Page 158 of 206 FirstFirst ... 58108148155156157158159160161168 ... LastLast
Results 2,356 to 2,370 of 3079

Thread: Chaos and the Anti-Thread

  1. #2356
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    People are free to live by their values. They are not free to make others live by their values. If a person believes in personal responsibility then they must leave this most important one of all, the choice to have and raise a child, to the woman, the couple, the family. Any other approach is immoral and is no part of personal responsibility.

    The lies of the justices to Congress under oath undermines our system tremendously. It's a travesty.

    Alito points to 'another life'. This is a religious and moral issue which the Supreme Court understood to be part of privacy and personal responsibility. He and his minions have just taken a big fat shit on themselves and the court.

    As for all those years of hearing "Liberal fear mongering!!" Those folks can shove those words right down their own throats. They were either epically stupid or blatant liars or utterly deluded.

    When exceptions are not given for the life of the mother, for the circumstances of incest, of rape, of the fact that it could be a young girl who is pregnant, it shows that we've installed people who are Supremely Unqualified for the job.

    Well, the confirmation process was a shit show of lies, flip-flopping, and reneging on promises regarding election years. No surprise there. These dirtbags have lived up to my worst expectations.

    Sadly.
    Lies are so easy to see. Of all the people I've seen on this coverage that obviously isn't lying in some form or fashion is Susan Collins. She bought it which doesn't place her high on the scale of people to be depended on, she is being honest.

    Not to go off-topic, but Biden's approval ratings are another example of how depraved (e.g. S-T-U-P-I-D) we are is that anyone is not happy because of the state of the world and holding Biden responsible. I hated the Golden One because he was a degenerate, not because of irrelevant issues like the economy. The economy is owned by corporatists and to expect any politician to have real control of that is a hilarious expectation. Of course, the right can be depended upon to f*ck just about anybody if they can gain from it. Tragically senseless is that rural communities actually believe any of that. The days of the government subsidizing their lives is over, but they still have support for their xenophobic hatreds and racism.

    Since Clarence Thomas, the right has been appointing justices that are reflections of themselves, idiot mother-f*ckers that think it is 1776.

    Quote Originally posted by Octopus Garden View Post
    "It just occurred to me that it is somewhat ironic when considering Gone with the Wind won over Dorothy's having gone with the wind."

    That's funny! They should have swapped names, "Gone with the Wind" for Dorothy's story with"The Wizard of Frankly Scarlet I Don't Give a Damn.'

    Wizard of Oz was a yearly ritual for us too. I loved that movie. Flying monkeys creeped me out a bit!
    Creeped me out a bunch, but I had friends that would nearly go apoplectic when those suckers started flying.
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022)

  3. #2357
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    6th October 2019
    Posts
    211
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked 469 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    People are free to live by their values. They are not free to make others live by their values. If a person believes in personal responsibility then they must leave this most important one of all, the choice to have and raise a child, to the woman, the couple, the family. Any other approach is immoral and is no part of personal responsibility.
    They already have the power to make the choice to not have children even if abortion is illegal. This is obvious, so it makes no sense how this issue is made to be such a concern for people compared to much more important issues in our world.

    Values should be promoted in a society if they are beneficial to a society as a whole

    However, I also believe in a society that is more supportive of mothers and working class people in general, which should be addressed before banning abortion to make it easier to support mothers.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sourcetruth For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Aragorn (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (6th May 2022), Gio (6th May 2022)

  5. #2358
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    7,207
    Thanks
    33,719
    Thanked 27,307 Times in 7,221 Posts
    The Real Origins of the Religious Right

    One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

    This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

    Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

    But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

    ***

    Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

    When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

    Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

    ***

    So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

    In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

    In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

    On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

    ***

    Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

    In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

    “The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

    But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

    The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

    One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

    Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation. For decades, evangelical leaders had boasted that because their educational institutions accepted no federal money (except for, of course, not having to pay taxes) the government could not tell them how to run their shops—whom to hire or not, whom to admit or reject. The Civil Rights Act, however, changed that calculus.

    Bob Jones University did, in fact, try to placate the IRS—in its own way. Following initial inquiries into the school’s racial policies, Bob Jones admitted one African-American, a worker in its radio station, as a part-time student; he dropped out a month later. In 1975, again in an attempt to forestall IRS action, the school admitted blacks to the student body, but, out of fears of miscegenation, refused to admit unmarried African-Americans. The school also stipulated that any students who engaged in interracial dating, or who were even associated with organizations that advocated interracial dating, would be expelled.

    The IRS was not placated. On January 19, 1976, after years of warnings—integrate or pay taxes—the agency rescinded the school’s tax exemption.

    For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”

    ***

    Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

    But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the ire of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale.

    By the late 1970s, many Americans—not just Roman Catholics—were beginning to feel uneasy about the spike in legal abortions following the 1973 Roe decision. The 1978 Senate races demonstrated to Weyrich and others that abortion might motivate conservatives where it hadn’t in the past. That year in Minnesota, pro-life Republicans captured both Senate seats (one for the unexpired term of Hubert Humphrey) as well as the governor’s mansion. In Iowa, Sen. Dick Clark, the Democratic incumbent, was thought to be a shoo-in: Every poll heading into the election showed him ahead by at least 10 percentage points. On the final weekend of the campaign, however, pro-life activists, primarily Roman Catholics, leafleted church parking lots (as they did in Minnesota), and on Election Day Clark lost to his Republican pro-life challenger.

    In the course of my research into Falwell’s archives at Liberty University and Weyrich’s papers at the University of Wyoming, it became very clear that the 1978 election represented a formative step toward galvanizing everyday evangelical voters. Correspondence between Weyrich and evangelical leaders fairly crackles with excitement. In a letter to fellow conservative Daniel B. Hales, Weyrich characterized the triumph of pro-life candidates as “true cause for celebration,” and Robert Billings, a cobelligerent, predicted that opposition to abortion would “pull together many of our ‘fringe’ Christian friends.” Roe v. Wade had been law for more than five years.

    Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer—a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.

    Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. At the conclusion of the film tour in March 1979, Schaeffer reported that Protestants, especially evangelicals, “have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too.”

    By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes.

    Carter lost the 1980 election for a variety of reasons, not merely the opposition of the religious right. He faced a spirited challenge from within his own party; Edward M. Kennedy’s failed quest for the Democratic nomination undermined Carter’s support among liberals. And because Election Day fell on the anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis, the media played up the story, highlighting Carter’s inability to secure the hostages’ freedom. The electorate, once enamored of Carter’s evangelical probity, had tired of a sour economy, chronic energy shortages and the Soviet Union’s renewed imperial ambitions.

    After the election results came in, Falwell, never shy to claim credit, was fond of quoting a Harris poll that suggested Carter would have won the popular vote by a margin of 1 percent had it not been for the machinations of the religious right. “I knew that we would have some impact on the national elections,” Falwell said, “but I had no idea that it would be this great.”

    Given Carter’s political troubles, the defection of evangelicals may or may not have been decisive. But it is certainly true that evangelicals, having helped propel Carter to the White House four years earlier, turned dramatically against him, their fellow evangelical, during the course of his presidency. And the catalyst for their political activism was not, as often claimed, opposition to abortion. Although abortion had emerged as a rallying cry by 1980, the real roots of the religious right lie not the defense of a fetus but in the defense of racial segregation.

    ***

    The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Aragorn (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (6th May 2022), Gio (6th May 2022), Octopus Garden (6th May 2022)

  7. #2359
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Business as usual Wind.
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022), Gio (6th May 2022), Wind (7th May 2022)

  9. #2360
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,974 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by sourcetruth View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    People are free to live by their values. They are not free to make others live by their values. If a person believes in personal responsibility then they must leave this most important one of all, the choice to have and raise a child, to the woman, the couple, the family. Any other approach is immoral and is no part of personal responsibility.
    They already have the power to make the choice to not have children even if abortion is illegal. This is obvious, so it makes no sense how this issue is made to be such a concern for people compared to much more important issues in our world.
    Not quite. A woman who gets pregnant because of rape never got that choice. Does she really have to go though nine months of pregnancy — with all of its discomforts — followed by the agony of giving birth to the child of a rapist? And then I'm not even touching upon the subject of when the rapist turns out to be a close blood relative, such as the woman/girl's father, or uncle, or grandfather, or elder brother.

    Every day of that pregnancy, the woman/girl in question is being confronted with the violent memories, the false guilt, the shame and the humiliation of having been raped. And then the baby is born, and what does she have to do then? Does she have to raise it? Will she give it up for adoption? And then how will she feel about that later in her life?

    Sexual abuse is the worst of all crimes, because it is the most invasive/intrusive one, and the victim has to live with that trauma for the rest of their life — and possibly even beyond.

    If you want to look at things from the spiritual angle, then there is yet time before a soul will enter the fetus. A soul may decide to bind to a fetus, but normally, they would know when the fetus isn't going to survive the pregnancy, because unborn souls exist in a more timeless environment where such things are known in advance, and so the chances of a soul binding with a fetus that is going to be aborted are small. But binding is not the same thing yet as entering.

    Things should be safe during the first term, and especially during the first six weeks. At that point, you cannot even call it a baby just yet. At that point it's still only just a mass of human cells, kept alive by the nutrients transferred to it from the mother through the placenta.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (6th May 2022), sourcetruth (6th May 2022), Wind (7th May 2022)

  11. #2361
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    6th October 2019
    Posts
    211
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked 469 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Not quite. A woman who gets pregnant because of rape never got that choice.
    You are right, and I do believe it should be legal for rape and incest.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    If you want to look at things from the spiritual angle, then there is yet time before a soul will enter the fetus. A soul may decide to bind to a fetus, but normally, they would know when the fetus isn't going to survive the pregnancy, because unborn souls exist in a more timeless environment where such things are known in advance, and so the chances of a soul binding with a fetus that is going to be aborted are small. But binding is not the same thing yet as entering.

    Things should be safe during the first term, and especially during the first six weeks. At that point, you cannot even call it a baby just yet. At that point it's still only just a mass of human cells, kept alive by the nutrients transferred to it from the mother through the placenta.
    That makes sense. Although it is not the main reason for why I am thinking the way that I do about this topic. This was my first post here:
    I disagree with conservatives on many things, but this is one of the things which I may agree with them on. My reasoning is based on the culture of promoting conservative values when it comes to sexuality that are based in tradition.
    I am not a conservative politically, but I do believe in traditional sexual and family values.
    I'm not sure if this justifies making abortion illegal, and I am not sure about my stance on making abortion illegal, but it makes me lean more towards it. I am just against the hyper sexuality in western culture, and I feel like abortion legalization is promoting and tolerating that in a sense.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sourcetruth For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2022), Aragorn (6th May 2022), Dreamtimer (7th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (6th May 2022), Wind (7th May 2022)

  13. #2362
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,974 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by sourcetruth View Post
    I am not a conservative politically, but I do believe in traditional sexual and family values.
    I'm not sure if this justifies making abortion illegal, and I am not sure about my stance on making abortion illegal, but it makes me lean more towards it. I am just against the hyper sexuality in western culture, and I feel like abortion legalization is promoting and tolerating that in a sense.
    I can understand, appreciate and share your thoughts on the hyper-sexualization of our western society. I too feel that abortion should not be used as a go-to solution for an unwanted pregnancy caused by a woman's promiscuous or otherwise irresponsible behavior. But at the same time, I do not feel that this aspect of life should be decided upon at the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government. No branch of government should ever be allowed to intervene in anyone's personal life, and no government should have any jurisdiction over anyone's sex life, even if said sex life revolves around promiscuity and irresponsibility. Those are all personal things, unless of course any given person's sex life includes or entirely consists of the sexual abuse of other beings.

    I am also of the opinion that having children is not a right but a privilege. Children are not pets that are to be inserted into a household to make a woman feel more appreciative of herself as a human being, or so as to save her failing marriage, or "because everyone else is having children too". Children are human beings, not status symbols, pets or luxury items.

    At the same time, I am also opined that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children just as easily as opposite-sex couples if their reasons for wanting to have children are solid. But here's the thing... I don't know how easy or how difficult it is in the USA to adopt a child, but over here in Belgium, you basically have to jump though a bunch of burning hoops to qualify, and even then there will still be a regular followup from a government official during the parenting itself. Couples who conceive and have children born to them naturally don't have to go through any such scrutiny, and then many of those children will be damaged by having to grow up in a dysfunctional and/or broken household. And quite often — not always, but often enough — such a traumatic upbringing goes unnoticed by the members of society until it's too late.

    It's not a matter of being liberal or conservative for me, but a matter of common sense, responsibility, and mutual respect — all of them having become such vague if not extinct concepts in today's human mind.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (7th May 2022), sourcetruth (6th May 2022), Wind (7th May 2022)

  15. #2363
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    A traumatized girl who is pregnant will not have a good biological state for that embryo as it develops. Babies are not more healthy under these sorts of stress, they are less healthy.

    It's stupid and short-sighted in every way.

    A girl could be rendered unable to have any more babies.

    And Alito seems to have missed the boat on state legislations and how much they literally ignore laws they've created, not to mention the systematic disenfranchisement of poor folks and women.

    He seems to be supremely dim for a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe that's why it took nearly a hundred pages. That's a lot of flaming hoops to jump through.

    Women don't want to use abortion for birth control. They want to use birth control.

    Insurance covers men for all kinds of erectile issues. But not women for their basic reproductive needs. I don't think we need another indicator to demonstrate our backwards attitudes towards women and their reproductive health.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (7th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (7th May 2022), Wind (7th May 2022)

  17. #2364
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    https://equilibria.com/e-colors

    New Personality test ... I'm a Red/Blue. "Relating Doer"
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th May 2022), Wind (10th May 2022)

  19. #2365
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    7,207
    Thanks
    33,719
    Thanked 27,307 Times in 7,221 Posts
    Which character are you?

    https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/characters/

    Apparently I'm a 86 % match with Ben Hargreeves, a character from The Umbrella Academy, I'm not familiar with the series though.

    Ben is a very introverted person. While he was dead, he was scared to go into the light and spent time hanging out with his brother Klaus. It often became exhausted for him to watch and supervise his brother, due to Klaus always acting very volatile and harming himself. Ben cares very deeply for Klaus, and had FOMO for the real world. This is proven true, when Ben begs for Klaus to let him possess his body. When Ben is possessing Klaus, he is very happy and extroverted, revealing a side to him none of us have really seen before, He feels happy and freed from all the limits. When he reunites with Diego, they both burst into tears due to Ben's death a long time ago. Ben's usual personality is very stoic because he's always accompanied Klaus, caring and watching over him. This exhausted and drained him. But deep down he is a very happy person who is willing to care for his brother.
    With mean difference I'm 81 % Lester Freamon. Now that's better, it's a good character from a good show although I've only seen some episodes here and there. I love good (fictional) detectives and their wit, well of course I've studied true crimes too quite a bit also.

    Lester Freamon is a fictional character on the HBO drama The Wire, played by actor Clarke Peters. Freamon is a veteran of the Baltimore Police who establishes a positive reputation for his instincts, tenacity and intelligence. He is a wise, methodical detective whose intelligence and experience are often central to investigations throughout the series, particularly with respect to uncovering networks of money laundering and corruption. He sometimes serves as an avuncular figure to several of the characters.
    Last edited by Wind, 11th May 2022 at 20:44.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (12th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (12th May 2022)

  21. #2366
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    I feel sorry for anyone who hooks up with Amber Heard. She's a piece of work, imo.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (20th May 2022), Wind (20th May 2022)

  23. #2367
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    7,207
    Thanks
    33,719
    Thanked 27,307 Times in 7,221 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    I feel sorry for anyone who hooks up with Amber Heard. She's a piece of work, imo.
    She's a famous case of someone with BPD. Imagine all the other victims of them who don't get to tell what they've gone through.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th May 2022), Dreamtimer (24th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (20th May 2022)

  25. #2368
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,974 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    She's a famous case of someone with BPD. Imagine all the other victims of them who don't get to tell what they've gone through.
    Doesn't Angelina Jolie have BPD too? When she got married to Billy-Bob Thornton, her wedding dress was stained with blood because she had carved his name into her arm.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Emil El Zapato (20th May 2022), Wind (20th May 2022)

  27. #2369
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    7,207
    Thanks
    33,719
    Thanked 27,307 Times in 7,221 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Doesn't Angelina Jolie have BPD too?
    Also Halle Berry.

    There have been suspicions about Angelina.

    She has a history of self-harm, substance abuse and turbulent relationships. She seems the "angry type".

    Intense, charming, sensual. Things turned out quite nasty with her and Brad Pitt. Her father seems to be quite nuts.

    She was also my one and only real celebrity crush as a (pre)teen, besides looking drop dead gorgeous I suppose her sass appealed to me.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th May 2022), Dreamtimer (24th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (20th May 2022)

  29. #2370
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,974 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Doesn't Angelina Jolie have BPD too? When she got married to Billy-Bob Thornton, her wedding dress was stained with blood because she had carved his name into her arm.
    Also Halle Berry.
    As well as Naomi Campbell.

    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    There have been suspicions about Angelina.

    She has a history of self-harm, substance abuse and turbulent relationships. She seems the "angry type".

    Intense, charming, sensual. Things turned out quite nasty with her and Brad Pitt. Her father seems to be quite nuts..
    He is, yes. It appears to be running in the family.

    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    She was also my one and only real celebrity crush as a (pre)teen, besides looking drop dead gorgeous I suppose her sass appealed to me.
    Nah, I've never been into Angelina, although I used to have some friends who were. There has always been something about her that turned me off. I've always had this feeling about her that she's like a spider — they tend to want to devour their male partner after (or even during) the act of mating. She's the kind of woman you had better stay away from.

    As for pre-teen crushes, mine was very innocent: Lynsey de Paul. She was blonde, cute, and she didn't smoke, didn't drink and didn't do drugs. She also never got married, even though she's had several romantic relationships — among others, with Sean Connery.

    "Yesh, Mish Moneypenneh, thoshe were the daysh."
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (24th May 2022), Emil El Zapato (20th May 2022), Wind (20th May 2022)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •