No, it's just acknowledging reality. I would rather leave my kid with a woman than a man (why do you think the stereotypical babysitter/nurse is female?), and with a straight man than a fag.
You're referring to a different debate with different issues. One minute ago you were talking about preventing gay men from being near a kid and now you're talking about gay men not having children (Adopted of course) and I don't want to derail the topic more than that so I'll stop there. Atleast stay consistent.
How concerning a statistic is depends on how severe the outcome is.
Yeah I agree with that. That's why despite being extremely rare, I'm often worried about nuclear plants going off.
When it's something as severe as sexual assault or molestation, you want that chance to be pretty damn close to zero.
It's less severe than murder or an accident that can kill upward thousands of people, so nah especially if it's a petty and small number like this.
This is why women have an innate anxiety over "creeps" and feel uneasy about "nice guys" even if 95% of the time the guy wouldn't do anything inappropriate.
Fair enough, if someone drops red flags that he's a fucking weirdo I'll actively avoid him sure. For example dangerhairs are often very quick to anger and because of that I usually keep my distance, if someone makes you feel like he's dangerous then you have good reasons to believe he is.
Tho I haven't known a single gay who acted creepy either around me or children, so that point is moot. If you did then let people know that person in particular should be avoided, don't make stupid generalisations.
Taking the chance that it might be that 5% is still unacceptable when the possible negative outcome is so devastating.
You said it yourself that people should be wary of creeps when they spot one, let them do that instead of preaching how much gays are going to rape kids.
And this is a case where leftists have a double standard. As you pointed out feminists love to paint straight men as rape machines who just rape rape rape women non stop. But they will screech and scream in outrage if you point out the trends of grooming/pedophilia among fags.
Both exist and matter and believe it or not, you aren't required to only ever consider one or the other in an autistic total black or white fashion.
Half of the time, that's how politispergs work especially when making rhetorical arguments which you were doing. Nationalists usually view people not as people, but as labels, ironically as much as the intersectional feminists view people either as "the oppressed" or "the oppressor". Most Nationalists don't view niggers as people, they view niggers as niggers and that's a clinically retarded mindset.
There are probably exceptions where the Nationalist or the feminist takes an individualistic stance, but they're the exception not the rule. I also rarely think like a collectivist, but when I do I'll be opposing something that will hurt most people, but may have no impact on me directly.
For instance, I'm very wary of faggotry as an overall social trend while having encountered a couple of fags who I got to know well enough personally that I had some trust in them that they weren't total shitbags.
The way you're wording that, you're basically saying "They're trying to turn the kids gay and I want to stop them".
Homosexuality is purely an impulse, so most people will be either gay or not, simple as that. It can be caused by a worm, by pornography consumption, by mental ailments or in some rare cases the guy just hate women, but still wants to be in a relationship. There's no clique or cult that tries to groom children to be gay unlike the troons with which there are dozens upon dozens of examples in the farms alone.
What may be happening is that since homosexuality is normalised people are more likely to admit to it, they are basically coming out of the closet. Gays who were married to women have also dropped them completely for a gay lifestyle since the beginning of the millenium and whilst that's shitty and basically adultery, the fact is that there are gay people who were predestined to be gay, but instead of accepting their vice they wore a facade to be accepted into society.
Likewise I've had plenty of positive interactions with black people on an individual level, but if I were choosing a neighborhood to move into and one was majority white while the other was majority black, which one do you think I should pick?
I'd pick the upper class neighbourhood with the nice looking houses rather than the neighbourhood in the suburban areas with the old ass cracking houses.
Despite being a mostly white city, I wouldn't live in Detroit because Detroit is basically a shithole, now I would be very happy to live in a place like Rome although everyone there is brown skinned. Granted most cities in Africa are bigger shitholes than Detroit, so I thought that Rome would atleast make my point, but anyways.
In America specifically there are some nice looking neighbourhoods with mostly black people living that I wouldn't mind living with. Not everyone there would be nice, but I'd atleast try to make friends before I decide whether I want to stay or not. If you can get along with everyone around then you should stay man. There are also white neighbourhoods infested with Karens and lefty poltards I certainly don't want to live with Karens and social justice warriors.
