So real men don't drink Bud Light?

[broncofan]

Our expert on early 20th century monetary policy is comparing inflation in the United States, that reached a peak of about 8.5% and is down below 4.5% to hyperinflation, with numbers that reached currency devaluations on the order of a trillion. Just to show how ridiciulous that is take a look at the mark exchange rate. It went from 4.2 marks to the dollar in 1918 to $4,210,500,000,000 marks to the dollar in 1923. I looked it up because I wasn't absolutely certain what the number is in words, but that's one dollar to more than 4 trillion marks. Okay so we don't get there over night right (sarcasm). First, we're up 8%, then back to 4.5%, then who knows. No, the decrease in the value of the mark was swift as soon as Germany tried to pay for the war (and the levies against them from Versailles which I'm sure we'll also blame) by printing money. In 1919, it was already 48 marks to the dollar. This is more than a 1000% increase about a year after the end of WWI. I'm not going to express the 1923 number in percentage terms but the comparison is just dumb and to use it to explain people's bigotry even dumber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperi...eimar_Republic

[broncofan]

we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

[mildcigar_2001]

I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).

[broncofan]

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).

That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

[Fitzcarraldo]

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

Bullshit. The currency issues were caused by factors external to Germany, namely the reparations as part of the Great War armistice. Many Germans wanted the aristocracy to return. The industrialists feared the communists, and so they backed the fascist because they thought the fascists could keep the communists in line, and in turn they thought they could keep the fascists in line. No one can keep fascists in line. The military and police sided with the fascists (surprise). Von Shleicher was a conservative, but did make a noble attempt to keep the Republic going, even if he violated its constitution. The problem was that von Papen had Hindenburg's ear, and von Papen thought he could keep Hitler under control (notice a theme here?). The Social Democrats were the best hope at the time for preserving the Republic, but as is often the case, people aren't passionate about the middle (and the industrialists, who had all the money, didn't like them).
The unemployed and hungry would vote for whoever promised them jobs and food. That had nothing to do with liberalism, artistic expression, or sexual flamboyance. Degenerate art didn't kill the Weimar Republic, either.
Read some books. I highly recommend Otto Friedrich's Before the Deluge.

[Stavros]

That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

I think in the US and also here in the UK, there is concern at the dogmatic position some Trans activists take, which means they seek to prevent certain people from speaking in public, for example at universities. In some cases, as with Kathleen Stock, the abuse she suffered in her University led to her leaving it, and I don't think anyone benefited from it. As with JK Rowling, I would prefer a reasonable and open debate on the broad issues involved, because at a basic level I don't think either Rowling or Stock have any animosity towards Trans people. They object to the apparent collapse of categories when this philosophical argument is translated into public policy, such as the management of public spaces which are often reserved for either Males or Females.

I don't think Male and Female categories are as rigid or fixed as some think, but at the same time, there is a danger of a gender version of 'replacement theory' where Women are replaced by Trans Women, and if that is the anxiety, that 2nd or 3rd Generation Feminists believe their attainments are being sidelines, even relegated, as if they were irrelevant, must be dealt with. The ugly rows in public do not advance any understanding of Trans issues, or any sympathy for the people involved.

I would suggest this is different from 'no platforming' a Nazi because while Trans activists seek equality in its various forms that does not damage society, Nazis and their fellow travellers seek real change and thus have a more toxic agenda, one that brings violence into the arena, as happened in Charlottesville. From this perspective, it is about the management of the message, and while we can criticize the tactics of some activists, it ought not to subtract the core arguments that are valid, and being opposed by a segment of Republicans and 'Christian' Evangelists who want to cancel the whole 'Trans thing'.

[Stavros]

Is this the 1st Amendment in action?

Montana GOP Bars Trans Lawmaker (yahoo.com)

[Luke Warm]

Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids.

So you think parents are bringing their children to sex shows, for example at the Public Library? If not, where are these sex shows taking place? You seem to think it’s a major issue for society, so you should be able to explain your comment further.

For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

Please do “dig into the recent crime statistics” so that you can learn something… you’ll discover that crime in the US has been declining steadily since peaks in the 1970s and 1990s. This includes your imaginary crime waves in the big cities. You can start with a 2 second Google search. Where do you get your information? I’d bet you are one of these “I avoid mainstream news sources” goofballs.

Also, LMFAO at the “more or less equal” comment. This is like saying “slightly pregnant”. There is no halfway. People either have equal protection or they do not.

[natina]

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?
By Sharon James

Introduction
[1]
No-one can ignore the current demands for ‘transsexual rights’.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments are expected to consult in the coming months on making ‘changing sex’ as easy as buying a TV licence.

Our instinctive reaction may be to assume that the demand for ‘transsexual (or transgender) rights’ is mainly about protecting a tiny minority of troubled people from unfair discrimination. But, in reality, the underlying ideology of ‘gender identity’ is toxic. Ultimately, it aims to legally eliminate male and female sex distinctions.[2]

This ideology is now promoted in primary schools. The Gender Fairy, a story written for four-year-olds, says: ‘Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No-one can tell you’.[3] The author hopes that this book will mean that ‘Some children will realise their true identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and will choose to make a social transition to live as their true gender.’[4]

Definitions
Throughout history there have been cases of (mostly) men who cross-dress for erotic stimulation, sometimes known as transvestites (the word was first coined in 1910).[5] This condition is not to be equated with transsexualism. Nor should homosexuality be confused with transsexualism. And the exceedingly rare biological intersex conditions are not to be confused with transsexualism either.[6]

Transsexuals are people who are biologically male or female (not intersex) but who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex. What causes this condition? Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship in the UK writes:

‘The mechanisms leading to transsexuality are incompletely understood but genetic, neurodevelopmental and psychosocial factors probably all contribute. Various theories exist and, as in the debate about homosexuality, their proponents tend to favour either nature (biology) or nurture (upbringing) … It may well be that the causes are multifactorial and the combinations come from both nature and nurture.’[7]

How common is this condition? ‘Gender Recognition Certificates’ are the mechanism in the United Kingdom for someone changing their legal sex. According to the most recent figures, just over 4,500 have been granted since 2005.[8]

True gender dysphoria is very rare. In 2016, K J Zucker et al wrote in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology that, although ‘estimates vary widely’, ‘prevalence studies conclude that fewer than 1 in 10,000 adult natal males and 1 in 30,000 adult natal females experience [gender dysphoria]’.[9]

From the 1930s onwards, medical advances enabled doctors to ‘treat’ this condition by means of hormonal and surgical interventions.[10] It is possible, using hormone treatments and surgery, to transform a man into someone who looks like a woman and vice versa. The phrase ‘sex-change surgery’ is often used, but it is deceptive. No amount of surgery can truly change a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. But appearance can be changed quite effectively. And names can be changed very easily. An increasing number of countries have legislated to enable a complete identity change, offering changes to birth certificates and other documentation.

Since the 1980s, as the cause of transsexuals has been taken up as the supposed last frontier of civil rights, there has been a deliberate conflation of those who have intersex conditions and those with other forms of what is described as ‘gender variance’, including the desire to cross-dress. The umbrella term ‘transgender’ has come to be preferred as a way of including all the different ways people experience or live out their ‘gender identity’ when there is any felt incongruence with their biological sex. The term transgender can imply an acceptance of ‘gender fluidity’ (the belief that it is inherently oppressive to divide people into two binary categories). In fact, the notion of ‘gender fluidity’ is a direct contradiction of the idea of ‘transsexuality’ – which involves a change of identity from one ‘binary category’ to the other.

Where did all this come from?

The origins of Gender Theory
Certainly some ideas around masculinity and femininity are socially constructed. And of course, different men and women have a multiplicity of different gifts, aptitudes, and preferences. People do not all necessarily fit in with cultural stereotypes associated with masculinity and femininity at any given time. None of which proves that our fundamental understanding of humanity as male and female is socially constructed. But that is the central claim of gender theory.

Where and when did the concept of a division between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ arise?

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) was a German doctor and campaigner for homosexual rights. He advanced the theory of ‘a female soul in a man’s body’ in order to argue the case that homosexuality was innate (and should not be penalised).[11] At this time, the phrase ‘sexual inversion’ was used by sexologists such as Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) to refer to homosexuals.[12] Male ‘inverts’ were thought to have a ‘feminine soul in a male body’. This was the beginning of the idea that biological sex could be divided from the ‘gendered experience’.

The treatment of transsexualism
Continues

More below by clicking on link/url

https://reformation-today.org/articl...tians-respond/

So far, neither mildcigar or anyone else has bothered to defined what the "radical trans agenda" is. I suspect that's because there is no such thing, and that mildcigar and his co-ideologists are just using this emotion-packed word (radical) to rile folks up. And "agenda" -- this implies that trans-people and those who respect them have a (hidden) agenda: there's this secret plot to -- what? Again, an emotion-bearing word with no actual meaning.

[Paladin]

Never liked it - it gave me headaches, but AB's idiocy hasn't helped them at all