• 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!

12 year old lesbian gets the smack down from her Morman church

Phys251 said:
Seriously? She is in the formative years of her life, and she deserves love an acceptance for who she is.
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck...she doesn't walk or talk like a Mormon, so again...why does she care?
 
Henrin said:
I'm actually glad the artist is getting sued. The bull was a symbol of strength, not a symbol of male oppression. The douchebag artist that made the girl statue deserves what he gets.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're actually upset about art. With no relation to the topic of the thread. Did you get mad when Lynryd Skynryd dissed Neil Young in "Sweet Home Alabama?"
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Oh, you mean that candy-ass artist who created that statue and installed it in the dark of night w/out ever getting permission? That one?

And the little girl statue that's going to be there for at least another year? That one?
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious which statue I was talking about. The statue changes the meaning of the other artists work against his permission. He had no right to do such a thing and he is rightfully going to pay for it. I also doubt it will be there for another year since the artist should lose.
 
Henrin said:
It's quite obvious which statue I was talking about. The statue changes the meaning of the other artists work against his permission. He had no right to do such a thing and he is rightfully going to pay for it. I also doubt it will be there for another year since the artist should lose.
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares? The artist of the bull put it there under cover of darkness illegally, so if his 'meaning' is altered, that's just too goddamned bad. The orignial artist had no permission.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...rl-statue-wall-street-charging-bull/99687078/

He doesn't have a case

Fearless Girl: Artist'''s Copyright Claims Are Weak | Fortune.com
 
rocket88 said:
Oh, you're actually upset about art. With no relation to the topic of the thread. Did you get mad when Lynryd Skynryd dissed Neil Young in "Sweet Home Alabama?"
Click to expand...

Someone posted the picture and I commented on it. There is nothing else to it.
 
Elvira said:
True...change begins with yourself...not with changing others...best for her to move on and stop calling herself a Mormon because she's not...her beliefs are not the same...
Click to expand...

she was raised in the Mormon tradition and born as she is, a lesbian

she may well change their hearts I thought buddy did okay when he got shoved up onto the podium...he never said she was wrong...it may make some think and question...that is a beginning
 
Phys251 said:
28XP-GIRL-01p-master768.jpg
Click to expand...

image.jpg
 
Elvira said:
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck...she doesn't walk or talk like a Mormon, so again...why does she care?
Click to expand...

Judging by your signature, I assume you are a Christian? If so, do you not believe in loving thy neighbor as thyself? Particularly the young among you. Or is your religion's way to throw her to the wolves?
 
Phys251 said:
Judging by your signature, I assume you are a Christian? If so, do you not believe in loving thy neighbor as thyself? Particularly the young among you. Or is your religion's way to throw her to the wolves?
Click to expand...

You're not making sense. This was her very publicly excommunicating herself and possibly her parents doing the same thing.
 
JayDubya said:
You're not making sense. This was her very publicly excommunicating herself and possibly her parents doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Let her answer for herself, Jay.
 
_Sal said:
she's not?

I beg to differ, people have their minds and opinion and belief system changed all of the time...ask any evangelist why they preach
Click to expand...

Certainly not by being forced...most people are in church because they choose to be there...the girl is in for a reality check...not everyone is going to accept her, least of all Mormons...especially if she chooses to go down the path she's heading...that's life...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fearless Girl: Artist'''s Copyright Claims Are Weak | Fortune.com
Click to expand...

Finally, Josh Lamel of the Re:Create Coalition, argues Di Modica's legal challenge could fall afoul of the First Amendment. In the view of Lamel, who is a lawyer, judges would conclude VARA violates free speech by forbids artists displaying their work near existing pieces—and he says many artists would agree.
Click to expand...

lol. It's not just near the other statue, but was made part of an extension of the other piece of art. Fail Fortune.
 
Phys251 said:
Let her answer for herself, Jay.
Click to expand...

Nah, fam, I have to mansplain, wouldn't want to fail to live up to tumblrite SJW-expectations.

Again, legitimately, this girl knew she was excommunicating herself; if her parents were there to film this for some sort of gay pride **** and put it on youtube, they knew they were getting excommunicated too. It's not a question of if, just when - how quickly those gears would turn them out.

So it seems to me they just wanted drama on their way out the door. And that's ****ty. If thats how they felt, they could have and should have just left.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sorry, the law says otherwise. Bummer, man.
Click to expand...

The law does not say otherwise. Pieces of art near another piece of art are vastly different than pieces of art made as extensions of existing art.
 
JayDubya said:
You're not making sense. This was her very publicly excommunicating herself and possibly her parents doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

You explained my thoughts very well...she is choosing to disassociate herself by her actions...
 
Henrin said:
The law does not say otherwise. Pieces of art near another piece of art are vastly different than pieces of art made as extensions of existing art.
Click to expand...

You're free to engage in imaginary games, if you'd like. I'll stick w/reality, thanks. He has no case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom