Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon
90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that
opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill"
anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)?
Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement?
