The irony about "grooming"

[Shodan]

I just love it when the very people who can't stop saying things like "LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE", "STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN", "THE CHILDREN ARE OFF LIMITS", "LET CHILDREN BE CHILDREN, CHILDHOOD IS INNOCENCE" ironically send their children to church which is basically the international HQ of child rape and that's an open secret at this point.

It actually makes perfect sense when you think about it:

Why would a man completely give up normal life and marriage (to women) and instead choose confinement with a bunch of other men, as well as children with whom they have private one-on-one meetings, hmm? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, I hope I don't have to say that explicitly too because the answer couldn't be more obvious.

On a side note, speaking of innocence and degeneracy... What's with the constant fascination about sexualization of children? How come that of all things, you always instantly assume the worst (maybe it's not the worst to you, though) when it comes to children? I thought you were perfectly normal people who are strongly against all those perverted ideas? Oh well...

Anyway...

How come, not just that I don't see the same "grooming" and other complaints about this massive worldwide problem from the same people who like to complain about this "grooming" so much, but they even send their children to such places? Like I said, this is basically an open secret, an undeniable problem which is so bad that it is even acknowledged not only on a local level absolutely everywhere, but even in Vatican City. Just a Catholic thing, you say? Yeah, no, it even exists outside of Christianity as a whole, like that recent issue with the Dalai Lama.

[Dracoco OwO]

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

What exactly are most of you referring to with "grooming"? Grooming is more than just kid diddling, you can groom people into religion, ideology, sexuality, identities, etc. When most people talk about LGBTQ grooming, it's mostly trans grooming they're referring to.

It's disgusting how you people misappropriate the word grooming, you've done nothing but hurt actual sexual assault victims. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I thought grooming kits were made to cut your beard hair?

[krag hag]

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

Grooming:
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity."

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

[krag hag]

Dracoco OwO eredeti hozzászólása:

I thought grooming kits were made to cut your beard hair?

Grooming kits make your beard gay

[Dracoco OwO]

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

Grooming:
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity."

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

Except absolutely not, peoples aren't braindead yet, it means what it means if they are unhappy we direct them to the actual definition.

[Polverrati]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

No way you aren't being intentionally dishonest at this point, considering you decided to pull the police definition in the UK rather than the actual ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dictionary definition.

Grooming:
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity."

Are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ me? It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ criminal activity, who else should know best about those if not the police?

Also, did you seriously say that "the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity" is the definition of "grooming", really? Is this some kind of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke?

By that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "definition" of yours, every single coach of every single sport is a "groomer" then, makes sense.

Holy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

It's not always a criminal activity. As I said before, you can be groomed into religion, ideology, sexuality, identity, etc. And kids should not be groomed into transitioning, this is common sense to anyone that isn't either a moron or a degenerate.

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

Grooming:
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity."

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

Except I was never referring to sexual abuse, that's your problem not mine.

[Dracoco OwO]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

No way you aren't being intentionally dishonest at this point, considering you decided to pull the police definition in the UK rather than the actual ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dictionary definition.

Grooming:
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity."

Are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ me? It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ criminal activity, who else should know best about those if not the police?

Also, did you seriously say that "the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity" is the definition of "grooming", really? Is this some kind of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke?

By that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "definition" of yours, every single coach of every single sport is a "groomer" then, makes sense. My tennis coach was a "groomer" because he was training me for a particular activity which was tennis in that case.

Holy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

Do you even hear yourself? How can you even say such absurd things?

Then yes sports teachers are groomers but they just aren't bad ones in a general perspective, but yes that can look or sounds strange but it is accurate.

[Shodan]

Dracoco OwO eredeti hozzászólása:

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

Except absolutely not, peoples aren't braindead yet, it means what it means if they are unhappy we direct them to the actual definition.

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ me? It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ criminal activity, who else should know best about those if not the police?

Also, did you seriously say that "the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity" is the definition of "grooming", really? Is this some kind of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke?

By that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "definition" of yours, every single coach of every single sport is a "groomer" then, makes sense.

Holy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

It's not always a criminal activity. As I said before, you can be groomed into religion, ideology, sexuality, identity, etc. And kids should not be groomed into transitioning, this is common sense to anyone that isn't either a moron or a degenerate.

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

Except I was never referring to sexual abuse, that's your problem not mine.

Then show your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sources for once because it literally is all about sexual abuse or other criminal activity according to every credible source you can find. That was a rhetorical "question" because there are no such sources and you'll just keep repeating ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and avoiding the topic because that's all you got. Talk about morons and degenerates...

Dracoco OwO eredeti hozzászólása:

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ me? It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ criminal activity, who else should know best about those if not the police?

Also, did you seriously say that "the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity" is the definition of "grooming", really? Is this some kind of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke?

By that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "definition" of yours, every single coach of every single sport is a "groomer" then, makes sense. My tennis coach was a "groomer" because he was training me for a particular activity which was tennis in that case.

Holy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

Do you even hear yourself? How can you even say such absurd things?

Then yes sports teachers are groomers but they just aren't bad ones in a general perspective, but yes that can look or sounds strange but it is accurate.

No, that's just not what it is. It sounds strange because it is strange, this is blatant denial and twisting reality.

[trousers]

Dracoco OwO eredeti hozzászólása:

Erin eredeti hozzászólása:

That's an intentionally blurry definition because you know people will default to thinking you're talking about sexual abuse

Except absolutely not, peoples aren't braindead yet, it means what it means if they are unhappy we direct them to the actual definition.

If someone says "groomed to be someone's successor" that's one thing but if I call someone a "groomer" that really is more or less just calling them a paedophile. That's the entire point behind using it as a word. It is used to slur and slander people with a predatory and immoral thing. That is the context. Language is predicated on context and use and dictionary definitions only exist to try and define at least some of that.

The predominant use is to tell someone they're taking advantage of others to use them for sex. Predominantly underage others.

Experiment: ask random people you know to define what a groomer is. You'll find very similar answers

Edit: also sorry for Kramering into this and also I have a degree in English (lmao) so I should clearly know better I am so sorry for being extremely wrong

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Snow ☯ eredeti hozzászólása:

No, the myth about priests is largely there because of all the jokes around it. It does happen, but teachers by far abuse kids way more.

Ah yes, the "myth" which is just a result of some random "jokes" that I have never even seen anywhere, makes sense. Is that why this huge problem is widely acknowledged locally and globally, even by Vatican City? Like how the Soviet Union acknowledged that the Moon landing was indeed real, but people are still denying it and calling it Cold War propaganda?

You Down With O.P.P.? eredeti hozzászólása:

You just don't like that you implied it and got caught implying such vile stuff. You know very well your group has done it and will continue to do it. Not all of them but very few of them do and you know it.

Quote the part where it's implied.

Again, isolated incidents always have existed and always will exist, when it comes to everyone and everything, that's nothing worth mentioning because it's really obvious to anyone with a bare minimum of common sense. Isolated incidents are not representative and they are not actual problems.

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

They're children, allowing them or anyone else to alter their bodies is moronic at best. I do care, that's the difference between us, people who are okay with doing this to children are just virtue signalling and going with whatever the current thing is and it honestly disgusts me.

Why is it moronic? You only care about the fact that you see it as moronic and disgusting despite it being none of your business, but you don't care about how the people that this stuff actually concerns see it. Talk about moronic...

Yet you blame churches for grooming kids yet they are only very isolated incidents.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Snow ☯ eredeti hozzászólása:

No, the myth about priests is largely there because of all the jokes around it. It does happen, but teachers by far abuse kids way more.

Ah yes, the "myth" which is just a result of some random "jokes" that I have never even seen anywhere, makes sense. Is that why this huge problem is widely acknowledged locally and globally, even by Vatican City? Like how the Soviet Union acknowledged that the Moon landing was indeed real, but people are still denying it and calling it Cold War propaganda?

You Down With O.P.P.? eredeti hozzászólása:

You just don't like that you implied it and got caught implying such vile stuff. You know very well your group has done it and will continue to do it. Not all of them but very few of them do and you know it.

Quote the part where it's implied.

Again, isolated incidents always have existed and always will exist, when it comes to everyone and everything, that's nothing worth mentioning because it's really obvious to anyone with a bare minimum of common sense. Isolated incidents are not representative and they are not actual problems.

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

They're children, allowing them or anyone else to alter their bodies is moronic at best. I do care, that's the difference between us, people who are okay with doing this to children are just virtue signalling and going with whatever the current thing is and it honestly disgusts me.

Why is it moronic? You only care about the fact that you see it as moronic and disgusting despite it being none of your business, but you don't care about how the people that this stuff actually concerns see it. Talk about moronic...

I'm not saying Priests don't do it, just saying that if we're going to look at this problem teachers are by far the people we need to focus on our attention on.

[Shodan]

Nekoborg eredeti hozzászólása:

Please respect those with a different opinion than yours and please stop being so abusive towards them.

You have nothing more relevant to the actual topic to say? No surprise.

Anyway, what about them respecting not just different opinions, but actual facts? What about them actually abusing people and not letting them make their own choices? That's fine? When they start being "abusive" first, that's fine? When I respond, with facts, that's not fine?

Yeah, no, that's not how it works.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

a geezer eredeti hozzászólása:

If someone says "groomed to be someone's successor" that's one thing but if I call someone a "groomer" that really is more or less just calling them a paedophile. That's the entire point behind using it as a word. It is used to slur and slander people with a predatory and immoral thing. That is the context. Language is predicated on context and use and dictionary definitions only exist to try and define at least some of that.

The predominant use is to tell someone they're taking advantage of others to use them for sex. Predominantly underage others.

Experiment: ask random people you know to define what a groomer is. You'll find very similar answers

I was just about to add that context matters.

Grooming also refers to brushing, like when it comes to horses, but we all know we're not talking about ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ horses here, yet some people will still pretend like it's just me assuming that we're not talking about horses because I'm ♥♥♥♥♥♥ in the head, but it might as well be about horses.

Absolutely disgusting and pathetic behavior. The cheapest possible "moves" by people with zero arguments.

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

Read. A. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Dictionary. You. Absolute. Moron.

You not liking the OFFICIAL ENGLISH DEFINITION of the word is not MY problem. You also have no idea what "degenerate" means, so you trying an "I'm rubber your glue" dig just made you look actually brain dead.

Learn to read context. You're not talking about brushing a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ horse when you talk about "trans agenda", but that's also a perfectly legitimate definition of "grooming", but you don't talk about that one because it's clear as day that's not the actual topic, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dumbass.

You Down With O.P.P.? eredeti hozzászólása:

Yet you blame churches for grooming kids yet they are only very isolated incidents.

They're not very isolated incidents, deny it all you want. The Soviet Union acknowledged the Moon landing, yet people are still calling it American propaganda from the Cold War. Absolute nonsense.

Not all churches molest or groom kids like you seem to be saying in the op of this thread.

[Polverrati]

Shodan eredeti hozzászólása:

Nekoborg eredeti hozzászólása:

Please respect those with a different opinion than yours and please stop being so abusive towards them.

You have nothing more relevant to the actual topic to say? No surprise.

Anyway, what about them respecting not just different opinions, but actual facts? What about them actually abusing people and not letting them make their own choices? That's fine? When they start being "abusive" first, that's fine? When I respond, with facts, that's not fine?

Yeah, no, that's not how it works.

"When I respond with facts"
Where's the meme of Obama giving himself a medal when I need it?

[Dracoco OwO]

I was speaking within the context of the sentance not about the word on it's own but alright.

[Shodan]

Corthmic eredeti hozzászólása:

I was never using the term "grooming" in the legal sense you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nitwit, if you perceived it that way it's YOUR problem. Regardless, all your doing is deflecting. You have nothing of value to say about my actual point, so now it's "YOU USE WORD WRONG" because you have nothing. You're a dishonest moron, nothing more. Now either give me an actual point or I'm gonna do what the tree providing you oxygen should do and ignore you.

So, are we talking about brushing horses here then? That's also grooming. Why don't you think of "trans agenda" as brushing horses when you talk about grooming? Why?

You are not in the position to ask me to answer your "actual points", you have none, you'll never have any because you're not capable of understanding the most basic ♥♥♥♥, I'm the one who made points and even if you made any, I made them first, you're just avoiding the topic and making it seem like it's the other way round, but it's not.