Denmark introduces John Dillermand to kids TV (1 Viewer)

where yat brah

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
6,664
Reaction score
10,930
Location
Gulf Breeze, FL via NOLA via Donaldsonville/Frankl
Online
Sticky Post
 

livefromDC

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
9,839
Reaction score
16,682
Age
41
Location
Atlanta, GA
Online
But, as usual, this thread has evolved into stating basically nothing new from anyone and far away from a cartoon penis. We only want to spout what we believe we know that the other person doesn't only looking for the divergence so we can "cancel" that person. You've stated that apparently I said something was black when it is indeed white. Now, I don't know if I did or not because you haven't told me what this opposite thing is. This clearly, as many, many, many things are, is a gray issue.
You did. Here.

I guess we're not seen as a very progressive country, but we certainly have a lot more options and choices open to us. For instance, I'm free to say, Keep your progressive ideas away from me. I'm also free to say, Keep your repressive ideas away from me.
We don't have "More options and choices open to us" than other countries. Perhaps to your surprise, people in other countries are also free to say "Keep your progressive ideas away from me. I'm also free to say, Keep your repressive ideas away from me."

Then Shortly later, you said...
...You may not know me, but I think you could have presumed I know there are other free countries
And why should anyone assume that when your previous statement about freedom in other countries was so inaccurate? St. Widge made a logical conclusion based off your own words.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
4,249
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
You did. Here.

We don't have "More options and choices open to us" than other countries. Perhaps to your surprise, people in other countries are also free to say "Keep your progressive ideas away from me. I'm also free to say, Keep your repressive ideas away from me."

Then Shortly later, you said...

And why should anyone assume that when your previous statement about freedom in other countries was so inaccurate? St. Widge made a logical conclusion based off your own words.
I don't think she ever said every other country or even that women in the US have more freedoms than any other country and I don't think that's what she meant either. Still, views and attitudes towards women in general and the freedoms that they possess are far more advanced than a great majority of the world and those that would be considered on par with the US it's really subjective. So the point you're trying to refute, that the US holds some exclusivity to women's rights, isn't even the one she was trying to make. But you've successfully taken the topic down a rabbit hole that was never intended.

As for Marsha's point, "I guess we're not seen as a very progressive country..." I disagree, though I don't really believe she thinks that either based on the rest of her post. I think the US is right up there with most other progressive nations. Other nations may be a bit more free-wheeling when it comes to sexuality and open nudity as a culture, but that really has little to no bearing on how women are actually treated & viewed in those other cultures. Just because a woman can walk around shirtless in some other country doesn't mean that people don't see them and treat them as sex objects. They're just more open about it. I think our problem in this country isn't that we're not progressive, it's that we're all so damn easily offended by everything & think that everyone must agree with us. On the flip side, anytime someone voices a displeasure with something there's a knee jerk reaction to dismiss that person as well. It makes it nearly impossible to have a civil discussion without accusations, chides and ridicule.

I read Marsha's posts & see a lot of my thoughts in what she's saying. I can't speak for her, but I feel she has the same struggle with this as I do. Between wanting a more free culture where we don't have the hang-ups about our bodies that we do, both sexually & non-sexually or more openness and less shame to both our physique and our sexuality and then also a realization of the dangers that openness can pose to children. Children can be easily conditioned, we all know this to be true. If you take the same principles that are being used against violent games and cartoons for children and apply that to sexual objects then what you get is the normalization of sexual organs. They no longer become sexual objects meant to be kept private & children see them the same as every other body part and as I stated, it won't be long before predators begin to take advantage of that normalization. It's the same reason why you have a rating system for movies. You wouldn't plop your kid down in front of a porn flick in order to teach them about sex, so why would you subject them to a guy with a huge penis to teach them about bodily differences?

@guidomerkinsrules posted earlier about predators typically using shame in order to get children to do what they want, but I don't believe that it always starts like that. I think it starts at a level of trust between the child and the predator and the predator convincing the child that what they are doing is ok. The shame, secrecy and fear is what they use to ensure they are not caught and can continue unimpeded. My opinion is that cartoons depicting "heroes" using their sexual organs as their superpower promotes the idea that a penis isn't something to be kept private just as much as it might teach children not to be ashamed of the differences in their bodies. What disturbs me is what Marsha eluded to with her NAMBLA post earlier, that there are SO many ways that we can teach the same lessons to children using whatever body part you want. Why the penis?
 
Last edited:

livefromDC

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
9,839
Reaction score
16,682
Age
41
Location
Atlanta, GA
Online
I don't think she ever said every other country or even that women in the US have more freedoms than any other country and I don't think that's what she meant either. Still, views and attitudes towards women in general and the freedoms that they possess are far more advanced than a great majority of the world and those that would be considered on par with the US it's really subjective. So the point you're trying to refute, that the US holds some exclusivity to women's rights, isn't even the one she was trying to make. But you've successfully taken the topic down a rabbit hole that was never intended.

As for Marsha's point, "I guess we're not seen as a very progressive country..." I disagree, though I don't really believe she thinks that either based on the rest of her post. I think the US is right up there with most other progressive nations. Other nations may be a bit more free-wheeling when it comes to sexuality and open nudity as a culture, but that really has little to no bearing on how women are actually treated & viewed in those other cultures. Just because a woman can walk around shirtless in some other country doesn't mean that people don't see them and treat them as sex objects. They're just more open about it. I think our problem in this country isn't that we're not progressive, it's that we're all so damn easily offended by everything & think that everyone must agree with us. On the flip side, anytime someone voices a displeasure with something there's a knee jerk reaction to dismiss that person as well. It makes it nearly impossible to have a civil discussion without accusations, chides and ridicule.

I read Marsha's posts & see a lot of my thoughts in what she's saying. I can't speak for her, but I feel she has the same struggle with this as I do. Between wanting a more free culture where we don't have the hang-ups about our bodies that we do, both sexually & non-sexually or more openness and less shame to both our physique and our sexuality and then also a realization of the dangers that openness can pose to children. Children can be easily conditioned, we all know this to be true. If you take the same principles that are being used against violent games and cartoons for children and apply that to sexual objects then what you get is the normalization of sexual organs. They no longer become sexual objects meant to be kept private & children see them the same as every other body part and as I stated, it won't be long before predators begin to take advantage of that normalization. It's the same reason why you have a rating system for movies. You wouldn't plop your kid down in front of a porn flick in order to teach them about sex, so why would you subject them to a guy with a huge penis to teach them about bodily differences?

@guidomerkinsrules posted earlier about predators typically using shame in order to get children to do what they want, but I don't believe that it always starts like that. I think it starts at a level of trust between the child and the predator and the predator convincing the child that what they are doing is ok. The shame, secrecy and fear is what they use to ensure they are not caught and can continue unimpeded. My opinion is that cartoons depicting "heroes" using their sexual organs as their superpower promotes the idea that a penis isn't something to be kept private just as much as it might teach children not to be ashamed of the differences in their bodies. What disturbs me is what Marsha eluded to with her NAMBLA post earlier, that there are SO many ways that we can teach the same lessons to children using whatever body part you want. Why the penis?
You wrote all of this and still managed to completely miss the point. Not that I was talking about "women's rights" but as women's rights go, however, your perception of the US seems to be that of someone that views everything American through rose colored glasses. Our track record on women's rights among developed countries is not what you think it is. Wage Equality, maternity leave, access to healthcare, representation in government, etc. The US ranks below 50th in all these categories. Our constitution, unlike other developed countries, doesn't even properly address women's rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t,”

BUT....that wasn't the point I was making. In her post, she said , and I quote, " For instance, I'm free to say, Keep your progressive ideas away from me. I'm also free to say, Keep your repressive ideas away from me. " This strongly suggests that she believes that American have a greater freedom of speech than other developed nations. That's what I refuted, not the made up strawman about women's rights. But for the record, you are wrong there too.

Let me guess, you also stay up at night worrying about the bathroom transgender people use too. There's a segment of the population that has a strong preoccupation with pedophilia these days.

Why the penis? Dude, it's just a penis. I think parents have more conversations with their kids about their bodies would be a good thing. We all here may be diligent parents that make sure those conversations happen, but there's a good bit of the population that find out about their bodies outside of the comforts of good parenting or a silly children's show.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
4,249
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
Let me guess, you also stay up at night worrying about the bathroom transgender people use too. There's a segment of the population that has a strong preoccupation with pedophilia these days.
See, I knew it was a mistake trying to have a civil discussion with you. My mistake, won't happen again, here or otherwise.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom