|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jan 20, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
That image isn't from that book, though. And the books being discussed in those videos aren't the ones being brought up here. Yes, I found multiple examples of different books that sexualize children. Very good.
They love to deny the sky is blue
|
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jan 20, 2024 15:30:50 GMT
That image isn't from that book, though. And the books being discussed in those videos aren't the ones being brought up here. Yes, I found multiple examples of different books that sexualize children. Very good.
Multiple examples without linking to actual scans of them, just passages from unrelated works. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 20, 2024 15:56:51 GMT
Yes, I found multiple examples of different books that sexualize children. Very good.
Multiple examples without linking to actual scans of them, just passages from unrelated works. Re-read my first post, McFly. It's on page 2. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 20, 2024 16:34:49 GMT
Multiple examples without linking to actual scans of them, just passages from unrelated works. Re-read my first post, McFly. It's on page 2. Having dealt with this poster before I can tell you that no amount of examples will be enough, he will invent reasons why they don't count. You could give him 100 examples and none of them will count or the number will still not be enough. Its like a creationist dismissing transitional fossils. |
|
|
|
Post by Pippen on Jan 20, 2024 16:54:28 GMT
Author Arnold Lobel's daughter suggested that there was indeed a gay subtext to the ambhibians' relationship. She stated that it was his way of coming out to his family in the 1970s; he would later divorce his wife and begin a same-sex relationship himself. If the Moms for Liberty crowd doesn't like this, they can go eat flies. "Gay subtext" in Frog and Toad (or Bert and Ernie or Laurel and Hardy who have also been suggested as "being gay" as seen as a negative ) ... what total and utter bosh ! It's now "cool" to see what is not there and what was not intended by the author ! |
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Jan 20, 2024 17:09:15 GMT
It's now "cool" to see what is not there and what was not intended by the author ! Has been for as long as I can remember. Hell, there was a big old thread here recently discussing whether 'Diary of Anne Frank' was "grooming" kids for sex with adults over a single reference to a nude male walking past AF's bed-space from a bath. Probably, the posters were unaware how little privacy there was in their hiding place, but still. And even if an author actually addresses points speculated on, it doesn't really help. People still like the idea of Sherlock and Watson being gay. They still think Tolkien was talking about marijuana (pipe weed), atomic power/oil (The One Ring), and black people (orcs). When the authors actually denied all of this, it was a case of the "author subconsciously making allegories" to their mind reading detractors. |
|
|
|
Post by Pippen on Jan 20, 2024 17:25:36 GMT
It's now "cool" to see what is not there and what was not intended by the author ! Has been for as long as I can remember. Hell, there was a big old thread here recently discussing whether 'Diary of Anne Frank' was "grooming" kids for sex with adults over a single reference to a nude male walking past AF's bed-space from a bath. Probably, the posters were unaware how little privacy there was in their hiding place, but still. And even if an author actually addresses points speculated on, it doesn't really help. People still like the idea of Sherlock and Watson being gay. They still think Tolkien was talking about marijuana (pipe weed), atomic power/oil (The One Ring), and black people (orcs). When the authors actually denied all of this, it was a case of the "author subconsciously making allegories" to their mind reading detractors. Well put, Fred! Am sure that the poster in the Anne Frank thread was doing their "edgy" schtick and posted only for trigger effect. OT but train of thought .. This adding what are often seen as negatives into everything, is similar to what inevitably happens in the tribute threads ... someone always has to interject some negative about the recently departed or birthday person. |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jan 20, 2024 17:34:55 GMT
Author Arnold Lobel's daughter suggested that there was indeed a gay subtext to the ambhibians' relationship. She stated that it was his way of coming out to his family in the 1970s; he would later divorce his wife and begin a same-sex relationship himself. If the Moms for Liberty crowd doesn't like this, they can go eat flies. "Gay subtext" in Frog and Toad (or Bert and Ernie or Laurel and Hardy who have also been suggested as "being gay" as seen as a negative ) ... what total and utter bosh ! It's now "cool" to see what is not there and what was not intended by the author !
Not exactly a new a new concept. In '64 this song was accused of being about smoking marijuana.
|
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jan 21, 2024 2:34:25 GMT
Multiple examples without linking to actual scans of them, just passages from unrelated works. Re-read my first post, McFly. It's on page 2. You posted passages that weren't scanned right from that book and put book images there to create the illusion they were one and the same.
A guy in leather isn't destroying anyones mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jan 22, 2024 20:26:20 GMT
Then you have't been paying any attention at all.
Wrong. Nice try.
I have, more than the folks who blindly assumed that the slander against these books was true. Wrong.
It has already been shopwn here.
It's clear you are a pedophile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jan 22, 2024 20:26:41 GMT
No, it's because you are a major retard and tremendous stupid moron Liberal who has the regular intelligence of a SJW: null and void.
You guys are basically pedophiles.
So you got nothing, typical. So you are another pedophile.
Typical.
|
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jan 23, 2024 3:55:19 GMT
I have, more than the folks who blindly assumed that the slander against these books was true. Wrong.
It has already been shopwn here.
It's clear you are a pedophile.
No, images you posted in an attempt to match text that's not in those books were what you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jan 23, 2024 3:56:24 GMT
So you got nothing, typical. So you are another pedophile.
Typical.
I don't fear nonhets, nor do I think that a kid hearing "Well sometimes a man likes another man and a woman likes another woman. Nothing to be scared of" will destroy their mind.
If that's what you mean.
Really, the actual damage being done is by the intolerant fundamentalist parents who are warping their kids minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 23, 2024 5:30:03 GMT
Multiple examples without linking to actual scans of them, just passages from unrelated works. Re-read my first post, McFly. It's on page 2. Actual examples with links don't work with Anwar, either. He/she refers to them as "juked" without proof. The poster is a troll. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 23, 2024 12:38:55 GMT
Re-read my first post, McFly. It's on page 2. You posted passages that weren't scanned right from that book and put book images there to create the illusion they were one and the same.
A guy in leather isn't destroying anyones mind.
A pervert it is then. |
|
