• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this child endangerment?

jaeger19 said:
What issues? Please detail with some citations please.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the psychiatric profession has gone idiotic. They don't see a problem with men that think that they are women and vice versa. Letting insane people dictate who is sane and not is insanity at its best.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The problem is that the psychiatric profession has gone idiotic. They don't see a problem with men that think that they are women and vice versa.
Click to expand...

In some states now, shrinks aren't allowed to talk their patients out of their "gender identity" issues.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Social dysmorphia with gender euphoria. Several people on Quora have lives where they were emotionally stunted as a child. This can take the form of family disparagement of their cis-gender, failure to socialize with people of their cis-gender, lack of role-models of their cis-gender, and/or being forced into strict cis-gender roles that are not suitable for their personality. This generally results in emotional isolation.

These people may find that presenting as the opposite gender both relieves depression associated with their cis-gender and causes euphoria or happiness when presenting as their opposite gender. It may also allow the emotionally isolated to become less isolated and more emotionally communicative.
Click to expand...

Still safer than having a Trump supporter read to them...

...Or, should we maybe not presume that a few examples of someone of a particular group struggling with serious problems means that everyone else in that group therefore also struggles with the same problems?
 
Roadvirus said:
Someone needs to be fired for sure. When kids are involved, you don't "fail to conduct background checks".
Click to expand...

I dont see anything that would win a child endangerment case but i agree somebody needs fired and things like this vary a lot place to place but many times events with kids background checks are required but not always.

Its most certainly in an event or org planners best interest to do so.

sadly though even when background checks are not down when they are supposed to little to nothign happens . .
 
Roadvirus said:
In some states now, shrinks aren't allowed to talk their patients out of their "gender identity" issues.
Click to expand...

I am sure that there are some strange rules... a problem as I see it is that everything must be accepted now. I don't mean accepted as in being nice to the person or working well with them... I mean accepted in that no matter how not normal or no matter how obviously strange... we must accept it as normal, etc.
 
lwf said:
Still safer than having a Trump supporter read to them...

...Or, should we maybe not presume that a few examples of someone of a particular group struggling with serious problems means that everyone else in that group therefore also struggles with the same problems?
Click to expand...

Good point. There may actually be some Trump supporters who aren't struggling with serious problems. Just because they were taken in by a conman, we shouldn't stereotype them and think they all struggle with the same problems.

Seriously, just because some of the cross dressers may not have psychological issues, that doesn't mean we need to deliberately expose children to them. Some of them do have serious issues.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is important to allow kids to express themselves as they grow up... suppression can lead to worse things.
Click to expand...

Sure, but bringing them into clubs of adults when they are 10 and having them dance around for them is not a normal expression.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good point. There may actually be some Trump supporters who aren't struggling with serious problems. Just because they were taken in by a conman, we shouldn't stereotype them and think they all struggle with the same problems.

Seriously, just because some of the cross dressers may not have psychological issues, that doesn't mean we need to deliberately expose children to them. Some of them do have serious issues.
Click to expand...

Some libertarians don't have psychological issues either. Should children be exposed to them?
 
Roadvirus said:
Someone needs to be fired for sure. When kids are involved, you don't "fail to conduct background checks".
Click to expand...

Steady, if the person was not alone with the children and there was question of there being any danger etc..

The world needs to relax a bit.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We can start here:
Click to expand...


I see.. so.. what you are saying.. is that because of peoples attitudes toward people that may crossdress (which by the way.. usually does not mean gender dysmorphia) or people that have gender dysmorphia..

Basically because of people like yourself... these folks are more prone to depression.

But.. according to your quote.. these people become less isolate and more emotionally communicative.. if they are allowed to express themselves.

Okay??????

Whats your point? We have to treat these folks badly and not let them read to our kids.. because when society treats these folks badly they more likely to be unhappy?

Sorry man but you need to think on that a bit.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The problem is that the psychiatric profession has gone idiotic. They don't see a problem with men that think that they are women and vice versa. Letting insane people dictate who is sane and not is insanity at its best.
Click to expand...

Why should they? Well first.. cross dressing does not mean that men want to be women or vice versa..

In fact.. most crossdressers are heterosexual.

And where is the insanity?

not to long ago..society thought a woman wearing pants meant she was gay.. and insane.

Does your wife wear pants? think about it.
 
AGENT J said:
I dont see anything that would win a child endangerment case but i agree somebody needs fired and things like this vary a lot place to place but many times events with kids background checks are required but not always.

Its most certainly in an event or org planners best interest to do so.

sadly though even when background checks are not down when they are supposed to little to nothign happens . .
Click to expand...

If there is no child endangerment.. then why should someone be fired?
 
jaeger19 said:
If there is no child endangerment.. then why should someone be fired?
Click to expand...

really? because due diligence should be better practiced especially when children are involved. Like I said i dont know the rules in all the areas and they vary but around here that would be unacceptable and people have been fired or removed from orgs for very similar things.

but legally i see no case for child endangerment for not doing the check alone
 
Elvira said:
What the heck is Drag Queen Storytime anyway?:shock:
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

Drag Queen Storytime

I think I will Google it.

I am very curious to see if anything pops up. LOL
 
Tim the plumber said:

Steady, if the person was not alone with the children and there was question of there being any danger etc..

The world needs to relax a bit.
Click to expand...

Donkey crap.

A child sex offender was still in a position where he/she/it had access to kids. This never should have been allowed to happen.
 
AGENT J said:
really? because due diligence should be better practiced especially when children are involved.
Click to expand...

Okay. in what way would do diligence be better practiced here.?

Do people now have to go somewhere to register their clothing choices.. so that they show up on a background check?
 
jaeger19 said:
1.)Okay. in what way would do diligence be better practiced here.?
2.) Do people now have to go somewhere to register their clothing choices.. so that they show up on a background check?
Click to expand...

1.) easy, do exactly what wasnt done here . . just like its practiced at all the events for children ive been too. Workers and main guests have a background check/clearance to participate at that level.
2.) ????? LMAO wth? what does clothing choices have to do with this topic? please done make up retarded strawman cause ill just point them out, laugh and mock them.

the person in question was a "registered sex offender" this person was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of an 8-year-old child in 2009, for which he received five years of probation and community supervision.
that is actually public information so 1 nobody even did that little check and again 2 typically in my area events with children ask people to submit a check on line and bring paper work.

race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity and . . . . . ??? "clothes" have nothing to do with this. Its about having an event for children and there were no checks and that allowed a sex offended to be part of the staff or main speaker/guest.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) easy, do exactly what wasnt done here . . just like its practiced at all the events for children ive been too. Workers and main guests have a background check/clearance to participate at that level.
2.) ????? LMAO wth? what does clothing choices have to do with this topic? please done make up retarded strawman cause ill just point them out, laugh and mock them.

the person in question was a "registered sex offender" this person was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of an 8-year-old child in 2009, for which he received five years of probation and community supervision.
that is actually public information so 1 nobody even did that little check and again 2 typically in my area events with children ask people to submit a check on line and bring paper work.

race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity and . . . . . ??? "clothes" have nothing to do with this. Its about having an event for children and there were no checks and that allowed a sex offended to be part of the staff or main speaker/guest.
Click to expand...

As long as the issue is a background check for convicted sex offenders..sure..

But that's not what has the OP up in arms...
 
jaeger19 said:
As long as the issue is a background check for convicted sex offenders..sure..

But that's not what has the OP up in arms...
Click to expand...

i dont care about what the OP is up in arms about nor do i recall any of the OPs other posts. In the actual OP theres nothing i disagree with. The OP said "Someone needs to be fired for sure. When kids are involved, you don't "fail to conduct background checks""

I agree with that 100% and in all my history of coaching and working with school districts and participating in kids corner and kids connection background checks are done for all official staff and official volunteers.

if the OP is up in arms about something take it up with them it has no place in my posts and your mistake is noted :shrug:
 
jaeger19 said:
As long as the issue is a background check for convicted sex offenders..sure..

But that's not what has the OP up in arms...
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know how to read, because piss-poor vetting is what i'm "up in arms" about.
 
Roadvirus said:
Donkey crap.

A child sex offender was still in a position where he/she/it had access to kids. This never should have been allowed to happen.
Click to expand...

So if an event happens where there is a county fair and pantomime, general fun for kids things, and somebody is reading stories to children as part of the thing they should have had the full check for everything in all officialdom even for those who happen to be there and do a little casual spur of the moment help?
 
AGENT J said:
i dont care about what the OP is up in arms about nor do i recall any of the OPs other posts. In the actual OP theres nothing i disagree with. The OP said "Someone needs to be fired for sure. When kids are involved, you don't "fail to conduct background checks""

I agree with that 100% and in all my history of coaching and working with school districts and participating in kids corner and kids connection background checks are done for all official staff and official volunteers.

if the OP is up in arms about something take it up with them it has no place in my posts and your mistake is noted :shrug:
Click to expand...

Chill out.
 
Roadvirus said:
You obviously don't know how to read, because piss-poor vetting is what i'm "up in arms" about.
Click to expand...

And the fact it there was crossdressers had nothing to do with it?

Somehow.. I find that hard to believe.. especially since it inspired a bunch of posts regarding the crossdressing..

but whatever makes you feel better.
 
Elvira said:
Well, yeah...the world has gone to hell in a handbasket...
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Why do men dressed like women reading stories to kids offend God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom