The "Family Values" trope.

Recommended Videos

mduncan50

New member
Apr 7, 2009
804
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
DementedSheep said:
I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but here in NZ "family values" and having family in the name of your lobby or political group is code for a regressive anti gay Christian group so noone else with a lick of sense uses that term.

It might even be the branch of Christianity doing this elsewhere.
It's pretty much the same in the USA, where we have...

American Family Association - A group that attacks homosexual equality policies and ideas, non-traditional families, transgenders, and views everything through a 'Christian' lense

Family Research Counsel - Has many colorful 'sources' on it's website, like 'The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage' and 'The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.'

Family Research Institute - Appears to be defunct for two years, but a casual look at whats still on the website reveals that it has more articles on homosexuality then families, including an article about how protecting gays is protecting pedophiles.

Illinois Family Institute - Again, another family organization that seems more concerned with Christianity and homosexuals then anything else.

Conservatives oppose the inclusion of ?sexual orientation? in anti-discrimination laws for multiple reasons:

-The specious term ?sexual orientation? erroneously conflates homosexuality and heterosexuality, which are, in reality, ontologically distinct. It should be obvious that the term ?sexual orientation? is a political contrivance used to provide cover for the inclusion of homoeroticism as a protected category in law in that no one is ?discriminated against? because of their heterosexuality. In objective terms, all humans are heterosexual.

-Unlike heterosexuality which is constituted by objective conditions (i.e., anatomical structures and biological processes), homosexuality is constituted solely by subjective sexual feelings and volitional acts that are appropriate objects of moral assessment.

-Homosexuality is wholly distinct from other conditions that are included in anti-discrimination laws, like sex, race, age, and nation of origin.

-Homosexuality?constituted as it is by subjective erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts?is, however, analogous to other conditions similarly constituted, and therefore, its inclusion opens the door for claims that polyamory and paraphilias should be included in anti-discrimination law.

-Once conditions constituted by subjective, fluid, erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts are offered special protections, the religious liberty of people of faith will be compromised.

Only fools and liars deny that religious liberty is eroding through the sullied efforts of homosexuals and their ideological accomplices.
Traditional Values Coalition - Just...



Yeah.
What the fuck? How is their mascot a chupacabra?!
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
mduncan50 said:
AccursedTheory said:
DementedSheep said:
I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but here in NZ "family values" and having family in the name of your lobby or political group is code for a regressive anti gay Christian group so noone else with a lick of sense uses that term.

It might even be the branch of Christianity doing this elsewhere.
It's pretty much the same in the USA, where we have...

American Family Association - A group that attacks homosexual equality policies and ideas, non-traditional families, transgenders, and views everything through a 'Christian' lense

Family Research Counsel - Has many colorful 'sources' on it's website, like 'The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage' and 'The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.'

Family Research Institute - Appears to be defunct for two years, but a casual look at whats still on the website reveals that it has more articles on homosexuality then families, including an article about how protecting gays is protecting pedophiles.

Illinois Family Institute - Again, another family organization that seems more concerned with Christianity and homosexuals then anything else.

Conservatives oppose the inclusion of ?sexual orientation? in anti-discrimination laws for multiple reasons:

-The specious term ?sexual orientation? erroneously conflates homosexuality and heterosexuality, which are, in reality, ontologically distinct. It should be obvious that the term ?sexual orientation? is a political contrivance used to provide cover for the inclusion of homoeroticism as a protected category in law in that no one is ?discriminated against? because of their heterosexuality. In objective terms, all humans are heterosexual.

-Unlike heterosexuality which is constituted by objective conditions (i.e., anatomical structures and biological processes), homosexuality is constituted solely by subjective sexual feelings and volitional acts that are appropriate objects of moral assessment.

-Homosexuality is wholly distinct from other conditions that are included in anti-discrimination laws, like sex, race, age, and nation of origin.

-Homosexuality?constituted as it is by subjective erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts?is, however, analogous to other conditions similarly constituted, and therefore, its inclusion opens the door for claims that polyamory and paraphilias should be included in anti-discrimination law.

-Once conditions constituted by subjective, fluid, erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts are offered special protections, the religious liberty of people of faith will be compromised.

Only fools and liars deny that religious liberty is eroding through the sullied efforts of homosexuals and their ideological accomplices.
Traditional Values Coalition - Just...



Yeah.
What the fuck? How is their mascot a chupacabra?!
I think they are trying to imply people who are transgender are wolves in sheeps clothing which is all kinds of messed up.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Just - yeeeeeaaaah...

"Family Values" is a catch-all placebo for making bigoted assertions easier to swallow. Shit, *anything* can be construed as being harmful to the Capital-F Family or the sacrosanct children if you use the right turns of phrase! It's just a rhetoric assembled by fearful idiots who can't bear the fact that the Eisenhower era has passed and that in this day and age, there's certain civil liberties that are being rediscovered!

Social Conservatives like to act as though homosexuality were a post-Y2K problem, and they conveniently ignore how ancient social models we actually rely on to found certain modern democratic ideals were completely fine with the idea of same-sex relationships! Take a History 101 class, check out the Greeks and Romans, and show that to your local pseudo-Christian who actually prefers to peddle hate over compassion!

I'm Canadian, and we kicked Stephen Harper out the door not too long ago. In the filigree of the deeper and more pressing issues that led the people to put the Conservatives' rule to an end, there's the fact that he was one heck of a regressive idiot who controlled Parliament with an iron fist and made sure the Prairies' oil industry would still be prioritized - along with the beliefs of these provinces' constituents, starting with the reduced funding of research centers and higher-learning facilities. Our universities were being bled dry because he preferred to stick juvenile delinquents in long-term confinement and to reduce federal prisons to borderline Russian gulags, with four or five men cramped in a five-by-three cell.

If you were a Bible-thumping cattle-herder from somewhere in Alberta, he loved the shit out of you. If you happened to be a French Canadian kid from Montreal working his ass off on campus and stuck watching colleagues being bled dry as funding trickled off, you got fed ads telling you to drop the proverbial quill and get yourself some MANUAL work, Sonny Jim! Golly Gee Whiz, Mister Prime Minister, I'd love to pick up that jackhammer and add to our road network's endless cycle of renovations and breakdowns - but I've got Cerebral Palsy!

Family Values, my ass.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
mduncan50 said:
AccursedTheory said:
Traditional Values Coalition - Just...


Yeah.
What the fuck? How is their mascot a chupacabra?!
DementedSheep said:
I think they are trying to imply people who are transgender are wolves in sheeps clothing which is all kinds of messed up.
The picture links to this.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/transgender

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is leading the fight to Protect Our Kids in schools where the national transgender movement is seeking to normalize their behavior through coercive, punitive regulations -- demanding so-called "non-discrimination policies" by withholding federal funding.

-In Fairfax County, Virginia the local school board was bullied into a 10-1 decision to force little girls and little boys to share bathrooms, making special exceptions for "transgendered" children.
-In Stafford County, Virgnia, an army of angry parents, teachers, and concerned citizens successfully pushed back and forced the local school board to defer any decision -- for a time.
-In California, legislation is already moving to codify transgenders as a protected class.
...and in Washington, the Obama administration is threatening to withhold federal funds and throw school districts into a courtroom if they do not comply under Title IX.

This is the very real threat our schoolchildren are facing today.
So... yah. 'Wolf in Sheep's Clothing,' quite literally in this case (And their minds).
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
mduncan50 said:
AccursedTheory said:
What the fuck? How is their mascot a chupacabra?!
Because [sarcasm]Dey racis on top of being homophobes and culturally appropratin muh mythical creatures[/sarcasm].
But seriously, that's the stupidest shit I've ever seen in a banner. And I've seen some banners.
 

mduncan50

New member
Apr 7, 2009
804
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
mduncan50 said:
AccursedTheory said:
Traditional Values Coalition - Just...


Yeah.
What the fuck? How is their mascot a chupacabra?!
DementedSheep said:
I think they are trying to imply people who are transgender are wolves in sheeps clothing which is all kinds of messed up.
The picture links to this.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/transgender

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is leading the fight to Protect Our Kids in schools where the national transgender movement is seeking to normalize their behavior through coercive, punitive regulations -- demanding so-called "non-discrimination policies" by withholding federal funding.

-In Fairfax County, Virginia the local school board was bullied into a 10-1 decision to force little girls and little boys to share bathrooms, making special exceptions for "transgendered" children.
-In Stafford County, Virgnia, an army of angry parents, teachers, and concerned citizens successfully pushed back and forced the local school board to defer any decision -- for a time.
-In California, legislation is already moving to codify transgenders as a protected class.
...and in Washington, the Obama administration is threatening to withhold federal funds and throw school districts into a courtroom if they do not comply under Title IX.

This is the very real threat our schoolchildren are facing today.
So... yah. 'Wolf in Sheep's Clothing,' quite literally in this case (And their minds).
Nope...definitely a chupacabra. A mythical beast to represent their mythical fears.
 

Dollabillyall

New member
Jul 18, 2012
97
0
0
Parasondox said:
Hi. I'm Para. Not that Para. The other one. I shall be your public speaker today and I will assure you that I will not send a dick pic this hour. Actually dick pics are sooooo 2014 ago. The new craze is belly buttons. Inny and outty. So send them if you please ;)*

*Please don't send me pics of your belly buttons.

Family is important. Family is what molds us and supports us like a training bra. It's what humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom hold onto in life.

*Vin Diesel voice* It's about family.

Families come in different shapes and sizes. They could be the alleged normal structure of, man, woman, kids, pet, roaches, or they are those we look up too, trust, care for, the ones that aren't blood relatives but damn well sure that you will back them through thick and thin.

So, why the fuck in the Western world if someone does something a bit taboo, a threesome, swinging, being gay, giving a homeless person money, it breaks "family values" and the sort.

Ted Cruz (if I say his name three times in the mirror at night, I will be visited by Satan telling me that he is offended when he is compared to either Trump or Cruz. Poor Satan, he has had a bad rep for over 2000 even years.) and other politicians and powerful figures keep banging on about must hold these values when opposing the what they seem as, no right. When gay marriage was annsidedd to be legal in the US, Fox News loses their fucking minds and saying how this will end marriage. *****, please!! Marriage was flawed since its conception.

Anywho, back to family. How important is it to you?

Do you get annoyed when someone tries to bring up family values that is seems one sided because a single parent or two moms or two dad's or multiple partners in a family isnt seen as a "family" thing.

Yeah, it's things I have seen and heard in recent years that has me thinking about it.
Honestly I don't fully agree with the small primer of family values you have. I have a few gripes about it in general.

First off, "family values" is one of those concepts that lacks clear, uncontested definition but is widely in use anyway. This means that different people will use it in sometimes very different ways. To a christian, family values is more a placeholder for christian values about things like sexual morality... while to non-christian conservatives it might be more about promoting a safe, stable environment for children to grow up in (and oftentimes the general belief that that is most likely to be achieved in "natural" families of father, mother and children).

Secondly off... "alleged normal" doesn't really cover the reality of the situation that (what is commonly known as) the nuclear family IS the norm (i.e. normal) for a vast majority of people around the world and throughout history and different cultures. While I agree that a modern family can very well exist outside of the norm and still be legitimate as a family unit one must admit that the norm is Male-Female-Children with optional extensions like grandparents. In many ways this has an obvious evolutionary root for us as a social K-selection strategy species (K-selection means a species with few children and long parental care as opposed to r-selection wich has many offspring and little parental care like rats). Wether or not you think this norm should also be a value in the cultural sense is a different story imho.

Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.
Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).
The idea of marriage is not flawed since it's inception, our ability to define it in a modern context of competing value systems is. The idea of people forming a lifelong bond regardless of financial, medical or emotional changes is one to cherish as it provides a safety net for the individuals to not end up lonely (loneliness for a social species as ours is probably one of the most unbearable states of being imaginable) as well as form a stable framework for the procreation of the species.

To me personally, the idea of family values is a fairly conservative but secular one. I think a family is a social unit that has the express intent of creating a stable environment for raising children. That means that from my viewpoint a couple without children does not constitute a family but rather a partnership. So the next question is: What kind of environment is necessary for raising children "the right way"? I guess that is a topic that is extremely inviting to debate but I think that in most cases it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents in a stable unit (i.e. parents get along, live together and don't form other partnerships). Ofcourse this also presumes that the parents in question are mentally and financially capable of raising their child(ren). To me personally this does not exclude (stable) gay couples or otherwise adoptive parents but the simple fact that such families are a deviation from the norm is a source of insecurity and instability for many children in those situations makes it so that they are less preferable to "biological" family units. Considering though the ammount of children that cannot be raised by a stable biological unit they do serve an important role in society as "backup families" assuming again they are competent as parents in the first place.
In this it probably shows through that I am not a big fan of people willingly having children outside of a stable environment. In practice this includes people who have children the normal way but to not intend to form a stable unit as parents. This can include mothers who get a sperm donor and fathers who use a surrogate mother because they didn't find a mate. This opinion rubs a lot of wrong people the wrong way because they claim those people have a "right" to be a parent... but nowhere have I ever heard a source citing that right nor have I ever heard a decent argument in defense of it. Contrasting, there are many decent arguments to make for a child to have a right to a stable childhood.
Ofcourse this is not an attack at single or divorced parents. I'm not saying that collage families or single parent families are incapable of producing a loving and stable environment for a child... but decades of research has shown time and time again that stable, two-parent families are the best predictor for future happiness, ability to create and maintain lasting relationships and succes in overcoming challenges and achieving goals.

So am I pro-family values? I sure am. Do I have the same view on what they are or should be as Fox news? Fuck no. Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.

Sorry for the long post. I seem to have rambled.

addendum:
Family is something else than friends. The tendency for some to call their friends family is another way of saying you have left your family and substitute their place in your life by your friends. I have many great and loyal friends, most of whom I have a better personal connection with than I have with my biological brother... but blood is thicker than water and I know that beyond all other ties of loyalty I can count on my brother and he can count on me because we share blood. I deem this an outgrowth of the evolutionary fact that siblings are genetically closer than strangers and therefore their survival also ensures the survival of your shared genetic material... and that is in the end all we are... vessels for the propagation of genetic material in a competetive environment.

As for taboo things and sexually deviant (statistically speaking) behaviour... sex outside of a stable environment creates the oppertunity for children who are born outside of stable invironments who in turn are more likely to become destabilizing elements in society (often by way of stunted psychological and emotional development). Also, stable parental units that engage in sexually deviant behavior are also at risk of destabilizing the existing stable environment for their child(ren). Historically, homosexuality has been (partially due to prevalent social values rejecting it) a very unstable type of relationship as well. This may be part of the reason why many people still view homosexual couples as inherently unstable.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,566
141
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Dollabillyall said:
Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.
It should be respected up until it starts shoving itself on to those who don't accept it. It often seems to get treated differently because, at least in the US, it has more power and tries to do things that others do not, at least not here. I've yet to hear about the Muslim senators or 'family values' organizations in the US decrying gay marriage, so of course it is the culture or certain Christmas that gets (well deserved) disrespect.

Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).
Well they need to learn that they don't get to force everyone else to accept their religiously based definition. The problem is exclusively theirs, and they need to quit with the stubborn ignorance.

Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.
Why? What needs reconciliation? The problem is the Christians in question are throwing a fit over the government not using their religiously defined definition. It's not hard to comprehend the concept that people reject their religion and shouldn't be expected to follow their definitions and that a secular definition should be used.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Dollabillyall said:
Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.

Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).
No.

Marriage isn't a 'scientific' concept. What it is, is a word. A word we all share. Language, be it spoken or written, is the most important and powerful invention of man. To hell with fire - Prometheus should have left the flames at home and brought a book. And despite what Christians may think, 'The Word' is not theirs. It is the legacy of all mankind.

So guess what - Christians don't get to define words, or choose how people use them. Marriage is the combination of two things, as recognized by a higher power. If your higher power is God, fine, but the moment you try to claim the word for God alone, you can go shove off. Especially when that word is often used to describe the perfect melding of two ingredients in a recipe. Where's the Christian outrage against the culinary world?

TL;DR - Language belongs to everyone. Hell, Christians don't even own the word christ.

I have no interest in responding to anything else you said. I'm sure someone else here will tear that nonsense apart without my assistance.
 

mduncan50

New member
Apr 7, 2009
804
0
0
Dollabillyall said:
So am I pro-family values? I sure am. Do I have the same view on what they are or should be as Fox news? Fuck no. Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.
I'm sorry, but I have to say a big no to this. Marriage has been around a lot longer that Christianity, and it will probably be around long after as well. And Christians are feeling their religion is being attacked BECAUSE they are not allowed to suppress the freedoms of gay people, so I don't think that's a fair comparison to make. As for a "traditional" family being one man, one woman, and their children through most of history, well that's just downright incorrect. That is a fairly recent trend, and one that isn't even present in your bible. It is way more common throughout history for "marriage" to be one person married to many (usually one man and multiple women, but the opposite is also true in rare cases) or many to many in more of a communal family. And that's just talking about the "official" marriages, not the very common and often accepted affairs and such (many same-sex) which occur up to and including today.

Historically, homosexuality has been (partially due to prevalent social values rejecting it) a very unstable type of relationship as well. This may be part of the reason why many people still view homosexual couples as inherently unstable.
So openly gay relationships have shown to be very unstable because of the oppression and discrimination they have received, which can cause understandable strains, and thus this is why those discriminatory people think they are inherently unstable? Even better reason to ignore them when they try to pass laws infringing on the rights of LGBT peoples.
 

irish286

New member
Mar 17, 2012
114
0
0
Family values are sticking together, loving one another, and helping each other. Family values does not mean all of this other crap most of you are trying to claim. It isn't some code for discrimination or bigotry. It's not some hateful intolerant concept. Those are meanings you've imposed on it because of your biased views of the people who support it. All of you people claim to be so tolerant of others and yet have this ridiculous capacity to justify any action in order to force others to support your views...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dollabillyall said:
Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.
"Respected" is perhaps not the right term; we should substitute "recognise". We may recognise a position for such Christian ideas as this in our society, and still not respect the idea that they should have any power outside of those who willingly and expressly consent to them.

They may view marriage as a divine bond, sure. Nobody is obligated to respect that baseless belief, and it should not occupy that position in a legal capacity intended to reflect society as a whole.


Dollabillyall said:
Ofcourse this is not an attack at single or divorced parents. I'm not saying that collage families or single parent families are incapable of producing a loving and stable environment for a child... but decades of research has shown time and time again that stable, two-parent families are the best predictor for future happiness, ability to create and maintain lasting relationships and succes in overcoming challenges and achieving goals.
Well, no, it hasn't, actually. Decades of research has provided us with reams of information which may possibly be interpreted that way, if we were willingly being reductionist, and predisposed to believe that interpretation to begin with. I have yet to see any research on the matter that isn't plagued by confounding variables.

irish286 said:
Family values are sticking together, loving one another, and helping each other.
In that case, "family values" are utterly universal, and the term is meaningless. One wonders why one side of the political spectrum is far more likely to use it than the other. Perhaps it is far more likely to be co-opted by specific ideologies?

The same is true of various terms on the opposite side of the political divide, too, of course.
 

9tailedflame

New member
Oct 8, 2015
218
0
0
Yea, the idea of the "family values" has always been pretty bullshit. The structure basically works, to be fair, the nuclear family model i mean, it provides a source of income with a breadwinner and a support system with a homemaker, and does a pretty decent job of taking care of and rearing kids, but that doesn't mean other models can't work, or that these are things only the nuclear model can pull off, and the idea that the nuclear family is the only acceptable model is complete crap, and anyone who's actually thought about it knows that.

I think the hate that the "family values" ideology breeds is part of suburban culture at large, the idea that projecting the image of wealth and happiness is the only thing worth doing, and anything else might as well be a witch to burn. I have problems myself with these types, i have a functional and legal, but completely crap looking car, parked legally in the street across my house, and my neighbors leave nasty notes saying how it "wrecks the view". That's kinda what their problem is, forget that i need a car to drive, and that car needs to take up space, and i live with 6 other people, so there's limited space in the garage, no, all that reality never occurs to the suburbanite. A sick twisted people they are. The problem is that suburbia is comfortable, and if you heed anything in this post, heed this. Never underestimate the power of comfort. This is a force to be reckoned with, and it is suburbia's greatest weapon. For all it's pitfalls, it's close-mindedness, absurd materialism, value of style over substance, and convention over truth, and social ranking over law or reason, suburbia is comfortable, and as anyone who spends too much time on the internet knows, comfort is hard to break free of, no matter how much bad stuff you KNOW it's enabling. My 24 years of accomplishing and doing very little because of how comforting and convenient the internet is have taught me this well enough.

This leads me to another point, one that will no doubt piss lots of people off, but here goes. And please keep in mind that these are observations, not opinions. In my time on this earth, i have learned that there is a certain degree of merit in mistrusting the "progressive" at times. Look at modern feminism. There's more than a bit of a "take anything and everything you can" mentality to it, that deviates far from wanting equality, and reaches into oppression. Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want. This is sometimes what we get from progressiveness. Yes, sometimes we get great things, like an end to slavery, new technology, all kinds of good stuff, but sometimes we get shit too, like revenge-discrimination. There's good and there's bad. Some things ARE a threat to the nuclear family, and the nuclear family doesn't always deserve to be threatened like that. In the end, people rarely really want equality, and this applies to people of all kinds. They want what's best for them and those close to them, and they will screw anyone who doesn't fit that bill if it makes they're lives even very slightly better. Equality is actually just as much a ludicrous false concept as family values is, and engenders just as much hate and bullshit.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
9tailedflame said:
Equality is actually just as much a ludicrous false concept as family values is, and engenders just as much hate and bullshit.
All in all, I'd call that kind of a pathetic attempt at false equivalence. On the one hand, we have murder. On the other hand, we have people tweeting about people spreading their legs on crowded buses. "Just as much hate and bullshit", I think not.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
9tailedflame said:
Yes, sometimes we get great things, like an end to slavery, new technology, all kinds of good stuff, but sometimes we get shit too, like revenge-discrimination.
Pro Tip - Any time you have a sentence that's 'It ended slavery, but...' you'd better put something on the other side of that equation more specific then 'revenge-discrimination.'

And revenge-discrimination isn't really a thing, by the way. It's just discrimination, regardless of which way it swings. Same with 'Reverse-Racism.' It's just racism, folks.

Some things ARE a threat to the nuclear family, and the nuclear family doesn't always deserve to be threatened like that.
Name three direct threats to the nuclear family. Please.

Equality is actually just as much a ludicrous false concept as family values is, and engenders just as much hate and bullshit.
The only people I've ever met that thought equality was a bad thing, or was 'fake,' were the ones trying to gouge their little piece heaven out of someone else's skin. And they are not as common as you would think.
 

mduncan50

New member
Apr 7, 2009
804
0
0
9tailedflame said:
Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.
I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
mduncan50 said:
I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever.
It's real, for what it is. Google "manspreading". People complain that men spread their legs on crowded public transit, often accompanied by pictures of men spreading their legs on distinctly not crowded public transit. Real, petty, but not entirely unjustified, and certainly in no way comparable to how the "family values" crowd goes around denying basic rights to people who don't conform to their narrow views.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Family is the most important thing to me. To me it is family, country, friends, and then other obligations. To often so called "family values" groups and politicians really mean "my particular brand of Christian values" and is directly opposed to my own value system.
 

9tailedflame

New member
Oct 8, 2015
218
0
0
mduncan50 said:
9tailedflame said:
Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.
I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.
But why not do neither of these things? Why is it a trade? That's what i don't get. Forcing people to crush their testicles doesn't really help anybody, it doesn't do anything whatsoever to stop institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment and rape, so why do you act like it's a trade? Because it's not at all, and i have no clue at all how you came to that conclusion.