Groomers aka sexual predators

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

When did Denny's start hosting "sex shows", unannounced or other? 

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

It’s not fucking Amsterdam for crying out loud. Or Berlin. They’re not “sex shows.” Unless perhaps you don’t know what sex is? Keep your kid away from Denny’s with a sex show. Problem solved.

"sexualized show" Better?
Staying away from Denny's is just good advice in general. 

How is it “sexualized?” Have you ever attended a drag show, mace? 

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

Funny, no one is complaining about Hooters or similar restaurants that employ scantily clad females. Something about drag really makes conservatives uncomfortable. Must be that closet homosexuality that they're trying to hide while putting on good front for their church going community.

That's a great example.  Pretty sure I would call that placed "sexualized".  

But you know what you are getting into when going there.
All my comments were based on the assumption the parents didn't know and weren't told. If they were, like you pointed out, then that changes a lot.

Right, but you know damn well this was never about hetero sexualization.  Let's not pretend that this is a principled "protect the kids from sex" stance.  This is about gay and trans issues.  I'm not saying that's how you see it.  It's how these right wing legislatures see it.  

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

When did Denny's start hosting "sex shows", unannounced or other? 

They haven't. 
The conversation started when mrussel pointed out a new bill that banned sexualized performances to children.
I responded by saying I only saw this getting started in the news a while back because a few restaurants (maybe the same restaurant multiple times, maybe the same show with different footage, I really don't know) had drag shows in them where a lot of kids were present.

Since the parents were upset, I had assumed (maybe incorrectly) that they did not know this was going to happen. Why else would they complain? Maybe that assumption was incorrect. I just used Denny's as an example, because I have no idea what the name of the restaurant was.

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

When did Denny's start hosting "sex shows", unannounced or other? 

They haven't. 
The conversation started when mrussel pointed out a new bill that banned sexualized performances to children.
I responded by saying I only saw this getting started in the news a while back because a few restaurants (maybe the same restaurant multiple times, maybe the same show with different footage, I really don't know) had drag shows in them where a lot of kids were present.

Since the parents were upset, I had assumed (maybe incorrectly) that they did not know this was going to happen. Why else would they complain? Maybe that assumption was incorrect. I just used Denny's as an example, because I have no idea what the name of the restaurant was.

Have you considered doing more research on stories before taking a position and / or jumping to conclusions? 

mace1229 said:

I like to take a strong stance, make an argument. Then look back and see if I was right. How do you do it?

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I like to take a strong stance, make an argument. Then look back and see if I was right. How do you do it?

If you were to debate a colleague in front of the school body on any topic, would that be your approach?

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I like to take a strong stance, make an argument. Then look back and see if I was right. How do you do it?

If you were to debate a colleague in front of the school body on any topic, would that be your approach?

No, but this isn't my job either.
My wife gives me crap all the time. The harder I argue something, the less I actually know. When I'm the most confident I tend to move on quicker from the conversation. I don't mean to, just how I am. I just lose interest I guess.
That's my personal/casual life. My professional life is different. 

So, we should take you seriously?