Thoughts and prayers.
I mean, leaving aside the fact that heâs a moron who thinks as long as he says something in a calm, thoughtful manner it must be right, is there a reason they think this? Kiwiâs in general seem like fairly down to earth, common sense people. I would think they have a reason to connect the two.
1 Like
I know this trust me; if donât agree to your child transitioning itâs child abuse.
Your logical leaps are of Jesse Owens proportions. He was defending free speech and you bring up child abuse? Do you have a matrix that tells you how to respond to certain keywords? Are you a bot?
Wait how does a self help book inspire a mass shooting; if got the book at home, nothing it pushes towards that mess.
He was responding to me from what I was talking about, I just added to it.
Follow the conversation from this morning, if you can be bothered, you already that we were discussing that.
And yes in England if donât help agree to transit your child is child abuse.
You got triggered and start talking crap to me
I followed the conversation back. Saw nothing about child abuse. Sorry if I missed it.
And I would love to see the law on the books supporting what youâre saying. As far as Iâve read, which is not much, minors have no right to gender reassignment.
I didnât say whether it did or not. I simply asked a question. Untwist your panties there big guy.
Triggered? Youâre like a human talking points memo with atrocious grammar and worse spelling. You listen to your favorite talking head and regurgitate their mental vomit all over the internet like youâre some kind of voice of reason. You get angry when challenged and dismiss people as âtriggeredâ because youâre too lazy to attempt a reasoned, thoughtful response.
4 Likes
Is that the law? Or are you referring to a very specific case?
1 Like
Okay, I thought it was kids born in the 90s on, learn something new everyday.
Still remember the early days of internet porn were youâre waiting for a picture to slowly download.
Yes I think itâs a huge push. Thereâs a picture of JP with someone with âIâm a Proud Islamophobeâ t shirt who had obviously paid to be at a JP meet and greet. If you look at the book, itâs unwarranted imo. Itâs for this exert:
A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM
It does not seem reasonable to describe the young man who shot twenty children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 as a religious person. This is equally true for the Colorado theatre gunman and the Columbine High School killers. But these murderous individuals had a problem with reality that existed at a religious depth. As one of the members of the Columbine duo wrote:
"The human race isnât worth fighting for, only worth killing. Give the Earth back to the animals. They deserve it infinitely more than we do. Nothing means anything anymore . "
People who think such things view Being itself as inequitable and harsh to the point of corruption, and human Being, in particular, as conÂtemptible. They appoint themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting. They are the ultimate critics. The deeply cynical writer continues:
"If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a âfinal solutionâ to the Jewish problem. . . . Kill them all. Well, in case you havenât figured it out, I say âKILL MANKIND.â No one should survive . "
For such individuals, the world of experience is insufficient and evilâso to hell with everything!
What is happening when someone comes to think in this manner? A great German play, Faust: A Tragedy , written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, addresses that issue. The playâs main character, a scholar named Heinrich Faust, trades his immortal soul to the devil, Mephistopheles. In return, he receives whatever he desires while still alive on Earth. In Goetheâs play, Mephistopheles is the eternal adverÂsary of Being. He has a central, defining credo:
"I am the spirit who negates
and rightly so, for all that comes to be
deserves to perish, wretchedly.
It were better nothing would begin!
Thus everything that your terms sin,
destruction, evil representâ
that is my proper element."
Goethe considered this hateful sentiment so importantâso key to the central element of vengeful human destructivenessâthat he had Mephistopheles say it a second time, phrased somewhat differently, in Part II of the play, written many years later.
People think often in the Mephistophelean manner, although they seldom act upon their thoughts as brutally as the mass murderers of school, college and theatre. Whenever we experience injustice, real or imagined; whenever we encounter tragedy or fall prey to the machiÂnations of others; whenever we experience the horror and pain of our own apparently arbitrary limitationsâthe temptation to question Being and then to curse it rises foully from the darkness. Why must innocent people suffer so terribly? What kind of bloody, horrible planet is this, anyway?
Life is in truth very hard. Everyone is destined for pain and slated for destruction. Sometimes suffering is clearly the result of a personal fault such as willful blindness, poor decision-making or malevolence. In such cases, when it appears to be self-inflicted, it may even seem just. People get what they deserve, you might contend. Thatâs cold comÂfort, however, even when true. Sometimes, if those who are suffering changed their behaviour, then their lives would unfold less tragically. But human control is limited. Susceptibility to despair, disease, aging and death is universal. In the final analysis, we do not appear to be the architects of our own fragility. Whose fault is it, then?
People who are very ill (or, worse, who have a sick child) will ineviÂtably find themselves asking this question, whether they are religious believers or not. The same is true of someone who finds his shirtsleeve caught in the gears of a giant bureaucracyâwho is suffering through a tax audit, or fighting an interminable lawsuit or divorce. And itâs not only the obviously suffering who are tormented by the need to blame someone or something for the intolerable state of their Being. At the height of his fame, influence and creative power, for example, the towering Leo Tolstoy himself began to question the value of human existence. He reasoned in this way:
âMy position was terrible. I knew that I could find nothing in the way of rational knowledge except a denial of life; and in faith I could find nothing except a denial of reason, and this was even more impossible than a denial of life. According to rational knowledge, it followed that life is evil, and people know it. They do not have to live, yet they have lived and they do live, just as I myself had lived, even though I had known for a long time that life is meaningless and evil.â
Try as he might, Tolstoy could identify only four means of escaping from such thoughts. One was retreating into childlike ignorance of the problem. Another was pursuing mindless pleasure. The third was âcontinuing to drag out a life that is evil and meaningless, knowing beforehand that nothing can come of it.â He identified that particular form of escape with weakness: âThe people in this category know that death is better than life, but they do not have the strength to act ratioÂnally and quickly put an end to the delusion by killing themselves. . . .â
Only the fourth and final mode of escape involved âstrength and energy. It consists of destroying life, once one has realized that life is evil and meaningless.â Tolstoy relentlessly followed his thoughts:
âOnly unusually strong and logically consistent people act in this manner. Having realized all the stupidity of the joke that is being played on us and seeing that the blessings of the dead are greater than those of the living and that it is better not to exist, they act and put an end to this stupid joke; and they use any means of doing it: a rope around the neck, water, a knife in the heart, a train.â
Tolstoy wasnât pessimistic enough. The stupidity of the joke being played on us does not merely motivate suicide. It motivates murderâmass murder, often followed by suicide. That is a far more effective existential protest. By June of 2016, unbelievable as it may seem, there had been one thousand mass killings (defined as four or more people shot in a single incident, excluding the shooter) in the US in twelve hundred and sixty days. Thatâs one such event on five of every six days for more than three years. Everyone says, âWe donât understand.â How can we still pretend that? Tolstoy understood, more than a century ago. The ancient authors of the biblical story of Cain and Abel underÂstood, as well, more than twenty centuries ago. They described murder as the first act of post-Edenic history: and not just murder, but fratriÂcidal murderâmurder not only of someone innocent but of someone ideal and good, and murder done consciously to spite the creator of the universe. Todayâs killers tell us the same thing, in their own words. Who would dare say that this is not the worm at the core of the apple? But we will not listen, because the truth cuts too close to the bone. Even for a mind as profound as that of the celebrated Russian author, there was no way out. How can the rest of us manage, when a man of Tolstoyâs stature admits defeat? For years, he hid his guns from himself and would not walk with a rope in hand, in case he hanged himself.
How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world?
Banning books is not the answer. Itâs more the problem, as people will start looking into more obscure material in the corners of the internet. If anything, Iâd say that is what inspires the shooter.
Petersonâs book is very far off anything that could inspire a psychopath into murdering innocent people. I have read Petersonâs book as have millions of others and all just went fine.
I have also read the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Mein Kampf by Hitler for studies and I still walk around my dog the neighbourhood without murdering people.
In fact Iâd consider myself very open, tolerant and helpful to another human being. And I will defend anyoneâs right to freedom of speech and freedom in general regardless of colour, belief or sexual orientation.
Banning anything really is never the answer. Itâs done out of fear by the establishment and itâs not democratic.
These two books are not equivalents and donât belong in this same sentence lol
1 Like
They arenât obviously, but to some people who have a strong dislike of anything Marx it might as well be on par for them. All I meant by using both titles is that neither one of them inspires to anything per say. Therefore banning any book in that sense is a foolish thing to do and only mystifies and amplifies a bookâs impact.
What triggers a psycho to kill dozens of innocents can be anything really.
1 Like
And to let you know; my partner works in a school and theyâve been advised to follow these guidelines.
How does advice and guidance from a teachers union mean that a parent is guilty of child abuse for not helping their child to âtransitâ?
Youâre all over the shop.
Did I at any point suggest that made a claim that the book said that? Or did I simply state the book does not include any crap that would push a person to do such things?
If you got issues with whatever I am saying, simply donât read or donât reply I am not forcing to do so. I canât stand people like if you; if have nothing better to say, all you do is attack and thatâs.
I get it; you base your morals on tolerance and inclusion and all the good bits. The joke is you arenât tolerant at all, anything outside of your world view is intolerable and cannot be accepted.
I rather you not reply to me or comment on anything I say. I am getting sick of this forums attack dog mentality, on top of the dog piling; anything unrelating to football not going comment on.