Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Fellas, is it feminine to bring water home?
Yall are so quick to label people, putting them in neat little boxes, and declaring them queer if they dont conform to your ideas of gender roles.
No, but I also don't live in the Roman Imperial Province of Judea in 20 AD.
Tell me, what work in our culture do you think is "women's work?"
All work is womens work. Are you trolling?
Nope. Just asking you challenging questions to make you question your stance.
Well you failed at that, mainly through sheer misunderstanding
Imagine being a single man back then: you’d die of thirst!
Tell me, if it wasn't notable—i.e. odd—i.e. Queer for a 'man' to be carrying water how the heck could 'a man carrying water' be enough identification for Jesus' disciples to identify to correct person to lead them to the correct house.
If as you imply anyone would be carrying water what kept them from walking up to the wrong dude doing it and getting betrayed to the Romans (before it was time time to be betrayed by the Romans)?
Would not further the person with ties to Jesus being Queer fit in perfectly with the ministry of someone who pointedly associated with social outgroups such as sex workers, Samaritans, and tax collectors?
So would a single man die of thirst?
Sure, Id buy that there were gender roles in 20ad, but carrying a jug of water? Everyone gets thirsty.
Address why it was a notable enough description to identify the correct person to lead them to the Cenacle if as you imply dudes carrying water was considered completely normal.
Because he just so happened to be the only man carrying a jug of water at that time and place? Its Jesus, dude made a lot of miracles.
You're more willing to believe in magic than the existence of gender non-conforming persons in 30 CE Jerusalem?
Its the bible, yes.
Its the bible, yes.
So are gender non-conforming people.
Such as a man who dared to drink water?
If you're still stuck on "There is not and has never been culturally decreed gendered behavior" why do you care when people don't conform to culturally decreed gendered behavior?
I take it you don't care who wears skirts or takes pills to grow breasts or removes breasts they don't want to have or changes their name or pronouns?
Surely you're not just denying past gender non-conformity to reinforce a strict gender binary today, right?
Theres a massive difference between not adhering to gender roles, and mutilating yourself.
That has nothing to do with being trans either. Circumcision is more "mutilation" than healthcare.
Besides, what do you care what people do to their own bodies?
I care about saying that drinking water makes you queer. Its absurd.
I don't believe I said "drinking water makes you Queer".
A statement I didn't make being or not being absurd is hardly relevant to a conversation consisting of things people have actually said, now is it?
Ok, being pedantic, carrying a jug of water before indoor plumbing existed.
I never said that made anyone Queer either. I said it was socially considered feminine coded labor in Roman Palestine, much as sewing was in 1950s united states or washing clothing in the 1800s.
That is not an assertion on what is or should be anyone's responsibility, or the moral righteousness of sexist views. It was solely a comment on what behavior would have been viewed contemporarily as gender non-conforming behavior (and how Jesus didn't care).
You did a few comments back. You didn't in your initial comment, but you did afterward.
Then you would surely have no problem linking it?
Sure? I already quoted it, but here. https://kbin.social/m/conservative@lemm.ee/t/931532/-/comment/5953207
That isn't loading. Got a non-broken link?
https://lemm.ee/comment/10745567 Maybe thatll work for you?
That appears to be me asking a question, not making an assertion.
You stated a fact while asking a question, stop being obtuse.
I don't believe I did.
How can I stop something I've never started in the first place??
So we have an example of yall doing it here. Where’s your example of conservatives doing this?
We’re well familiar with your story of who conservatives are. Problem is, it doesn’t match who we really are.