Societal hypocrisy?

[nikolai_42]

In the midst of a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct I was listening to some of the righteous indignation of some politicians who were addressing the specific charges being brought against Judge Moore. I am certain I haven't even heard them all (specifically) but have been given the tenor of the accusations. Whether he is guilty of the charges or not, isn't this just more evidence of something more sinister at work? Politicians have always talked out of both sides of their mouths, but the visceral responses to all the people coming forth and charging others with harassment and assault is somewhat overwhelming. The emotion with which people will speak about how creepy Moore's alleged behavior was (though it has all been accepted as fact through media coverage) is very convincing. The idea of an older man cruising through a mall to pick up teenagers is certainly unnerving, but how is it that people can be up in arms about that yet defend things like homosexual marriage and sex reassignment for teenagers?

I know what I expect the answer to be, but here's the principle I'm thinking of. Society doesn't want lonely, older men looking for fulfillment with young girls. Makes sense. We want to protect our children from those that might harm them. But why, then, do we think it is not only okay - but a virtue - to defend teenagers who want to walk in a lifestyle that hurts themselves and others around them? Our desire to protect our teenage daughters from dirty old men comes out of a selfless protection. It doesn't affect us personally and directly (unless it is us or our own children) but masses want to keep such a man from power even though he poses no further threat to them in that way (not justifying what he has been charged with doing - not at all). But neither does it affect us personally and directly for some stranger's 12 year old son to decide he's a woman - or for that same unknown son to decide to engage in homosexuality and eventually "marry" another man. Yet homosexuality and predatory behavior are either both natural to some degree or they are (neither one of them) natural at all. If one wants to defend homosexuality as natural by pointing to the animal kingdom, then point to the animal kingdom to defend predatory behavior. Both exist (though homosexuality to a far lesser degree).

Why have we (as a society) decided that one is acceptable and even laudable when the other is grounds for criminal charges, societal rejection and all manner of insult? I'm having trouble seeing the consistency. Or is consistency not a valued characteristic anymore?

 

[Rusha]

Why have we (as a society) decided that one is acceptable and even laudable when the other is grounds for criminal charges, societal rejection and all manner of insult? I'm having trouble seeing the consistency. Or is consistency not a valued characteristic anymore?

Age and consent. There is a reason that ADULTS have more rights than ... children. They are held to a higher standard, as they should be.

 

[patrick jane]

In the midst of a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct I was listening to some of the righteous indignation of some politicians who were addressing the specific charges being brought against Judge Moore. I am certain I haven't even heard them all (specifically) but have been given the tenor of the accusations. Whether he is guilty of the charges or not, isn't this just more evidence of something more sinister at work? Politicians have always talked out of both sides of their mouths, but the visceral responses to all the people coming forth and charging others with harassment and assault is somewhat overwhelming. The emotion with which people will speak about how creepy Moore's alleged behavior was (though it has all been accepted as fact through media coverage) is very convincing. The idea of an older man cruising through a mall to pick up teenagers is certainly unnerving, but how is it that people can be up in arms about that yet defend things like homosexual marriage and sex reassignment for teenagers?

I know what I expect the answer to be, but here's the principle I'm thinking of. Society doesn't want lonely, older men looking for fulfillment with young girls. Makes sense. We want to protect our children from those that might harm them. But why, then, do we think it is not only okay - but a virtue - to defend teenagers who want to walk in a lifestyle that hurts themselves and others around them? Our desire to protect our teenage daughters from dirty old men comes out of a selfless protection. It doesn't affect us personally and directly (unless it is us or our own children) but masses want to keep such a man from power even though he poses no further threat to them in that way (not justifying what he has been charged with doing - not at all). But neither does it affect us personally and directly for some stranger's 12 year old son to decide he's a woman - or for that same unknown son to decide to engage in homosexuality and eventually "marry" another man. Yet homosexuality and predatory behavior are either both natural to some degree or they are (neither one of them) natural at all. If one wants to defend homosexuality as natural by pointing to the animal kingdom, then point to the animal kingdom to defend predatory behavior. Both exist (though homosexuality to a far lesser degree).

Why have we (as a society) decided that one is acceptable and even laudable when the other is grounds for criminal charges, societal rejection and all manner of insult? I'm having trouble seeing the consistency. Or is consistency not a valued characteristic anymore?

You make some great points nik, I was thinking about a little of that myself. We are sexual by nature and many people act on these strong impulses. Prostitutes have been around forever but what if Roy or Franken had only used prostitutes? You're right about the hypocrisy of so many with their acceptance and encouragement of homosexuality and changing your gender as a child. It's ok to bring children to a gay pride parade with completely naked gay men marching.

 

[nikolai_42]

Age and consent. There is a reason that ADULTS have more rights than ... children. They are held to a higher standard, as they should be.

Then why allow children to decide what gender they want to be and which bathrooms they should use?

 

[Rusha]

Then why allow children to decide what gender they want to be and which bathrooms they should use?

The key word here is *children* ... and you have made an assumption that I approve of children having sex changes. I don't ... just like I wouldn't approve of a child having a boob job OR any other type of elective surgery. I don't believe it is too much to hold ADULTS to a higher standard than children/teens.

*Judge* (and I use that word loosely) Moore is no less of a child predator than Anthony Weiner.

 

[nikolai_42]

The key word here is *children* ... and you have made an assumption that I approve of children having sex changes. I don't ... just like I wouldn't approve of a child having a boob job OR any other type of elective surgery. I don't believe it is too much to hold ADULTS to a higher standard than children/teens.

*Judge* (and I use that word loosely) Moore is no less of a child predator than Anthony Weiner.

No assumption. I was making an observation about society at large. That can cast a pretty wide net or it can (possibly in this case) only be referring to a very vocal minority. I accept that this may be the case. But at the very least, this vocal minority has the power to influence entire states (e.g. NJ) and professions (APA) into making laws that affect the rest of the country.

So my statement was never that you accept it, but that the societal norm is becoming (maybe hasn't become yet) that one thing is okay but another isn't. I would suggest that the whole concept of private vs. public morality (okay for them but not okay for me - or the other way around) is part of the reason we find ourselves in this confusion.

And you'll note I'm not making a judgment on whether or not Moore is guilty. All I've seen, however, is unproven assertions. The visceral reactions are understanding, but I have to wonder how much of that is being manipulated by the media (again, just an observation).

 

[Tambora]

The idea of an older man cruising through a mall to pick up teenagers is certainly unnerving, but how is it that people can be up in arms about that yet defend things like homosexual marriage and sex reassignment for teenagers?

I ask the same.
The bar of what sort of perversion society will accept as normal has been steadily rising.

But why, then, do we think it is not only okay - but a virtue - to defend teenagers who want to walk in a lifestyle that hurts themselves and others around them?

Just allowing some more perversion to seep in as the bar floats upward another notch.

Our desire to protect our teenage daughters from dirty old men comes out of a selfless protection. It doesn't affect us personally and directly (unless it is us or our own children) but masses want to keep such a man from power even though he poses no further threat to them in that way (not justifying what he has been charged with doing - not at all). But neither does it affect us personally and directly for some stranger's 12 year old son to decide he's a woman - or for that same unknown son to decide to engage in homosexuality and eventually "marry" another man. Yet homosexuality and predatory behavior are either both natural to some degree or they are (neither one of them) natural at all. If one wants to defend homosexuality as natural by pointing to the animal kingdom, then point to the animal kingdom to defend predatory behavior. Both exist (though homosexuality to a far lesser degree).

Why have we (as a society) decided that one is acceptable and even laudable when the other is grounds for criminal charges, societal rejection and all manner of insult? I'm having trouble seeing the consistency. Or is consistency not a valued characteristic anymore?

The world is becoming a circus of freaks.
The way things are going now, all Roy Moore needs to do is claim he identified as a 12 year old girl when he was in his early 30's.
And then we can tell him how brave he was.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In the midst of a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct I was listening to some of the righteous indignation of some politicians who were addressing the specific charges being brought against Judge Moore. I am certain I haven't even heard them all (specifically) but have been given the tenor of the accusations. Whether he is guilty of the charges or not, isn't this just more evidence of something more sinister at work? Politicians have always talked out of both sides of their mouths, but the visceral responses to all the people coming forth and charging others with harassment and assault is somewhat overwhelming. The emotion with which people will speak about how creepy Moore's alleged behavior was (though it has all been accepted as fact through media coverage) is very convincing. The idea of an older man cruising through a mall to pick up teenagers is certainly unnerving, but how is it that people can be up in arms about that yet defend things like homosexual marriage and sex reassignment for teenagers?

I know what I expect the answer to be, but here's the principle I'm thinking of. Society doesn't want lonely, older men looking for fulfillment with young girls. Makes sense. We want to protect our children from those that might harm them. But why, then, do we think it is not only okay - but a virtue - to defend teenagers who want to walk in a lifestyle that hurts themselves and others around them? Our desire to protect our teenage daughters from dirty old men comes out of a selfless protection. It doesn't affect us personally and directly (unless it is us or our own children) but masses want to keep such a man from power even though he poses no further threat to them in that way (not justifying what he has been charged with doing - not at all). But neither does it affect us personally and directly for some stranger's 12 year old son to decide he's a woman - or for that same unknown son to decide to engage in homosexuality and eventually "marry" another man. Yet homosexuality and predatory behavior are either both natural to some degree or they are (neither one of them) natural at all. If one wants to defend homosexuality as natural by pointing to the animal kingdom, then point to the animal kingdom to defend predatory behavior. Both exist (though homosexuality to a far lesser degree).

Why have we (as a society) decided that one is acceptable and even laudable when the other is grounds for criminal charges, societal rejection and all manner of insult? I'm having trouble seeing the consistency. Or is consistency not a valued characteristic anymore?

Have a listen:

http://kgov.com/a-longtime-supporter-on-the-roy-moore-accusations
http://kgov.com/bel/20171115

 

[Danoh]

In a cannibalistic society, a depraved individual like the late serial killer, Jeffry Dahmer, might not have been viewed as "some depraved monster" but as "a hog; who does not share his kills with the village potluck supper."

In other words, we often fail to see where the other guy is coming from (right or wrong) due to our own perception of "right" and "wrong."

Sounds wacked out for a Believer to affirm such a thing; right?

Only in the mind of the so-called "expert on the Bible" ever looking down his or her nose at anyone who does not fit his or her standard.

The Apostle Paul himself might have thought differently about said supposed expert's "political" view.

He himself had once been on their same kind of a "one size fits all" side of the fence.

As anyone who would evangelize anyone, would also soon realize about their own double-standard.

Acts 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 26:10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Rom. 14:5; 5:7, 8.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I ask the same.
The bar of what sort of perversion society will accept as normal has been steadily rising.

That bar has lessened from the days where society tolerated children being used as slave labour, racial segregation, women being denied the vote, etc etc etc. Society has improved in so many ways and done away with such draconian 'norms' and you want to see it as having devolved as if there was some 'golden age' or something. There wasn't.

 

[Tambora]

That bar has lessened from the days where society tolerated children being used as slave labour, racial segregation, women being denied the vote, etc etc etc. Society has improved in so many ways and done away with such draconian 'norms' and you want to see it as having devolved as if there was some 'golden age' or something. There wasn't.

So that makes the perversions being accepted today OK to add?
I don't think so.

 

[Tambora]

In other words, we often fail to see where the other guy is coming from (right or wrong) due to our own perception of "right" and "wrong."

Everybody knows that.
And everybody knows perspective will bias your conclusion.
And everybody knows you are biased.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So that makes the perversions being accepted today OK to add?
I don't think so.

You keep going on about society reaching a 'pinnacle of depravity' while ignoring the times where it was so much worse. Things were a lot worse and society was a lot more depraved in years gone by as compared to now. It ain't perfect in the present but waaaay preferable to times past.

 

[Danoh]

Everybody knows that.
And everybody knows perspective will bias your conclusion.
And everybody knows you are biased.

You mean you and your ever grace-less gospel of grace pals towards anyone but one another and your works based false idol - the admitted sexual predator: The Donald.

And by the way - everyone is biased.

So the issue is not one of being biased or not, o every so often so clueless Tam, but "of what sort it is."

And the typical Trump supporter's bias around here is one heck of a self-delusion of a "bias."

 

[Danoh]

You keep going on about society reaching a 'pinnacle of depravity' while ignoring the times where it was so much worse. Things were a lot worse and society was a lot more depraved in years gone by as compared to now. It ain't perfect in the present but waaaay preferable to times past.

Never mind that she is going against the Scripture on that.

But then again, hers is the myth of a once God inspired white as the driven snow U.S. of A.

Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 - written some two thousand years ago - will have take a backseat, ay, "Bora of Tam."

:chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

And by the way - everyone is biased.

BINGO!

So, now, why you asking others to not be what they can only be?
You one of them 'wish upon a star' folks?

 

[glorydaz]

You keep going on about society reaching a 'pinnacle of depravity' while ignoring the times where it was so much worse. Things were a lot worse and society was a lot more depraved in years gone by as compared to now. It ain't perfect in the present but waaaay preferable to times past.

Homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are actual examples of depravity. A thirty year old man dating a teenage girl isn't even in the same category. The former has always been depravity, and is now being called right. The later is now considered depravity when it was fine in the past. You can deny it all you want, but an age disparity is not depravity.

 

[Danoh]

BINGO!

So, now, why you asking others to not be what they can only be?
You one of them 'wish upon a star' folks?

Went right passed your bias, ay, lol.

The actual issue is "of what sort" the particular bias "is."

Not the fact that all cannot but hold one bias or another on one thing or another.

See, you're very sharp.

But the various bias' you so obviously are so often prone to applying that sharpness through - now there is your weakness.

Try doing your math in a few different directions BEFORE you allow yourself your conclusions.

But be warned - that will cost you your blind devotion to your golden boy: Trump :chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

Never mind that she is going against the Scripture on that.

But then again, hers is the myth of a once God inspired white as the driven snow U.S. of A.

Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 - written some two thousand years ago - will have take a backseat, ay, "Bora of Tam."

:chuckle:

You are lying low-life scum.
On top of really sucking at reading people.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are actual examples of depravity. A thirty year old man dating a teenage girl isn't even in the same category. The former has always been depravity, and is now being called right. The later is now considered depravity when it was fine in the past. You can deny it all you want, but an age disparity is not depravity.

A thirty year old man molesting a 14 year old is just that. You can blabber on about homosexuality being 'depraved' as much as you will but society used to tolerate kids being sent up chimneys and insidious segregation laws, not to mention no rights for abused children to voice along with women. Abortion isn't anything new so your position is entirely moot.