Hence why the legal age is Adulthood...consent might drop but adulthood is always 18, fuck them perverts