Really????

lol

Lol. Cookie Monster has a one track mind! :)

I have no problem with co-ed activities. I don't have a problem with boys and girls doing stuff together. lol, I like women, and I like doing activities with them. But I feel like this is about the blurring of gender identity. This is about the spectrum of gender identity that has an unmet burden of proof. Don't you think that that's what this is really about; gender identity. I believe there is male and there is female. There are boys and there are girls. They are different. And I believe this decision by the Boy Scouts is a concession to cultural trends of non-binary sexual ideology. It's not about co-ed activities. Those are plentiful. It's about "girls" becoming "boy scouts".

No, I see it as a continuation of that very same decision. This decision more broadly ratifies this system of belief that blurs the distinctions in gender. I think that's without question. I believe that is how this decision has been perceived by both sides on the gender debate; some celebrating it, and some challenging it.

Or, the need to declare oneself the opposite of one's biological gender is the result of sexists refusing to accept people as they are. Since many want to shame a girl who has interests in activities and organizations traditionally considered masculine, it is easier to attempt to convince society that I AM a boy rather than to convince them to accept a girl who likes boyish things. At least that's my take on it. Gender should be irrelevant (except in regards to intimate relationships) but society has placed so much relevance on it, that how you identify sets which box society tries to push you into.

"In regards to intimate relationships"
I was trying to find a non crude way of saying that, if a person likes dick, and you don't have a dick, don't expect a person to be interested just because you identify as a male (or other variations of such).
As far as I'm concerned behaviour and dress/make-up are personality traits and fashion choices and don't define your gender. If we didn't allow gender discrimination or accept gender stereotypes, gender would be irrelevant except for sexual relationships and reproduction.

But if we never did, we wouldn't have had true progression. Progression is not trying to make the world "perfect" and tip the scales to the other side, causing a new form of prejudice. Progression is fighting evil and corruption, and if we never had any problems in society, we could've never knew how to fix them.

There shouldn't be a gender separation in scouting anymore. The only reason why there was to begin with is because the Girl Scouts were started in 1912 when women didn't have rights like we have today. I would like to think our concept of gender has evolved since then... not really sure if it has though.

Good point, male and female are the two genders. We can intermingle with each other and do activities. If people are thinking of turning boy scouts to also girls, they will have to consider the kids' view on it and realise it needs to change its name to fit.

Everything you believe in is backwards

Ever heard the expression; "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?" Is that a scientific rule? An axiom? A truism? Is it a generalized colloquial expression, humorously suggesting that behavior so inexplicably stupid cannot be explained merely by having a learning disability, but that a more severe issue must be at the root?

I ask this, because the core doctrine of liberalism is forced egalitarianism, which has demonstrably failed every time it has been attempted, and therefore falls into the above humorously colloquial "definition" of insanity. So reason follows that liberalism is either a mental illness or just willful ignorance. I'd say the latter is less flattering than the former, but that's just me.

I respectfully invite you to step away from the Altar of the Opaquely Literal, and apply whatever offered footwear that is appropriately sized.

Your past history with that particular user notwithstanding, I was merely pointing out that your tendency to kneel at the Altar of the Opaquely Literal when presented with right-leaning satire or humor is really beneath you.

In regard to forced egalitarianism, you and I are talking about two entirely different things, and I think you're smart enough to realize that. I find it amusing when you resort to false obtuseness to re-arrange my point rather than actually make the case for your own.

I cannot imagine that an rational, intelligent person such as yourself cannot see the clear distinction between Women's Suffrage and the Modern Feminist Movement, or between Desegregation and Affirmative Action. I am fully in favor of opportunity-based equality, but forced egalitarianism is associated with outcome-based equality, and that is something I soundly oppose. If you cannot (or will not) make the distinction between the two, then it's going to be difficult to have a conversation.

I got examples. 1) The Women Suffrage were radical but they used it for male and female equality. 2) MFM is calling all men scum because they used to be on top of women and can't see that we have moved on. 3) Feminazis (Which is the MFM) Want the world of man eradicated and replaced with women, and they see men as obsolete. 4) The Women Suffrage produced the rights for women while not stripping main civil rights from men, but the Feminazis want a Matriarchy

"...entirety of your political opposition of being mentally ill is neither..."

No, this is highly reminiscent of the time I made a meme pointing out that the Latin word for "left" is "sinister" and you got all bent out of shape about it. I see my fair share of memes or comments implying that all conservatives are either Andrew Carnegie or Larry The Cable Guy, sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're stupid, but they're never absolutely literal. This just looks like a personal inability to take a joke when it hits too close to home.

"...wasn't tying to be deliberately obtuse..."

I was sufficiently specific. The distinction between forced egalitarianism and equality under the law are well-established, separate concepts. Unwittingly or intentionally, you've employed a misdirection debate tactic here that I've seen used many, many times (unfortunately often very effectively), and I'm experienced enough not to fall into the trap. For the home viewing audience, I'll distill it down to a mathematical formula:

Postulate: B=2
Counter: A=B, A=1, therefore B=1 (this is usually followed by a torrential flood of arguments in favor of A=1 while ignoring B=x completely, in the hope of suckering the other player into arguing against A=1, rather than against A=B which is the actual flaw in the counter)

Octavia "the smartest truck driver alive" melody to the T.

You are probably not even employed, even though you can, you won't because liberalist cancer has spread to your brain

Oh no! I assumed your employment! SORRY! I AM SUCH BAD PERSON! BLAH!-Autistic screeching- MEEH -Even more ear rape screeching- EEEEEEERR -100% Bass screeching-. (This is satire and mockery)

So pseudo-intellectual=you.

kid friendlyised to suit a younger audience

Declaring those you merely disagree with as mentally ill is a pathetic attempt to de-legitimize their opinions without actually arguing yours.

I've argued my side many times and grow weary of playing chess with liberal pigeons. So now it's bumper sticker retorts to save time. Besides, it's all they know... cliche's.

It's not that, it's the fact that so many of these liberals can't accept that others don't agree with them and then attack and try to be as much as self righteous ass as possible is sort of narcissistic and sorta cancerous and ill on the free world

Lol. Funny! :)

:D

No. And we can just remove that.

Remove what?

Cookie sales.

So you have enough influence with the Girl Scouts to remove the cookies?

LOL, someone tried to play downvote fairy the day I came back.

I have the authority to make a joke. I'm asking you about authority because I don't know what point your trying to make or if you're a member of the girl scouts.

Girls don't need to be in the boy scouts, and vice versa.

And how does "No. And we can just remove that." convey the point in your orange line post? There's no correlation.