Be dismissive all you want. If you didn’t have double standards river, you’d have no standards at all.
You don’t understand the idiom “beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing”. A drag queen isn’t the wolf disguised as a sheep. If your fear is drag queens, they are the wolf dressed as a wolf. Easily avoided for the culturally fearful by simply not attending such a show. On the other hand, a pedo disguised as a priest or overzealous GOP “family values” politician, is the classic wolf disguised as the sheep. The wolf disguised as the sheep is dangerous, and they are dangerous because they cloak their true self. The drag show? Nope. Even if you don’t approve, they are transparent about what they are.
My fear is drag queens behaving suggestively and promiscuously in a manner that is inappropriate for children. The drag queens who want children at their shows do not have the best interest of the child at heart, they're putting their own validation ahead of the best interest of the child.
I’ve sent you a pm showing my response a board liberal’s claim about the other side not caring about children.
We have laws about public nudity and sex acts and such. If this happened, where are the arrests? I’d agree if there was nudity or certain things then that could cross a line, but without that it just strikes me as nanny state moral police type stuff. As this was apparently a nationwide tour with d-tier “celebrities” from Rupaul, it probably wasn’t much more risqué than R rated without nudity. So… you seriously want the government to be the moral police? Who even filed the complaint here? Who is the victim? About the only thing I’d take issue with if it was 18+ and they were letting minors in unsupervised. But even there, if some 17 year old was there without parents id view that as far less of an offense compared to (for example) serving alcohol to a minor.
No, that was THE implication. Turns out people here don't want to be taking a solid stance personally defending taking kids to drag shows, so instead people who almost never make the libertarian case, find themselves making the libertarian argument. I wonder why. Looks like they want to defend the ability to do it, but can't justify the action itself.
Those cases are different, river. She expressed a mere policy difference. I expressed a lack of care based on actions. Posters here implied that football games are on comparable footing as being inappropriate to drag shows, while suggesting that they take their kids to football games. She is inferring a lack of care for children based on a policy position. I am inferring either a lie or a lack of care based on actions.
She complained that republicans don’t care about children’s safety. You complained that liberals don’t care about children’s well-being. Both were called absurd.
One was based on policy, one was based on action. False equivalence, river. "I'm not going to argue with you."
That was the implication for which posters? I get that it's better for your argument to talk in generalities and paint with a broad brush. But if you're going to accuse specific people of taking a stance, tell us which posters they are.
There’s not a thing in the world wrong with being mad at both. However the problem always arises when one side tries to impose its will over the other, and right now it’s the right passing laws that deny groups their Constitutional rights. If you’re opposed to abortion then don’t get one. If you’re opposed to books describing acts you don’t agree with then don’t read them. If you don’t like a particular religion then don’t attend their church, temple, synagogue, or mosque. If you’re opposed to drag shows then attend them. The same thing goes for the left that they would like to impose. If you don’t like guns don’t buy one. If you don’t want to pay for your student loan then don’t apply for the loan. If you want to ban police in your community then don’t get upset if you get robbed.
