• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Super Mario Bros movie anti-woke?

Father Heathen

Veteran Member





I mean... "attacked".
They're bad eggs and I don't condone it.
Ideas should be openly discussed, examined, and scrutinized, not silenced and censored. Let logic and evidence be the judge.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You have to be more clear. You say I shouldn't oppose someone being treated for a medical issue... I just said if you are an adult you can have all the medical treatments you want. Sounds contradictory to me.

So, in reality, it is about free speech. ie. Don't have an opinion about medical issues. So, you are just proving my point IMV
Why are you entitled to have a medical opinion about another person and/or interfere in their ability to make their own medical decision for themselves? Are you a physician?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
They're bad eggs and I don't condone it.
Ideas should be openly discussed, examined, and scrutinized, not silenced and censored. Let logic and evidence be the judge.

WOW! A conservative and liberal can actually agree! :)
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Hardly "cherry picked". It is too abundant to call it cherry picking. One would have to put their hands on their ears and over their eyes to deny it. IMV

You can't call it both a fact (not cherry picked) and "IMV"; it's one or the other.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Can a conservative go to speak at a liberal progressive college?
Can a pro-life have a stand without being attacked?
Can a "live and let live" person still express their viewpoint that they don't agree with trans surgery for children?

The answer is a resounding "NO".

Because there is no reason or compassion on the progressive side.
An acquaintance of mine was president of her public university's "pro-life" student group. She'd do demonstrations and hand out leaflets on the campus of what I'm sure you would consider a liberal progressive university.

While her behaviour certainly cost her friends, she was never attacked.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You have to be more clear. You say I shouldn't oppose someone being treated for a medical issue...
I am being more clear, amd I said thaylt because a gender transition is a medical treatment for a medical diagnosis. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend or understand that.
I just said if you are an adult you can have all the medical treatments you want. Sounds contradictory to me.
It sounds contradictory to you because you're trying to say you're something you're not. You are against a medical treatment for a medical diagnosis for children. This means you are NOT live and let live.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member





I mean... "attacked".
Did you actually read your last link? The fact you would include it suggests that you didn't.

Edit: for anyone curious, here's the summary:

- an anti-choice group holds a demonstration on campus. Members of the group assault pro-choice counter-protestors.

- a few weeks later, the same anti-choice group holds another demonstration. Pro-choice counter-protestors come out, protesting both their anti-choice positions and the assaults that happened at the previous event.

- physical altercations initiated by both sides ensue.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member

The first article seems to be about an event being cancelled after violence involving protestors from both sides. The speaker had still been invited and if it hadn't been for the mutual violence, would have presumably been able to speak.

The second appears to be a case confirming what I said. There can be any kind of speakers at any institution if they're invited and there are legal limitations to how restrictive any institution is permitted to be.

That there are sometimes vocal protests is just further freedom of speech, though actually disruptive or violent protest isn't legitimate or legal. That still isn't exclusive to specific issues or types of speaker though. Everyone has the same fundamental rights, responsibilities and restrictions but how they actually pan out will vary depending of specific circumstances.

Incidentally, you didn't give any examples of "liberal" speakers at "conservative" institutions. Looking myself, I did find this interesting commentary on the topic; Thwarting Speech on College Campuses


I mean... "attacked".
You do appreciate that was about "liberal" protestors claiming they were attacked at a pro-life event. On the face of it, those protesters didn't act very well themselves though. It's almost as if this isn't a one-sided issue and there are actually flaws and bad-actors on all sides.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I stand with my statement. IMV is a courtesy and with respect.
You stand by your statement and apparently won't answer my questions about it.
Okey dokey then.
I'll just sit around and wait for the day when you finally answer a question. I won't hold my breath. ;)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I am being more clear, amd I said thaylt because a gender transition is a medical treatment for a medical diagnosis. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend or understand that.
Oh I understand. It is your progressive viewpoint that makes your statement seem so upset. It's like you are saying "I don't agree with you and you aren't allowed to have a different opinion".

It sounds contradictory to you because you're trying to say you're something you're not. You are against a medical treatment for a medical diagnosis for children. This means you are NOT live and let live.

Hardly. There is no substantive study that supports your position while there is ample evidence of children changing their position as they grow - thus "18"

Sweden, a leading trans-affirming country, has now made a U-turn because the evidence is overwhelming in my favor.


You are starting to sound like you are for experimentation on children.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You stand by your statement and apparently won't answer my questions about it.
Okey dokey then.
I'll just sit around and wait for the day when you finally answer a question. I won't hold my breath. ;)
Because your question was based on a false premise. How do you want me to answer a false question?
 
Top