Delivery man tells young boy to stop dressing as a fairy.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-furious-after-son-wearing-8975210?ICID=FB_mirror_main


"Wendy, who also has a two-year-old daughter, Felicity, said she couldn't believe her ears.
She said: "If he had said it's unusual to be a fairy, we wouldn't have have thought too much of it but saying someone should take Isaac to one side implies he was doing something wrong.
"I feel disappointed that there are still people in this world that ask questions like that and and think it is their right to tell other people what they can and cannot wear.
"My son has been more reluctant to wear his fairy dress since, he has only worn it once or twice whereas he used to wear it all the time."



Obviously the delivery driver should have minded his own business, but should a 4 year old boy be encouraged to dress up as a fairy?

I suppose if some leading fasionista declared it "in" for men to wear dresses and thats what the well dressed man should be wearing...it would all suddenly be ok?

Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?


A skimpy dress maybe...?


With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?


And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?


And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

cant say as its ever been something that has an interest for me

i reckon a dress would be bloody draghty (and it would get snagged on things)
the relevence of a padded out bra escapes me here....unless you are suggesting that sexuality has something to do with it?????  (in which case please explain yourself and its relevence to the point of the OP???)

If I was to wear ladies shoes ...I'd definitely avoid high heels...I mean....why invite a broken ankle...???

what planet are you on

It may interest you however to know that not only am I entitled to a royal scottish tartan.....AND a clan tartan...but I have a kilt in both.......and wear them at certain formal ocaisions....

and yes the buggers ARE draughty.....gives one an air of "freedom" shall we say

Lord Foul wrote:After all ...the ONLY excuse YOU can find is that he may be bullied for it....that is NOT the fault of either him or his parents, but of those who seek to impose their narrow minded views on others.....

From what I have read the only people who keep shouting 'Bully' are the ones who are in favour of him dressing like a fairy.

It's nothing to do with bullying, being gay, (not that many gay men wear dresses...but that seems to have been overlooked because it didn't suit your argument) or religion.

It is solely to do with 4 year olds like to fit in with their peers...and whether you can face this fact or not, the vast majority of 4 year old boys in this country don't wear fairy frocks.
So why would you encourage a small child not to fit in?
Plenty time later for them to find their own individuality.

yes syl...thats what the religious say about their brainwashing of the young too.......

Lord Foul wrote:yes syl...thats what the religious say about their brainwashing of the young too.......

It's also what most loving parents say too.

Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

Lord Foul wrote:yes syl...thats what the religious say about their brainwashing of the young too.......

You should give up that druid nonsense then.

Maybe Lord Foul... you could answer my earlier questions...?

I've given reasons why it's not a good idea...

The only argument I've seen from people saying it's ok is a demand for a reason why it isn't...

Eg... 'so the boy's wearing a fairy dress... so what?... why not?...' etc...

Which isn't really an argument for why it is a good idea/thing is it if we're being honest...!?

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not primitive or backwards to think that boys should not wear girls fairy dresses...

And it certainly isn't a step more evolved or a forwards thing for boys to wear girls fairy dresses...


It's simply not right... and now the boy knows that dresses are for girls... it appears he doesn't wear it any more...


The van driver has done the boy a favour and done what the parents should have done all along... but failed in their duty to set the boy on the correct path...

Its simply not right ...so says YOU...and yet.....you cannot give even one simple reason

you remind me more and more of the cave man seeing his neighbour with a wheel......"its not right...it'll never catch on"  it is an offense to "insert whatever deity you wish"

I suppose you would have burned galileo at the stake

Don't be a twat... I've given plenty of reasons... even another poster has already backed it up that I've given reasons... Syl i think, or if not it was HT...


What good is it for this boy to be led to believe that wearing girls fairy dresses is ok/good...?


Or since you liken it to the invention of the wheel or galileo... what revolutionary scientific breakthrough is to be gained by this boy being led to believe that wearing girls fairy dresses is good...?


There is nothing good about it... only leading to further confusion for the lad further down the line...

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yes syl...thats what the religious say about their brainwashing of the young too.......

It's also what most loving parents say too.

hardly...your statement , to be accurate should be ...its what most busybody "netmum" net inhabiting "expert parents" think .

eddie wrote:Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

It isn't his own skin though is it... it's a girls fairy dress...


Kids need to be set straight on what's what at an early age so they are best prepared as they get older...


Allowing this nonsense at an early age is only going to cause him unnecessary confusion as he gets older...

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

It isn't his own skin though is it... it's a girls fairy dress...


Kids need to be set straight on what's what at an early age so they are best prepared as they get older...


Allowing this nonsense at an early age is only going to cause him unnecessary confusion as he gets older...

You deliberately misinterpreted my sentence because you couldn't find an answer to it.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?


A skimpy dress maybe...?


With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?


And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?


And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

Sticking to what?

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe Lord Foul... you could answer my earlier questions...?

I've given reasons why it's not a good idea...

The only argument I've seen from people saying it's ok is a demand for a reason why it isn't...

Eg... 'so the boy's wearing a fairy dress... so what?... why not?...' etc...

Which isn't really an argument for why it is a good idea/thing is it if we're being honest...!?

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not primitive or backwards to think that boys should not wear girls fairy dresses...

And it certainly isn't a step more evolved or a forwards thing for boys to wear girls fairy dresses...


It's simply not right... and now the boy knows that dresses are for girls... it appears he doesn't wear it any more...


The van driver has done the boy a favour and done what the parents should have done all along... but failed in their duty to set the boy on the correct path...

Its simply not right ...so says YOU...and yet.....you cannot give even one simple reason

you remind me more and more of the cave man seeing his neighbour with a wheel......"its not right...it'll never catch on"  it is an offense to "insert whatever deity you wish"

I suppose you would have burned galileo at the stake

Don't be a twat... I've given plenty of reasons... even another poster has already backed it up that I've given reasons... Syl i think, or if not it was HT...


What good is it for this boy to be led to believe that wearing girls fairy dresses is ok/good...?


Or since you liken it to the invention of the wheel or galileo... what revolutionary scientific breakthrough is to be gained by this boy being led to believe that wearing girls fairy dresses is good...?


There is nothing good about it... only leading to further confusion for the lad further down the line...

thats the point though tommy...you havnt given ANY good reasons..... just nonsense based on the evil of others (he'll be bullied etc)

as to your idiot questions
there is neither good nor bad to be gained....it just is....the bad, such as there is comes soley from you and your ilk....who see it as "bad" and make a load of chatter about how "bad" it is....YOU generate the bad......

and the fact you asked that second question just proves you need to spend a lot longer in bed if you are to match wits with me......but for youe information ...I was comparing YOU to the backward primitives who censured gallileo for his works... ...stop digging tommy...you are in over your head......

eddie wrote:Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

Of course he should be comfortable in his own skin....I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

Of course he should be comfortable in his own skin....I don't see what this has to do with anything.

ANNNND...therin lies the problem

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl it's not about encouraging children not to fit in, it's about encouraging children to feel ok about being in their own skin.

Of course he should be comfortable in his own skin....I don't see what this has to do with anything.

It is the whole point of the topic!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?


A skimpy dress maybe...?


With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?


And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?


And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

Sticking to what?

dont ask....

Tommy Monk wrote:
Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?


A skimpy dress maybe...?


With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?


And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?


And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

Why do you people on the right always assume that if I (or LF in this case) sticks up for someone who does something that isn't mainstream, I must do it myself?

I see that all the time -- if you stick up for gay rights, you must be gay. If you stick up for Obama, you must be (as I've been called before, online) a "n---er."

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?


A skimpy dress maybe...?


With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?


And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?


And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

Why do you people on the right always assume that if I (or LF in this case) sticks up for someone who does something that isn't mainstream, I must do it myself?

I see that all the time -- if you stick up for gay rights, you must be gay. If you stick up for Obama, you must be (as I've been called before, online) a "n---er."

Oh but the favourite one, if you believe that Muslims are as good or as bad as anyone else, you must be Muslim.

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course he should be comfortable in his own skin....I don't see what this has to do with anything.

ANNNND...therin lies the problem

I don't have a problem, I do have understanding of kids though.
I brought up a son and had a good deal of hands on experience bringing up my grandson and his brother. I guided them so they hopefully could sail through their young years without encountering unnecessary problems....and I would do it all exactly the same if I had to.

I have given reasons Lord Foul... and it was others who mentioned bullying...


And you compare the boy in fairy dress to invention of wheel and galileo etc... just admit that is a preposterous comparison to draw...!?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course he should be comfortable in his own skin....I don't see what this has to do with anything.

It is the whole point of the topic!

Personally I think it's because his parents haven't bothered to explain gender differences......he should be comfortable in his own skin by being exactly what he is....a little lad.

And tommy...the ONLY reason you have given....is that you think its wrong...big deal....

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Sticking to what?

dont ask....

Don't think...

yeah...I agree...dont even think about it.....

Lord Foul wrote:yeah...I agree...dont even think about it.....

Too late....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yes syl...thats what the religious say about their brainwashing of the young too.......

You should give up that druid nonsense then.

well, since druids dont "evangelise" and dont try to "convert" anyone I dont see the relevance of your post????

hey...at least we dont spend OUR lives in grovelling abject fear of offending our "everloving god", who...in your case has a propensity for frying people for all eternity for finite sins....

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

It is the whole point of the topic!

Personally I think it's because his parents haven't bothered to explain gender differences......he should be comfortable in his own skin by being exactly what he is....a little lad.

Sorry Syl, but I couldn't disagree with you more.   Gender differation doesn't come from your body, it comes from your mind.   What about all those poor bloody people who are born either with both sexual organs or sexual organs that could be either?   And don't think it's unusual, it really isn't, it's estimated 1 in every 1,500 has DSD.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/Pages/Introduction.aspx

In any case, this little boy wasn't learning to be a girl, he was simply using his imagination and dressing up in one of a number of costumes he had and playing make believe.

sassy wrote:

Syl wrote:


Personally I think it's because his parents haven't bothered to explain gender differences......he should be comfortable in his own skin by being exactly what he is....a little lad.

Sorry Syl, but I couldn't disagree with you more.   Gender differation doesn't come from your body, it comes from your mind.   What about all those poor bloody people who are born either with both sexual organs or sexual organs that could be either?   And don't think it's unusual, it really isn't, it's estimated 1 in every 1,500 has DSD.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Gender differences as in he is a boy and his sister is a girl Sassy.

If when this little lad gets older he realises he is gay or transsexual that can be addressed then...it's far too early to think of that now with a 4 year old.

I honestly think in this thread many people are totally over thinking this.

Sorry Syl, but I  think you are the one wrong thinking.   My kids had a big dressing up box, they were all very close together in ages, and they used to dress up as all sorts, gender never came into it.   My daughters would be pageboys and they dressed my son as a queen.   He''d be a fireman rescuing them, they'd be policemen capturing him.   They'd all wear robes and dresses, let their imagination run riot.   What you don't seem to get is that it helps their imaginations, allows them to understand the roles of kinds of people, and for them, sexual orientation has got fuck all to do with it.

Syl wrote:

sassy wrote:


Sorry Syl, but I couldn't disagree with you more.   Gender differation doesn't come from your body, it comes from your mind.   What about all those poor bloody people who are born either with both sexual organs or sexual organs that could be either?   And don't think it's unusual, it really isn't, it's estimated 1 in every 1,500 has DSD.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Gender differences  as in he is a boy and his sister is a girl Sassy.

If when this little lad gets older he realises he is gay or transsexual  that can be addressed then...it's far too early to think of that now with a 4 year old.

I honestly think in this thread many people are totally over thinking this.

PS, why on earth would you equate dressing in a costume that happens to be female to being gay in later life?

sassy wrote:Sorry Syl, but I  think you are the one wrong thinking.   My kids had a big dressing up box, they were all very close together in ages, and they used to dress up as all sorts, gender never came into it.   My daughters would be pageboys and they dressed my son as a queen.   He''d be a fireman rescuing them, they'd be policemen capturing him.   They'd all wear robes and dresses, let their imagination run riot.   What you don't seem to get is that it helps their imaginations, allows them to understand the roles of kinds of people, and for them, sexual orientation has got fuck all to do with it.

Kids don't even think about that stuff anyway at that age. Dressing up is dressing up. Nothing more sinister.

Have a green, spot on!

sassy wrote:

Syl wrote:

Gender differences  as in he is a boy and his sister is a girl Sassy.

If when this little lad gets older he realises he is gay or transsexual  that can be addressed then...it's far too early to think of that now with a 4 year old.

I honestly think in this thread many people are totally over thinking this.

PS, why on earth would you equate dressing in a costume that happens to be female to being gay in later life?

I was answering you Sassy.....you were the one who mentioned gender differences coming from the mind...other people throughout the thread have brought up the gay issue.
Like I said....people here seem to be totally over thinking this.

I am bored rigid with this thread tbh.....over and out.

Syllabus, as well as being beautiful, you have special magic powers, see how you stopped the debate?

Syl, he dresses as a fairy, a fireman, a doctor, a nurse and Darth Vader. Do you really think he is going to get gender confused because of a couple of those?

Now he will just equate wearing a dress to hitting someone, stealing, swearing etc. In other words, a boy wearing a dress is bad.

only sort of relevant (as to the way we socially define sexuality) but it made me laugh

Fighting gender sterotypes is something for everyone

sassy wrote:

Syl wrote:

Gender differences  as in he is a boy and his sister is a girl Sassy.

If when this little lad gets older he realises he is gay or transsexual  that can be addressed then...it's far too early to think of that now with a 4 year old.

I honestly think in this thread many people are totally over thinking this.

PS, why on earth would you equate dressing in a costume that happens to be female to being gay in later life?

FUNDAMENTALLY,  it comes down to the simple fact that Syl obviously knows very little about life in general...

ONLY have to see the amount of total nonsense she has written on other threads, on various social issue subjects,  such as domestic violence, discrimination, health and nutrition, sexual assaults --  the woman apparently has very little understanding of how the real world works..        

Basically,  neither Syl nor Major seems to be aware of the salient fact that what costumes little kids "dress up": in, simply has nothing to do with either their "sexuality" nor transexual or transvestite behaviour  (also note that they obviously don't realise that transexuals, transvestites, and "gays" are three quite,different subjects --  they seem to be using quite different terms as if interchangeable --  making their ignorance all the more apparent..).        

Just because someone has a different opinion to you does not mean you can claim they "know very little".
Do you understand that people can have different opinions to you but that doesn't make them bad people?

Wolfie,    the Fount of all knowledge

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Question for Lord Foul... do you like dressing up in womens clothes...?

A skimpy dress maybe...?

With a padded out bra and knicker set underneath...?

And maybe some suspenders and sticking...,?

And a pair of high heels on your feet...?

Why do you people on the right always assume that if I (or LF in this case) sticks up for someone who does something that isn't mainstream, I must do it myself?

I see that all the time -- if you stick up for gay rights, you must be gay. If you stick up for Obama, you must be (as I've been called before, online) a "n---er."

Unsubstantiated generalization is the stock-in-trade for RW'rs. You hear them speak of "all lefties..." or "liberals are all..." and "Labour or Democrats like to...", speaking in factual terms when they really mean only to speculate and disparage.

The other facet is their use of generalization: RW'rs rarely understand that generalization is abstracted from specifics; RW'rs move back and forth between the specific and the general as if they are totally the same.

Really, it's a lack of practice with disciplined reasoning.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Why do you people on the right always assume that if I (or LF in this case) sticks up for someone who does something that isn't mainstream, I must do it myself?

I see that all the time -- if you stick up for gay rights, you must be gay. If you stick up for Obama, you must be (as I've been called before, online) a "n---er."

Unsubstantiated generalization is the stock-in-trade for RW'rs.  You hear them speak of "all lefties..." or "liberals are all..." and "Labour or Democrats like to...", speaking in factual terms when they really mean only to speculate and disparage.

The other facet is their use of generalization: RW'rs rarely understand that generalization is abstracted from specifics; RW'rs move back and forth between the specific and the general as if they are totally the same.

Really, it's a lack of practice with disciplined reasoning.

What's with all the 'Right Wingers' cack? Is this the latest internet/forum buzz word when you want to insult someone? It's pathetic.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unsubstantiated generalization is the stock-in-trade for RW'rs.  You hear them speak of "all lefties..." or "liberals are all..." and "Labour or Democrats like to...", speaking in factual terms when they really mean only to speculate and disparage.

The other facet is their use of generalization: RW'rs rarely understand that generalization is abstracted from specifics; RW'rs move back and forth between the specific and the general as if they are totally the same.

Really, it's a lack of practice with disciplined reasoning.

What's with all the 'Right Wingers' cack?   Is this the latest internet/forum buzz word when you want to insult someone?   It's pathetic.

Sorry HT, but the term Left Wing is used as an insult on this forum practically every two minutes, and I haven't seen you complain.

The lefties admit they are lefties...


But also try to label anyone and everyone else who even slightly disagrees with or criticises them as rw/far right/nazi/fascist/bnp/nf/knuckledragging/thugs that is the problem...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unsubstantiated generalization is the stock-in-trade for RW'rs.  You hear them speak of "all lefties..." or "liberals are all..." and "Labour or Democrats like to...", speaking in factual terms when they really mean only to speculate and disparage.

The other facet is their use of generalization: RW'rs rarely understand that generalization is abstracted from specifics; RW'rs move back and forth between the specific and the general as if they are totally the same.

Really, it's a lack of practice with disciplined reasoning.

What's with all the 'Right Wingers' cack?   Is this the latest internet/forum buzz word when you want to insult someone?   It's pathetic.

Where have you been?  I have been talking about this theme for five or more years.

RW’rs are distinguished by their personal philosophy of selfishness, as seen in their hero, Adam Smith.  Whereas Smith meant it descriptively, RW’rs have taken it normatively.  Consequently, the political theme of the Right is selfishness and special interests.

LW’rs, on the other hand, work for the common interest.  They are humanists, and they are more community-minded.  They work in a spirit of looking after the needs of others, and the unique problems that arise in society.  They are problem-solvers.

Let’s assess: on the one hand, you have the RW: steeped in a philosophy of selfishness, which becomes the lazy and greedy, caring only about self-interest and their own possessiveness.  Small responsibility; little to do to satisfy themselves; little to exercise their minds and bodies.  

On the other hand, you have the LW problem-solvers: caring, energetic, magnanimous…and constantly exercising their reasoning powers in the effort to solve the community’s problems.  A lot to exercise their minds and bodies.

‘You snooze you lose’.  ‘Use it or lose it’.  Recent research into “brain plasticity” shows that:

Dr. Michael Merzenich wrote:"The brain changes physically, functionally, and chemically, as you acquire an ability or as you improve an ability. You know this instinctively. Something must be changing as your brain advances, as it progresses.

Actually what it is doing is changing the local wiring, changing the details of how it's connected. It's also changing itself in other ways, physically, functionally, and those changes account for that improvement, or account for the acquisition of an ability.

You don't realize it but as you acquire an ability – let's say, the ability to read – you actually create a system in the brain that does not exist, or that's not in place, in the non-reader. It [the ability] actually evolves in the brain."   -- Dr. Michael Merzenich, professor emeritus, University of California

Use of the brain is like any other muscle: you’ve got to exercise it to improve it.  But the changes that come with use are both quantitative and qualitative.

It turns out that this is exactly what happens to LW’rs, who are constantly challenging their minds in an effort to problem-solve.  And it is a circular variation.  If you are used to using your mind, you are attracted to problem-solving; while if you embrace problem solving, you are used to using your mind.  It’s the universal principle of exercise...practice to improve.

This is seen in life: the most educated people like professors, writers and artists tend to be left-winged; while people who eschew challenge tend to become right-winged.  That is the reason why RW’rs tend to be hostile toward education...the so-called anti-intellectualism of the right.

RW’rs don’t want change…ergo: they are conservative.  Change is work, and they are lazy.  They gravitate toward a sedentary life, a Laz-y-Boy and watching TV.  Gradually, their antipathy to change evolves into a philosophy that is anti-differences, intolerant of “others” such as Muslims or blacks, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-feminist.

The upshot is seen in politics: Trump, a RW’r who is lazy, selfish, possessive and not particularly curious; or Dr. Obama, who is inquisitive, industrious and energetic.  What is the upshot?  Trump would build a wall, boot out Hispanics, not tolerate Muslims and generally try to scoop in and hold all his possessions (being a tax-dodger is "genius").  Dr. Obama would want to research the wrongs in the world, and fix them.  Get rid of guns.  Cure the sick.  Make life better.  He is a problem solver.

So you see, RW and LW determines a lot about who you are, how you became that way, and what you will do in your world.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What's with all the 'Right Wingers' cack?   Is this the latest internet/forum buzz word when you want to insult someone?   It's pathetic.

Where have you been?  I have been talking about this theme for five or more years.

RW’rs are distinguished by their personal philosophy of selfishness, as seen in their hero, Adam Smith.  Whereas Smith meant it descriptively, RW’rs have taken it normatively.  Consequently, the political theme of the Right is selfishness and special interests.

LW’rs, on the other hand, work for the common interest.  They are humanists, and they are more community-minded.  They work in a spirit of looking after the needs of others, and the unique problems that arise in society.  They are problem-solvers.

Let’s assess: on the one hand, you have the RW: steeped in a philosophy of selfishness, which becomes the lazy and greedy, caring only about self-interest and their own possessiveness.  Small responsibility; little to do to satisfy themselves; little to exercise their minds and bodies.  

On the other hand, you have the LW problem-solvers: caring, energetic, magnanimous…and constantly exercising their reasoning powers in the effort to solve the community’s problems.  A lot to exercise their minds and bodies.

‘You snooze you lose’.  ‘Use it or lose it’.  Recent research into “brain plasticity” shows that:

Dr. Michael Merzenich wrote:"The brain changes physically, functionally, and chemically, as you acquire an ability or as you improve an ability. You know this instinctively. Something must be changing as your brain advances, as it progresses.

Actually what it is doing is changing the local wiring, changing the details of how it's connected. It's also changing itself in other ways, physically, functionally, and those changes account for that improvement, or account for the acquisition of an ability.

You don't realize it but as you acquire an ability – let's say, the ability to read – you actually create a system in the brain that does not exist, or that's not in place, in the non-reader. It [the ability] actually evolves in the brain."   -- Dr. Michael Merzenich, professor emeritus, University of California

Use of the brain is like any other muscle: you’ve got to exercise it to improve it.  

It turns out that this is exactly what happens to LW’rs, who are constantly challenging their minds in an effort to problem-solve.  And it is a circular variation.  If you are used to using your mind, you are attracted to problem-solving; while if you embrace problem solving, you are used to using your mind.  It’s the universal principle of exercise.

This is seen in life: the most educated people like professors, writers and artists tend to be left-winged; while people who eschew challenge tend to become right-winged.  That is the reason why RW’rs tend to be hostile toward education.

RW’rs don’t want change…ergo: they are conservative.  Change is work, and they are lazy.  They gravitate toward a sedentary life, a Laz-y-Boy and watching TV.  Gradually, their antipathy to change evolves into a philosophy that is anti-differences, intolerant of “others” such as Muslims or blacks, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-feminist.

The upshot is seen in politics: Trump, a RW’r who is lazy, selfish, possessive and not particularly curious; or Dr. Obama, who is inquisitive, industrious and energetic.  What is the upshot?  Trump would build a wall, boot out Hispanics, not tolerate Muslims and generally try to scoop in and hold all his possessions.  Dr. Obama would want to research the wrongs in the world, and fix them.  He is a problem solver.

So you see, RW and LW determines a lot about who you are, how you became that way, and what you will do in your world.

What a load of old psychobabble. You admit using that daft expression for 5 years? About time you dreamed up some fresh insults to the posters on here. Pigeonholing folks like this is beyond tedious. You need to consider growing up emotionally, you seem to be stuck at 15.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Where have you been?  I have been talking about this theme for five or more years.

RW’rs are distinguished by their personal philosophy of selfishness, as seen in their hero, Adam Smith.  Whereas Smith meant it descriptively, RW’rs have taken it normatively.  Consequently, the political theme of the Right is selfishness and special interests.

LW’rs, on the other hand, work for the common interest.  They are humanists, and they are more community-minded.  They work in a spirit of looking after the needs of others, and the unique problems that arise in society.  They are problem-solvers.

Let’s assess: on the one hand, you have the RW: steeped in a philosophy of selfishness, which becomes the lazy and greedy, caring only about self-interest and their own possessiveness.  Small responsibility; little to do to satisfy themselves; little to exercise their minds and bodies.  

On the other hand, you have the LW problem-solvers: caring, energetic, magnanimous…and constantly exercising their reasoning powers in the effort to solve the community’s problems.  A lot to exercise their minds and bodies.

‘You snooze you lose’.  ‘Use it or lose it’.  Recent research into “brain plasticity” shows that:



Use of the brain is like any other muscle: you’ve got to exercise it to improve it.  

It turns out that this is exactly what happens to LW’rs, who are constantly challenging their minds in an effort to problem-solve.  And it is a circular variation.  If you are used to using your mind, you are attracted to problem-solving; while if you embrace problem solving, you are used to using your mind.  It’s the universal principle of exercise.

This is seen in life: the most educated people like professors, writers and artists tend to be left-winged; while people who eschew challenge tend to become right-winged.  That is the reason why RW’rs tend to be hostile toward education.

RW’rs don’t want change…ergo: they are conservative.  Change is work, and they are lazy.  They gravitate toward a sedentary life, a Laz-y-Boy and watching TV.  Gradually, their antipathy to change evolves into a philosophy that is anti-differences, intolerant of “others” such as Muslims or blacks, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-feminist.

The upshot is seen in politics: Trump, a RW’r who is lazy, selfish, possessive and not particularly curious; or Dr. Obama, who is inquisitive, industrious and energetic.  What is the upshot?  Trump would build a wall, boot out Hispanics, not tolerate Muslims and generally try to scoop in and hold all his possessions.  Dr. Obama would want to research the wrongs in the world, and fix them.  He is a problem solver.

So you see, RW and LW determines a lot about who you are, how you became that way, and what you will do in your world.

What a load of old psychobabble.   You admit using that daft expression for 5 years?  About time you dreamed up some fresh insults to the posters on here.     Pigeonholing folks like this is beyond tedious.  You need to consider growing up emotionally, you seem to be stuck at 15.

A-hah. The old anti-intellectualism of the right. Let me guess: you got bored in high-school, never went to college, and now spend most of your time in front of the telly. If you use 2% of your brain it would be a wonder.