11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Are people seriously entertaining and biting on Jacks clearly fake schtick! He is loving being the centre of attention and there isn't a doubt in my mind he doesn't believe 99% of what he is saying.

Fair play to him though, he has put a bit of effort in to keep the "villain" and/or "opposition" role going! As wasteful of his time and weird as it is to be playing this game, he certainly is good at it!

I’m actually just going to put him on ignore, something I’ve never done before. Fed up of every single thread being ruined by multi quotes and arguing over nothing for the sake of it

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Listen, I have no problem with grown adults changing their gender around, none of my business. But nobody has any right to **** with a child’s body at 5 years old. Why is “gender” such a big thing to a five year old? Let the child be themselves. Let them play with whatever they want to play with, let them be who they want to be. I find it very hard myself to believe a 5 year old boy is down about having a penis instead of a vagina, or doesn’t have breasts.
This is the parents projecting onto the child, and it’s disgusting. If the child decides as an older teen or an adult that they were born the wrong gender then that’s their own business. And it certainly doesn’t need announcing to the world

That’s a matter of opinion, which I’ve already shown you has no legal standing whatsoever. In the Children’s Referendum the people of Ireland granted the State the authority to supplant the authority of the parents if it was determined that it was in the best interests of the child to do so.

I don’t agree with it either, I’m just showing you that what you see as child abuse, the the social workers involved in the case don’t. You were skeptical I’d worked in social care earlier because I didn’t agree with your opinion, but here are people who work in social care who don’t consider this particular case child abuse.

This kind of shìte goes on up and down the country on a daily basis in homes and schools up and down the country, it just doesn’t make the papers. There was one case I remember where the mother threatened to go to the media if the school she wanted to enrol her child in didn’t accede to the parents demands. Fortunately for the school at least, the parent decided to enrol their child in another school, but the point is - the media are generally the first port of call nowadays, because they love this shìt.

The Talking Bread

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I’m actually just going to put him on ignore, something I’ve never done before. Fed up of every single thread being ruined by multi quotes and arguing over nothing for the sake of it

Looking at his history he has dedicated 70 odd posts, most of them large, to merely disagreeing with any comments that 99% of posters have been making on this thread . The discussion has swayed to a wide vary of debates surrounding child abuse, paedophilia, parenthood, how a child should be behaving, what environment they should be in, what they should be exposed to, etc etc and not once have I seen him offering a reasonable stance on behaviour 99% of posters have deemed wrong.He just has to disagree with everything. There is no subtlety to what he is at.

The Talking Bread

And, surprise, surprise, there is another one!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Are people seriously entertaining and biting on Jacks clearly fake schtick! He is loving being the centre of attention and there isn't a doubt in my mind he doesn't believe 99% of what he is saying.

Fair play to him though, he has put a bit of effort in to keep the "villain" and/or "opposition" role going! As wasteful of his time and weird as it is to be playing this game, he certainly is good at it!

+1

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I’m actually just going to put him on ignore, something I’ve never done before. Fed up of every single thread being ruined by multi quotes and arguing over nothing for the sake of it

Do it. You won’t regret it.

One eyed Jack

The Talking Bread wrote: »

not once have I seen him offering a reasonable stance on behaviour 99% of posters have deemed wrong.He just has to disagree with everything. There is no subtlety to what he is at.

No subtlety? You’ve missed the nuance then. It’s very simple -

1. I don’t agree with the behaviour of the parents in either of these cases. I also know that they don’t give a shiny shìte that I don’t agree with how they’re choosing to raise their own children.

2. I don’t agree with removing children from their parents as it generally leads to overwhelmingly negative outcomes for children as adults. It’s not generally something that’s done any more, so posters who espouse that idea may as well get it out of their heads (see also: the Margaret Cash megathreads, and the abortion megathreads).

3. What you or 99% of whatever posters imagine is child neglect and whatever else, is just a matter of opinion. It’s not fact. I have given the facts. If you can’t bear to deal with reality and an opinion which differs from your own, that’s entirely your issue, not mine. If you want an echo chamber for your opinions, there are plenty of other threads and plenty of forums on Boards which might suit you better. Nobody, least of all me, is forcing you to be here against your will.

The Talking Bread

Cool story.

Keep doing what you are doing. Plenty more naive posters to reel in and keep you salivating by the keyboard yet !

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

And yet men all over the country are terrified to change their own child’s nappy or afraid to bring them swimming or to the bathroom while they’re out and about. Wasn’t there a case where police stopped one man in the UK because he was out alone with a child? But nah it’s ok to paint makeup on your face and get your dick out for a photo, standing next to a ten year old child. The same people having sh1tfits about single dads changing their baby daughter will be the same people defending this.

The Talking Bread

splashuum wrote: »

10 year old celebratory trans/drag kid figure is pictured here with a naked man.

Scary stuff

Could you not just post the link without showing the full tweet.

Not having a dig for the sake of it!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Not Desmond,but another boy close to his age posing with a naked Man. This is my problem with the Modern Left. They don't seem to believe in limits. There's no "This is the line we should never cross." moment for them.

Depends on what you mean by modern left
I'm modern left and have repeatedly stated that I have issues with it - so your point is bull****.

JohnMc1

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Not Desmond,but another boy close to his age posing with a naked Man. This is my problem with the Modern Left. They don't seem to believe in limits. There's no "This is the line we should never cross." moment for them.

Depends on what you mean by modern left
I'm modern left and have repeatedly stated that I have issues with it - so your point is bull****.

Mostly the Leftists in the media that peddle and promote stuff like this.

Atoms for Peace

I really didn't need to see that picture, creepy as ****.

JohnMc1

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I really didn't need to see that picture, creepy as ****.

Sorry about that. Its one of those "You wouldn't have believed me if I didn't moments."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Mostly the Leftists in the media that peddle and promote stuff like this.

What media?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What media?

Good morning America for one

Zorya

CBC also did an arts feature on Lactatia the child who was with the man in the deleted image. CBC is Canada's public broadcast network, like RTE here

The boy also appeared in 2017 on This Morning ITV

Ken.

Mod- I don't care who is in the photo but posting pictures of naked people is a big no no. A site bannable no no as 2 people will probably find out. It's in the terms of use we agree to on sign up.

https://www.boards.ie/content/terms?site=desktop
5. What you agree to when joining boards.ie
post any abusive, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, indecent, profane, inappropriate, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable Material, except where the content is appropriate to the content of the forum and you have been granted specific permission to do so and subject to our guidelines on said content

Samsgirl

When my daughter was 5 she wanted to be a face painting acrobatic guard. She now 6 and wants to be a cat.

Sonic Youth

The American Psychological Association considers masculinity to be harmful yet this is fine.

Really makes you think.

pleas advice

I didnt see anything explicit in that photo, not that I'd agree with the content either,

Atoms for Peace

Sonic Youth wrote: »

The American Psychological Association considers masculinity to harmful yet this is fine.

Really makes you think.

Ron Hubbard was right all along <shudders>.

Zorya

I would like to defend the posters who posted the image.

They may not have known that it contravened site conditions.
They are long term members.
The picture is circulating widely at the moment on various media platforms. It is being discussed by many people at the moment.
The picture is illustrative to the topic at hand.
Given the veiled support for the paedophilic activity that has been displayed in the thread, it may have been posted out of exasperation.

A full on ban seems unfair in such circumstances. People may not like to see the image, but it is the reality of the premise in the OP.

It is best the image was removed as it had been linked earlier for those interested.
Not trying to be controversial or butt in, but just want to voice my support.

woddensanta

Surely no one will argue against the simple fact that it's always people on the left pushing this ****? Even in this thread every apologist will be a lefty. Not all lefties will agree with this but all people who agree with this will be on the left. Any wonder generation Z are looking to be more conservative and right wing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Good morning America for one

Link?

Just to be clear: JohnMc1 made the point that the useage of children in procative photos is promoted by mainstream media, and you're confirmed that this is the case with Good Morning America?

Or are you saying that all cases of someone in drag are automatically sexually provocative?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Link?

Just to be clear: JohnMc1 made the point that the useage of children in procative photos is promoted by mainstream media, and you're confirmed that this is the case with Good Morning America?

Or are you saying that all cases of someone in drag are automatically sexually provocative?

I would say having a child of 11 years old gyrating on a stage of a club at 4am while grown adults throw dolla bills at them is sexually provocative, yes

paw patrol

more of this perversion.

actually a lot worse that the OP (imo)

https://www.theblaze.com/news/child-drag-queen-pictured-with-nude-adult-drag-star-in-disturbing-magazine-spread

this is the opening paragraph

Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden, 10, aka "Queen Lactacia," appears in a Huck Magazine feature that glorifies the child's "drag queen" lifestyle.

Do we dare ask?
A photoshoot for the magazine included an unpublished photo of Nemis with the nude winner of "RuPaul's Drag Race," Violet Chachki – who is wearing nothing but high heels and a tiny patch of black fabric across the genital area.
The photo appeared on Twitter. In it, Nemis is leaning in toward Violet with a "wow" expression on his face.

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

I would like to defend the posters who posted the image.

They may not have known that it contravened site conditions.
They are long term members.
The picture is circulating widely at the moment on various media platforms. It is being discussed by many people at the moment.
The picture is illustrative to the topic at hand.
Given the veiled support for the paedophilic activity that has been displayed in the thread, it may have been posted out of exasperation.

A full on ban seems unfair in such circumstances. People may not like to see the image, but it is the reality of the premise in the OP.

It is best the image was removed as it had been linked earlier for those interested.
Not trying to be controversial or butt in, but just want to voice my support.

I understand completely why the picture was posted (it was posted for shock value), and I wouldn’t want to see posters banned for posting it either, but at least you could have been honest in your defence - there hasn’t been a single poster on this thread who supports paedophilia or paedophilic activity.

There were plenty of accusations of people supporting paedophilia alright (I’m Catholic, being accused of being a paedophile is par for the course, especially on Boards :pac:). I remember there was a particularly contentious poster in a previous thread who was site banned for accusing posters of being paedophiles, yet no action appears to have been taken against the numerous posters in this thread who attempted to infer that anyone who disagreed with them must be a paedophile.

Thing is, and I can tell you this from experience - you start bandying around terms like paedophile, paedophilic activity, accusing people of child abuse and all the rest of it, rather than those people taking your argument seriously, they’re far more likely to dismiss you as a raving Mary Whitehouse type or a “won’t someone please think of the children” type.

Argue against the identity politics stuff, but when you make it personal, you’re likely to be taken about as seriously as a wingnut feminist giving it welly about rape culture and how men are all potential rapists and all the rest of it, the sort of witch-hunting paranoid nonsense that feeds into some people’s ideology that men are either paedophiles, child molesters or rapists. Either way, nobody is safe... which is of course, complete nonsense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I would say having a child of 11 years old gyrating on a stage of a club at 4am while grown adults throw dolla bills at them is sexually provocative, yes

And I would - and have on several occasions, see example of most recent below - totally agree with you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Any child in any nightclub at 4am in any scenario is going to cause at least concern and probably some form of outrage.

Again - kid in drag, no issue.
Kids dancing provocatively or in nightclubs, issue.

It's nice that you want to appear woke and to register your disapproval, but right place right time. Because - AGAIN - unless you, Zorya, or ANYONE else - actually has a link to a broadccast or publication that Good Morning America or anyone else actually stating that children in nightclubs at 4am is fine; yuor post is nothing more than an attempt at appearing to be "woke".

And, furthermore, the suspiciously quiet Johnmc1's post about alleged left-wing media approving such behaviour is proven to be bull**** and a pathetic smear (like most of the rest of his posts) and the rest of you need to learn how to read the post BEFORE you hit the reply button.

Zorya

Oh the ironing. Being called Mary Whitehouse and then"woke" in 2 consecutive posts. :pac:

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's nice that you want to appear woke and to register your disapproval, but right place right time. Because - AGAIN - unless you, Zorya, or ANYONE else - actually has a link to a broadccast or publication that Good Morning America or anyone else actually stating that children in nightclubs at 4am is fine; yuor post is nothing more than an attempt at appearing to be "woke".

And, furthermore, the suspiciously quiet Johnmc1's post about alleged left-wing media approving such behaviour is proven to be bull**** and a pathetic smear (like most of the rest of his posts) and the rest of you need to learn how to read the post BEFORE you hit the reply button.

Why don't you just type good morning america trans kid or amazing desmond yourself. Take you a couple of seconds.

The Good Morning America links have been dropped on the thread dozens of times now. It would be a pretty random thing to make up.


And relax there.