[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Straw man...



True, or not... They have ZERO relevance to the conversation...

Now I'm confused. I thought the assertion was that Target selling those clothes was an attempt to groom children or to convince them.to be LGBTQ. That seems to be your assertion in your previous post. That being the case, those statements do not present straw-man arguments, they represent direct contradictions to the assertions.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Not to worry... Someone will be along shortly to explain that YOU are the bigot for even noticing...

Sad that we know right from wrong and we express an opinion we are called bigots or even worse

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, teaching children has what limits imposed? Do they teach them sodomy? After all, that's what LGBTQ-aphabet is all about. I know, I know, maybe, maybe trans-whatever might not be involved in sodomy. My guess is that many trannys are gay, and not just dress up because they love to act like the opposite gender. Not that it's any of my business UNTIL they make it OK to teach children this abnormal behavior.

The ignorance of these statements requires no further response.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Sad that we know right from wrong and we express an opinion we are called bigots or even worse

So you still haven't looked up the definition.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Now I'm confused. I thought the assertion was that Target selling those clothes was an attempt to groom children or to convince them.to be LGBTQ. That seems to be your assertion in your previous post. That being the case, those statements do not present straw-man arguments, they represent direct contradictions to the assertions.

How is teaching about frogs in any way the same as grooming children?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The ignorance of these statements requires no further response.

Pushing to have books teaching exactly that to little kids is most certainly an agenda...

Do you deny that is what is being attempted?

I'll post titles and pages from said books if you can promise I'll still be here to respond to whatever excuse you post...

BTW... Parents who attempted to read from said books were thrown out of school board meetings for obscenity reasons...

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The ignorance of these statements requires no further response.

Hmm, your post seems irrelevant if my statement requires no response.

Let me make it simple so that anyone can understand. The idea that has been bandied about is that children should or should not be taught or exposed to abnormal lifestyles by the media or commercial business. Those that oppose the idea of exposing children to the abnormal, deviant lifestyle are suggesting that children are too young to made to decide for themselves whether the lifestyle should be part of their life. Those that are pro-exposure to children are suggesting that they be taught the lifestyle and then let them decide because today's grown up are not reliable parents. Does that put it simple and in a nutshell?
So, my question is:
Suppose we say "OK, let's teach the kids that these other lifestyles are acceptable and that they should decide for themselves if one of those deviant lifestyles is for them or not." So, how do you explain them to the children? When they ask their parents or the so-called teachers what or how these lifestyle are, are they explained the abnormal nature of sodomy? Of course, I have been told many times that trans-dressers are not gay. Really? Does anyone really believe that? So, explaining sodomy to children is OK or not? I believe it should be taboo to little children. Like I have said many times in the past, what you do in private is your business. What you attempt to teach my children better be fine with me or we have a problem. So, NO this garbage does not need to be commercialized for all to see.
"SO, what are you going to teach your child to be when he/she/it grows up? Male, female or non-binary?"

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Hmm, your post seems irrelevant if my statement requires no response.

Let me make it simple so that anyone can understand. The idea that has been bandied about is that children should or should not be taught or exposed to abnormal lifestyles by the media or commercial business. Those that oppose the idea of exposing children to the abnormal, deviant lifestyle are suggesting that children are too young to made to decide for themselves whether the lifestyle should be part of their life. Those that are pro-exposure to children are suggesting that they be taught the lifestyle and then let them decide because today's grown up are not reliable parents. Does that put it simple and in a nutshell?
So, my question is:
Suppose we say "OK, let's teach the kids that these other lifestyles are acceptable and that they should decide for themselves if one of those deviant lifestyles is for them or not." So, how do you explain them to the children? When they ask their parents or the so-called teachers what or how these lifestyle are, are they explained the abnormal nature of sodomy? Of course, I have been told many times that trans-dressers are not gay. Really? Does anyone really believe that? So, explaining sodomy to children is OK or not? I believe it should be taboo to little children. Like I have said many times in the past, what you do in private is your business. What you attempt to teach my children better be fine with me or we have a problem. So, NO this garbage does not need to be commercialized for all to see.
"SO, what are you going to teach your child to be when he/she/it grows up? Male, female or non-binary?"

Deviant lifestyles??? oh brother.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Rather than continually attack, demean those with different views on this subject demonstrate how one can change one's gender other than just making up different definitions

I don't have to demonstrate anything at all. In fact, a person's identity is THEIR identity.

If a guy says he's a woman named Angela then I'll refer to him as "her" and "she" and call her Angela. It's a pretty stupid thing to get uptight about.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Erider

North Face to Bud Lite

"Hold my beer"

So Bud Lite loses $110 million in sales and billions in stock value, Target drops a bomb on itself, and now North Face joins the fun.

https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/...promo-video%2F

How a commercial that has a man, complete with mustache, prancing around in rainbow gear and platform shoes will sell more outdoor gear is beyond logic. Not a single piece of North Face gear in the ad.

LOL, how better to demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of the customer base between the board room and reality, it is truly amazing what people get paid these days to make such decisions based on ?? Based on what ? An IN DEPTH survey of their typical customer ? Do they truly believe that the "typical" gay individuals who enjoys their beer, is actually a clone of the "character" they use to represent them ? Same with target, does anyone really believe that the typical, average, gay customer really cares if "gay" products are featured as the very first display when you enter the Target stores ? Do "straight" or hetero people care where "their" clothing is located ? Do the outdoors type personalities secretly RESENT always being banished to the back of the stores, will that group protest next ? Instead of a fair and democratic people, we've become a nation of irrational people.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Deviant lifestyles??? oh brother.

deviant
dē′vē-ənt
adjective

Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
Deviating
having behavior or characteristics differing from that which is normal or expected, especially in an undesirable or socially disapproved manner.

Was there a problem with how I used the word?

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

LOL, how better to demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of the customer base between the board room and reality, it is truly amazing what people get paid these days to make such decisions based on ?? Based on what ? An IN DEPTH survey of their typical customer ? Do they truly believe that the "typical" gay individuals who enjoys their beer, is actually a clone of the "character" they use to represent them ? Same with target, does anyone really believe that the typical, average, gay customer really cares if "gay" products are featured as the very first display when you enter the Target stores ? Do "straight" or hetero people care where "their" clothing is located ? Do the outdoors type personalities secretly RESENT always being banished to the back of the stores, will that group protest next ? Instead of a fair and democratic people, we've become a nation of irrational people.

"They" want to be invited to the "correct" cocktail parties and score bonus points in the ESG community.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

FOX News! Everybody drink!

And sure, losing $10 BIlLION in value is absolutely BRILLIANT in the long run...

Yes, yes, a true bargain in exchange for the "free" advertising on not just Fox News, but several others, and especially GMA and the View ladies, non stop publicity, must be worth it to them, more and more follow them what others of us consider "over the cliff" ! I don't even chose the products I buy and use based on WHO is in their advertisements, could not care less what ________ (name a star) thinks of Gold as an "investment" or if ______ just "loves" this brand of shampoo !

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't have to demonstrate anything at all. In fact, a person's identity is THEIR identity.

If a guy says he's a woman named Angela then I'll refer to him as "her" and "she" and call her Angela. It's a pretty stupid thing to get uptight about.

I imagine it would be a pretty big deal to women who encounter him in the ladies room

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

Yes, yes, a true bargain in exchange for the "free" advertising on not just Fox News, but several others, and especially GMA and the View ladies, non stop publicity, must be worth it to them, more and more follow them what others of us consider "over the cliff" ! I don't even chose the products I buy and use based on WHO is in their advertisements, could not care less what ________ (name a star) thinks of Gold as an "investment" or if ______ just "loves" this brand of shampoo !

I'm guessing "Marketing" wasn't your major in college...

The fact that you think all of this is "good" publicity, despite the 25% drop in sales and the $$$ Billions lost in market capitalization, stock prices dropping daily is stunning...

Remember the "Be Like Mike" campaign from Gatorade?

Or the $$$ Billions Nike made from his involvement?

How about Tiger and Nike?

Lebron James and Nike?

PGA players being paid $$$ Millions to use certain clubs/balls?

So yeah, WHO is involved in the marketing most certainly matters...

But it's good to know you're so far above all that...