LogFAQs > #954918033

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Conservatives are OUTRAGED over this video on NICKELODEON!! Are you Mad too??
adjl 06/12/21 11:12:57 AM #95:	Kegran posted... No you misunderstand what I believe a contribution is. A contribution doesn't have to be substantial or something invented or achieved. And normally I wouldn't present something I can't explain properly, but, as you can see, it's usually dismissed as "homophobic" outright so I've never been able to use the words I need. Let me try again. A society is a collection of people with a similar culture. A contribution is passing your culture down to the next generation. Homosexuals statistically do not have a next generation despite outliers, and have no need or use to contribute to the continuation of a culture. Protip: If your position is based on something vague, undefinable, and impossible to measure, and somebody asks you if you consider your position to be defensible, the answer is "no." What you have is a hunch: a vague sense that there might be a problem here, though you're not sure exactly why and you're doing your best to come up with an explanation that fits that hunch. That's not a defensible position. That's you trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the intellectual realization that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and a homophobic gut reaction that says it must be wrong to show gays to children. Furthermore, generational culture transfer happens on a far, far greater scale than just between parents and their children. It happens in schools, it happens between adults and their friends'/families' children, it happens through the media... The notion that somebody not having kids means they can't pass on their culture is very obviously nonsense. Even if you could come up with a way to make that measurable so you could test your hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that you'd find a significant difference. Kegran posted... You know, we're talking about children's media, right? Do gays really need to be presented in children's media and why? Because what we experience as "normal" during our formative years has a huge impact on what we consider to be acceptable as adults. Media is far from being the only influence there, obviously, but it is a major one. The presence of LGBTQ characters in children's media goes a long way toward normalizing it and guarding against homophobic biases that they might otherwise grow into. Kegran posted... No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this? Because when you take away all the sources that say it's okay to be gay, all you're left with are the ones that say it's not okay. Not saying it's okay doesn't explicitly tell people it's not okay, but it does dramatically increase the chances that they end up being convinced of that by the remaining voices that are explicitly saying telling them that. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:954918033] in Conservati... [t:79502621]...</cite> <quote>Kegran posted... </cite> <quote>No you misunderstand what I believe a contribution is. A contribution doesn't have to be substantial or something invented or achieved. And normally I wouldn't present something I can't explain properly, but, as you can see, it's usually dismissed as "homophobic" outright so I've never been able to use the words I need. Let me try again. A society is a collection of people with a similar culture. A contribution is passing your culture down to the next generation. Homosexuals statistically do not have a next generation despite outliers, and have no need or use to contribute to the continuation of a culture.</quote> Protip: If your position is based on something vague, undefinable, and impossible to measure, and somebody asks you if you consider your position to be defensible, the answer is "no." What you have is a hunch: a vague sense that there might be a problem here, though you're not sure exactly why and you're doing your best to come up with an explanation that fits that hunch. That's not a defensible position. That's you trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the intellectual realization that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and a homophobic gut reaction that says it must be wrong to show gays to children. Furthermore, generational culture transfer happens on a far, far greater scale than just between parents and their children. It happens in schools, it happens between adults and their friends'/families' children, it happens through the media... The notion that somebody not having kids means they can't pass on their culture is very obviously nonsense. Even if you could come up with a way to make that measurable so you could test your hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that you'd find a significant difference. Kegran posted... </cite> <quote>You know, we're talking about children's media, right? Do gays really need to be presented in children's media and why?</quote> Because what we experience as "normal" during our formative years has a huge impact on what we consider to be acceptable as adults. Media is far from being the only influence there, obviously, but it is a major one. The presence of LGBTQ characters in children's media goes a long way toward normalizing it and guarding against homophobic biases that they might otherwise grow into. Kegran posted... </cite> <quote>No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this?</quote> Because when you take away all the sources that say it's okay to be gay, all you're left with are the ones that say it's not okay. Not saying it's okay doesn't explicitly tell people it's not okay, but it does dramatically increase the chances that they end up being convinced of that by the remaining voices that are explicitly saying telling them that. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1