We do though, as "psychological distress" is a separate consideration in incidents of things like rape, and there does need to be presentation of evidence--particularly in courts of law. This is common practice, and not everyone who experiences what we might view as a traumatic experience ends up having psychological harm.

Ok, how about this: forget about psychological harm. We oppose drag story hour because we don't want our kids growing up thinking that drag is normal. We want our kids to grow up to be a certain way. Should this be allowed?

It certainly is allowed as an opinion and personal way of life; however, since such bans are done via legislation then it necessary invokes scrutiny and the need for a compelling interest.

It doesn't necessarily have to go through the legal process. I am sure that there are ways to "cancel" these drag queens without invoking laws. For example, we can shame them publicly. Or get in touch with other parents who feel similarly, and start a social movement. Maybe post on twitter to get people to boycott such an activity, or if that's banned on twitter (very likely), then we move to a freer platform like Gab.

At this point, I really don't know what you are trying to achieve. You can argue your way so that legally nothing can be done about drag queens. But deep down, people still are revolted by them. Is this meaningful to you in any way?

It is a very meaningful point, because you're welcome to do all of the things that you described there--and I would defend your freedom to do so. When it comes to legislation though, there are serious legal implications and a world in which people make illegal that which they simply personally dislike, without demonstrating a compelling interest, is not a very free society. You may appreciate it in this specific example because the legislation coincides with your personal opinion. However, I think it fair to assume that if the situation was other, and people passed legislation with serious legal consequences to things that you are personally supportive of/may practice yourself, but without identifying an actual compelling interest, then you may feel that that is unjust. I would agree with you in that instance, because I believe in freedom and liberty--to include things that I may personally disagree with. And so, I would speak out against any legislation that limits your freedom without demonstrating a compelling interest, even if I personally disagree with what it is you do.

That is perhaps where we differ?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 23 2023 07:29pm

Yeah I get it. We shouldn't ban drag story hour via law because that would mean our society isn't just. But deep down people still are revolted by drag queens. They just can't do anything about them. So basically we live in a world where we have to tolerate that which repulses us. I guess your side, the coalition of freaks, won again.

Btw, your way of thinking is what would make practices like necrophilia legal. You see, there is no compelling interest in outlawing corpse-fucking, because that would infringe on people's freedom. You guys are a scourge on our society.

You can do lots of things still--you even gave many such examples in your previous post.

Necrophilia is illegal and falls under laws against "abusing a corpse or grave". Not sure where you've heard otherwise.

I know it's illegal in certain jurisdictions. I am saying that your way of thinking would make it legal.

Can't you see that any society where there is a sizable portion of your people, that society turns to shit?

you have apathy about adults twerking for lil kids and teaching lil kids how to twerk. you think that some how improves your standing?

"My way of thinking" is the way of thinking that is foundational to both The United States and Canada as our legal systems are not terribly dissimilar on this point. We don't simply ban things via legislation and with legal consequence because we dislike them, because again, any of us may find ourselves at the end of that metaphorical barrel.

Where we differ is that I would oppose legislation that limits your freedom if it doesn't have a compelling interest, whereas you seem to be quite happy to limit the freedom of others without such compelling interest. Again, you may find that favorable in this specific example because the legislation used is commensurate with your personal opinion.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 23 2023 07:46pm