Well He's Not Right

submitted by Questionable from old.reddit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It's an excellent point. You're not right.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think it's an unassailable position at all, depending on what your stance on the situation is. It requires a faulty premise:

A) The only concern about drag shows is that they might cause the child do die, making the situation comparable to firearms.
B) The only defense of the right to a firearm is that it's protected in the constitution.
C) The benefits of the right to own a firearm and the "benefits" of the right to have a man dressed as a woman read stories to children are functionally identical.

A isn't true, obviously. The concerns aren't comparable - I'm not concerned (much) that a Drag Queen might "Go Off While A Child Plays With It" and kill a child in the room, the same as I'm not concerned that a firearm might frighten, disgust or confuse a child enough to cause them mental health issues.

B obviously isn't true, though I don't know the man who that famous TV dude is speaking to, so it could be that his only stance on the matter is "The American bit of paper says we should have them, and that thing is infallible". The right to own a firearm is a complicated situation with a lot of talking points and nuance. Self defense, the threat of a rising dictatorship, farming needs, the right of a person to have a hobby or collection of interest while doing no harm to others, etc etc.

C certainly isn't the case, unless you sleep with a Drag Queen under your pillow or lock cross dressers in a cross dresser safe in your house to keep you safe from home invasion?

The challenge that it's hypocritical to hold the view that people should be permitted to own firearms despite them being the leading cause of child death, which is only a VERY recent change and only by a tiny percentage is dependent on there being a rational comparison between these situations - the reason it's permitted, the benefits of it and the risks of it being at least comparable - and they aren't. Additionally, would that guy... Whose name I forget, sorry. I know he's an American TV host... Have made the same challenge about motor vehicles in 2018 when they were the leading cause of death? Would he have called someone a hypocrite for saying that they found it unhealthy for children to smoke when there were kids out there dying in cars? Or would he have considered that comparison to be flawed?

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the analysis.

A) Argeed. Personally, I wouldn't take my kid to a reading with drag queens, but I'm not bothered if other parents do it. Up to them. It's a parent issue, not a legislative one (you can't legislate morality).

B) Agreed

C) Agreed

Perhaps you're arguing that Jon Stewart made a false comparison. I think the longer video provides more information on the discussion about gun ownership, which he responds to in the shorter clip. Nonetheless, it seems his main point is that the person he's talking to, and the far right, have made so many complaints about the destruction of a part of society if drag queens read books to children, whereas those same complainers support the NRA's attempts to deregulate every aspect of all gun sales (one of the ways in which school shootings have happened in the US in such great numbers, but not in other countries). So Jon's point is that anyone supporting the NRA's deregulation of assault weapon ownership is definitly not interested in the safety of kids, not in the slightest. It's hypocrisy.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're right. Most of these sensationalist clips on Reddit or put out by this or that YouTube channel have longer videos around them that put it all into context.

See, I don't agree with your last point. You can feel that gun ownership is important and feel that drag queens being promoted to children is unhealthy without holding a hypocritical view. In fact, you can even do so while focusing on the lives of children:

"While the biggest killer of children, at the moment, is firearms, I feel that gun ownership is also important and implore gun owners to take the correct, recommended steps to prevent children from accessing them. At the same time, I feel children's, innocence, sexual growth and maturity is also important, and I implore parents, schools and libraries to take the correct steps of removing drag queens from interacting with children."

There's aren't hypocritical points of view because, as I pointed about, A, B and C show us that you can hold these two points of view without them being comparable. All it really requires is that you believe gun ownership is crucial in some way. The same as, like I said, if we had seen this video in 2018, we'd be asking: "Is it reasonable to ask for all cars to be removed because they are the greatest threat to children's lives, or is it more reasonable to say that greater care needs to be taken to protect children who are in a car and prevent them from doing foolish things like running into the street?"

Or, and maybe even more critically, is it possible that you've almost reached maximum saturation of child safety? Depending on the statistics, does this downward trend of car accidents and upwards trend of firearm incidents now suggest that the preventable occasions of childhood death have now reached such a tiny level that the unpreventable number of children killing themselves through no fault at all is the primary cause of death, and it simply happens that firearms are the cause?... You're asking yourself: "What difference would that make? It doesn't seem relevant to the conversation"... To which I say: "Nor is wanting your children not to be exposed to drag queens relevant to gun safety." - The conversation that needs to happen in order to prove that guns are as superfluous to society as having cross dressers read stories to children is so convoluted that, if you can resolve it and prove it, you should go straight to the American Congress and tell them, because that definitive proof would not only allow you to make a comparison between those two topics, but also settle a debate that the whole country has been having for years.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Point? Could you reiterate that point, so that we know what it is?

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's obviously the thing you think is not right

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

No. Explain it to me. As though I were a child, if you have to.

[–]duckfuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My Ex-Wife(F28) and I(M28) split up a few months ago due to her coming out as a lesbian. The split was quite amicable and we have remained quite good friends. While she did cheat on me during the relationship I understand that it was due to her sexuality, she came from a very conservative Christian household who have cut her off now that she has come out, marrying me was a way of placating her family I suppose. The issue now arising is the fact that she's pregnant with our child. During our marriage we agreed that if we had a son we would name him after both of our Grandfathers as they both were very important people in our lives, Samuel Jacob (lastname), an issue has been raised by her new partner(F27) over the name. Now I will fully admit that her new partner and I have never really got along, she was a friend of a friend before she got together with my Ex and we just never saw eye to eye, but we both have tried to be cordial for the sake of my Ex. While we recently were discussing the name of our child the partner out right refused to accept that we were going to name the child Samuel, she had an ex named Samantha who was abusive towards her and said that she could not stand to have her child share the name with her ex. Now I fully understand that this woman will inevitably be apart of my sons life, but I explained to her the meaning behind why we were naming him Samuel and how important it was to me. My Ex also backed me up saying how this was decided long before she was in the picture and while she was sorry that the name offended her she would leave the decision to me. Her Partner proceeded to get very angry again insisting that HER child would not have that name. This sent me over the edge, I asked her if I got her pregnant, she of course said no, I asked if she somehow magically got my Ex pregnant, again she said no, I then told her that since she was not the parent of this child and that my Ex and I will give our child the name we want regardless of her opinion. The Partner proceeded to go ballistic at me calling me homophobic for not giving her any input and forcing her into this situation and stormed out of the room. My Ex was also not happy with me but still agreed that I will have the final say in the naming of our child. This was a few days ago and I haven't spoken to either of them since. I've asked around a few of my friends and have gotten a mixed response when I asked if I was wrong.

​

Going to add the comment I made to the post as some people may not have seen it.

​

I just want to thank everyone sincerely for their input on my situation your kind words mean a lot to me right now. I've noticed a few questions about the situation that ill answer now.

Yes My Ex's Partner was the one my ex cheated on me with. As I said in the post the partner was a friend of a friend situation at first but my Ex and I share a lot of the same friends (we met in university and hung out with the same people) My Ex started getting closer to her and would hang out with her more often, I suspected nothing in fact I was happy she was making more close friends.
The reason I'm mostly ok with the cheating was the way I found out. My Ex told me the day after they first slept together and explained her whole situation, she was in tears the whole time, I sincerely believe that was their first intimate moment and she told me right away. Of course I was devastated but I could sympathise with her situation, I couldn't imagine feeling stuck in marriage like that. She was my best friend and as bad as it is to say I do still love her I just want her to be happy even if its with the person who destroyed our marriage.
About changing or flipping around the name, the partner made it clear that she didn't want the name Samuel anywhere in the child's name. She refused to compromise on this.
About the homophobic remark she made, I questioned her at the time on how I was being homophobic, her response was that by not budging on this situation I was implying that her feelings and input were less important than my Ex's and that I was reducing her role as a parent due to her sexuality. I thought it was bs at the time but maybe this will change some peoples minds?
About seeking legal advice, ill be doing that this week. I really don't want to do this my ex and I have had a superb relationship since the breakup and I'd hate to sour it by getting lawyers involved, but feel it may be necessary if her partner is acting like this even before the baby is born.
My Ex left me before she knew she was pregnant, she told me over lunch a few weeks later and we were both excited. She always wanted children and so did I, we were happy to co-parent and all was smooth until this argument with her partner.

Update:

I was able to meet up with my Ex today to discuss the situation and overall it was positive and productive. We met for lunch where the first thing she did was apologise for her partners behaviour, she agreed that she had no right to make demands like that. She also told me that her position on the topic of the name hasn't changed, she will honour the agreement we made and will stand by the decision to name our son Samuel Jacob. Over the course of our meeting she did try to make excuses for her partners behaviour though which concerned me a bit. She tried to explain how her partner always wanted a son and thought that this could be her chance to be a mom and was upset that the both of us were shutting her out of her dream. I then reiterated that this was not her biological child and that she would be in the child's life but in a step-parent capacity. I told my Ex that I would be in my son's life, I wont be an absent parent. My Ex then got defensive, saying that her partner wasn't trying to butt me out of my sons life rather she just wanted a bigger part in it. I agreed that she could have a part in my sons life, I had no problem with that, but naming should be left to us, I'm happy enough to hear her opinions on schools and sports, but naming should be left to the biological parents. My Ex again agreed with this, but asked me to be a bit more understanding of her situation. While at lunch I also mentioned I would be seeking legal counsel, she was fine with this. Overall I'm happy with the meeting she seems to be sticking with me on this, though I am concerned with the partners behaviour acting like I was getting in the way of her dream, after reading some of the comments I'm getting a bit paranoid that maybe she does just see me as a sperm donor rather than a father.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Don't claims Jon Stewart is wrong unless you're prepared to back it up.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

He was wrong for changing the topic. End of story.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Locate the full video. Jon was absolutely on topic.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Locate your balls. And delete your alt accounts. You lack self control.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There it is - the real you. Weak, unable to make an argument.

Self control?

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

He made no point. He changed the topic.

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But you first tell me that you don't understand the 'point' and now you tell me that he didn't make a 'point', and yet your post says he's not right about the 'point'. Dude, you're either not trying to understand the post or you don't want to, and in either case, you can't make an argument about it and back up that argument. He makes an excellent point about the hypocrisy of the right wing assholes who've helped cause school shootings that are almost unique to the US - all because of brainwashing voters to think they need immediate access to assault weapons for absolutely everyone - and yet they cry like babies about drag queens who are offering readings, as if that's destroying society. Meanwhile, numerous children have lifetime PTSD because of the NRA and right wing, not to mention the many innocents who've died. Dems also take NRA money, and AIPAC money, but the topic is - wtf should anyone care about any drag queens? That's totally right wing propaganda. Parents can determine what to do with their kids. End of story.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I shall repeat myself then.

Could you reiterate that point to me, so that I might understand it?

Explain it to me. As though I were a child, if you have to.

As, he made no point. He changed the topic.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've explained it. Re-read my response? He was of course on topic, and this is more obvious in the original interview.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. You've """"expleened it"""".

He changed the topic, thus declaring himself the """winner""".

[–]merrychristmas 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Parents can determine what to do with their kids.

The solution to that is awareness. Somehow from the time I was quite small I knew my parents were crazy. Maybe it’s because I loved to hang out with the new babies and their moms from our neighborhood and saw how other parents behaved. Also my parents insisted on strict silence about anything that was said or happened in our home. Sus for sure.

When I had my own kids I insisted that they never be hit or hurt by anyone. My father often made comments about how my kids “needed a good spanking”, as if there were such a thing. Finally I told him we would leave our visit if he ever spoke of violence against my children, even leaving in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner one year.

We are all responsible for our own healing and for our own bad behavior, regardless of who taught us to do it. Being an abused child taught me how to be a loving, protective parent. Our home was a fun and peaceful sanctuary. I’m still pretty messed up in many ways, but I managed to raise 3 kids who did not suffer a repeat of what was done to me.

Professionally I have always worked with parents and young children teaching appropriate boundaries and consequences. Those of us who know the truth must stand up for kids.