The modern woman has a career and children, all without the help of any man...

[SweetSue92]

Who thinks they don’t? It’s 2019...what the fuck! This is the result of “women’s studies “ indoctrination classes. ITS 2019...WHY ARE YOU WRITING LIKE ITS 1919? Do you have any understanding of what the real world is like?

I have never taken any "women's studies" course. My courses were in history, political science, and law. I went to school before there was such a thing as "women's studies." I must point out that how women (over half of the population) got the vote was never mentioned during my schooling. My courses were incomplete. Why was this not taught to us? Half of the population attaining the blessings of democracy is not an important issue? The history of voting rights, not only of women, but also of African-Americans, is incredibly important in the history of our country and democracy. The "women's studies" courses are only meant to fill in the blanks left in the traditional teaching of history.

I do not mean to erase the lives of female people who already lived on this continent and I respect them, such as the women of the Iroquois Confederacy, but do you actually think that European (white) men arrived alone, no women among them, to establish the country you claim?

I cover the Iroquois Confederacy and role of women within it during my first unit of study. In fact getting ready to go there in about 72 hours. Also trace continuity through time of women in our history from Era of Republican Motherhood all the way to Title IX.

What is "republican motherhood"? What is "republican fatherhood"? You conflate so much that you are incomprehensible.

Post Constitutional Convention during our early Federalists Period. Women had a role to play in our society by finding good suitors of high moral character and raising boys (who would eventually go into politics) that would later push for higher education for women and a larger role for them in public policy. You do know that the official title of our country is “The Constitutional Democratic Republic of the United States of America.” We are a “Republic.” That’s a type of political system. You should look it-up.

Don't even try to patronize me. Why were there no women at the constitutional convention? Why was there no role for women in public policy to begin with? You completely skip over the fact that women, one half of the population, were completely fenced out of the political process by men to begin with and then men constructed a fantasy that they somehow represented women. This has nothing to do with raising children.

Voting is a direct demonstration of the individual's will. Supposedly we have a nation based on government by the will of the people. One half of the people are female. Yet this half of the people had to fight for it.

It's a crying shame, then, that most women vote like absolute dunderheads, isn't it?

 

[SweetSue92]

Women at times can give conflicting messages. I hate to admit this but I can be hard to handle. I am very independent. I also am very successful in my career. I purchased my own home, which I don’t get to enjoy nearly as much as I like because I travel 2 weeks out of the month and sometimes more. I don’t need a dude who makes as much as me but he has to be able to handle my strong personality. I’m not looking to be a mommy to a man.

The feminine movement did create confusion about family roles. Let’s face it, women were the losers in many ways but things are changing and men are more involved in raising kids and helping around the home.

It’s a conundrum.

I've seen many families like yours at school, where the mom travels quite a bit. These days, with telecommuting, the dad usually works from home. It works out.

 

[SweetSue92]

The fundie phoney "Christians" seem to have a preoccupation with sex in all of its forms, heterosexuality, homosexuality. When are you idiots just going to get over it and shut up? Sex has been around for millennia. Go home, do what you will, actually talk to the person in your bed, and shut the hell up.

What are you raving about?

Sometimes her meds wear off or a pin comes loose and she rants like this. I have no idea why, but she gets out the ColorForms and starts playing around with the characters in her head.

Sortof entertaining, if there's nothing else going on. I guess.

 

[SweetSue92]

Sure there were. Good times are not vastly different from Good Old Days.


What is your point in fighting against the idea of the 50s as a time of "Good old days"?

It's operating from a place of nostalgia and does not accurately represent the time period.

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

 

[Vastator]

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

Quote, with link, or waste someone else’s time. I already told you once I won’t waste time on proven liars. And I have proven you a liar.

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

I did provide the quote. And the link.

Actually you just went back amended a previous post you made. But I’ll take it. After all, what I actually said is much more correct, than what you have claimed that I have said.

I didn't edit a thing. I just made a new post with your full quote and the link since you were whining about it. You have still said what you said and you're still in a quandary of your own words, which you tried to pass off on me for "lying". I did not lie and I don't appreciate that. I don't like internet games of "if you don't quote me exactly you're lying". Nope. Everyone can see I gave a totally fair representation of what you said.

Again: by your statement, biologically a man can or should leave his wife when her fertility declines and the children are grown so he can spread his seed. If you have an argument against this, make it.

Actually when you “quote” someone, and put words they never said in quotes, it is lying regardless of how you feel about it. Libel specifically. It’s often done by forum goers here who rather than engage a posters actual words; builds a strawman by misrepresenting what was actually said, and debating that instead.

And yes, I’ve said what I said. Obviously. And what I said is correct. In all that I actually did say; nowhere did I mention what a man “should” do when a woman’s fertility declines. It was never made mention by me in the other thread either. You were the only poster who injected that material into the discourse.

 

[Correll]

The fundie phoney "Christians" seem to have a preoccupation with sex in all of its forms, heterosexuality, homosexuality. When are you idiots just going to get over it and shut up? Sex has been around for millennia. Go home, do what you will, actually talk to the person in your bed, and shut the hell up.

What are you raving about?

The phony "Christians" who constantly obsess with sex and other people's sex lives. Oh "abstinence only," "keep your knees together," "gays are terrible." Blah blah blah. Why are these jerks doing this? Why can't they just stay home and do whatever? Always snooping and bleating. There are much more important things to be worried about in this world than what one's neighbor is doing in bed. Keep personal things private and get on with it. People are starving in this world.

I am so tired with this junk brand of Christianity.

If people like you kept your personal things private, instead of demanding pubic celebration of them, you would have a lot more of a point.

 

[Correll]

It's operating from a place of nostalgia and does not accurately represent the time period.

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

Quote, with link, or waste someone else’s time. I already told you once I won’t waste time on proven liars. And I have proven you a liar.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

I did provide the quote. And the link.

Actually you just went back amended a previous post you made. But I’ll take it. After all, what I actually said is much more correct, than what you have claimed that I have said.

I didn't edit a thing. I just made a new post with your full quote and the link since you were whining about it. You have still said what you said and you're still in a quandary of your own words, which you tried to pass off on me for "lying". I did not lie and I don't appreciate that. I don't like internet games of "if you don't quote me exactly you're lying". Nope. Everyone can see I gave a totally fair representation of what you said.

Again: by your statement, biologically a man can or should leave his wife when her fertility declines and the children are grown so he can spread his seed. If you have an argument against this, make it.

Actually when you “quote” someone, and put words they never said in quotes, it is lying regardless of how you feel about it. Libel specifically. It’s often done by forum goers here who rather than engage a posters actual words; builds a strawman by misrepresenting what was actually said, and debating that instead.

And yes, I’ve said what I said. Obviously. And what I said is correct. In all that I actually did say; nowhere did I mention what a man “should” do when a woman’s fertility declines. It was never made mention by me in the other thread either. You were the only poster who injected that material into the discourse.

The ONLY thing I put in quotes was "biological imperative", which you actually did type. So really, YOU are the one being dishonest here. Go back and look. So get out of here, crying about "libel". REALLY.

Now, it seems you STILL cannot figure out where your worldview is, and I suspect that is why you're whining about lying and libel and all manner of other things. I cannot help that. This is what happens to humans locked in a worldview where they make themselves god.

 

[SweetSue92]

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

I think conservatives and liberals are just skeptical about different things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about the future (I know I am) whereas liberals tend to be skeptical about the past. Those are generalizations, but they hold mostly true, I think.

 

[Bush92]

It's operating from a place of nostalgia and does not accurately represent the time period.

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Kinda like dope addicts today walking the strip for their pimp.

 

[Bush92]

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

I think conservatives and liberals are just skeptical about different things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about the future (I know I am) whereas liberals tend to be skeptical about the past. Those are generalizations, but they hold mostly true, I think.

Are we better off today than we were in, let’s say, 1962? I don’t think we are.

 

[Correll]

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

I think conservatives and liberals are just skeptical about different things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about the future (I know I am) whereas liberals tend to be skeptical about the past. Those are generalizations, but they hold mostly true, I think.

But is that the result of conservatives being more skeptical of futures in general, or the fact that our current crop of likely futures are looking like crap?

Ditto for the past.

 

[thanatos144]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

How did the Democrats create this, exactly?

What happens today is a woman doesn't feel the need to marry a loser just because he donated some sperm. Now it would be nice if they picked their men better, but the idea of freedom is sometimes, you get to make the wrong choices.

And this is the idiocy that creates crazy incels

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

"creates crazy INCELS"......it's women's fault for INCELs?

Yes it is. Thier bad choices

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SweetSue92]

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Kinda like dope addicts today walking the strip for their pimp.

Worse actually. Prostitution is horrible but physically keeping women in cages and doping them...their bodies falling apart from syphilis....

This is taken in San Francisco in 1890

 

[thanatos144]

1 in 4 women experience abuse. It isn't just the left who created this situation.

I question your statistic.

I could as easily say that 1 in 4 women are abusive, and just as easily defend it with tales of children beaten and left alone.

But neither figure is truthful in a meaningful way.

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in this country before they reach 18.....most by hetero male family members and friends. These are "men"?

That is a bullshit stat taken from a statement of a idiot sheriff

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SweetSue92]

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

I think conservatives and liberals are just skeptical about different things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about the future (I know I am) whereas liberals tend to be skeptical about the past. Those are generalizations, but they hold mostly true, I think.

Are we better off today than we were in, let’s say, 1962? I don’t think we are.

We are better off in:

--Civil rights for minorities (despite the Left going on about racism)
--Technology and advancement
--Career opportunities for women

We are worse off in:

--Morality
--Marriage and divorce rates
--Stable homes for children

And you could probably add a lot more to both lists. Generally, because the last three are so big, I think we are headed down. But not everything is downward.

 

[Correll]

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Kinda like dope addicts today walking the strip for their pimp.

Worse actually. Prostitution is horrible but physically keeping women in cages and doping them...their bodies falling apart from syphilis....

This is taken in San Francisco in 1890

If, looking at history, we are only allowed to consider "good old days" any time or culture that did not have prostitution,

then history just became a lot less useful.


Not to mention, this skepticism of history is not limited to just formal prostitution. So, really, we dont' get to look back at anything with anything except varying levels of shame.


That is us though. I get the feeling that other people and groups, will be allowed to be proud of their histories, and heritages.

 

[Vastator]

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

Quote, with link, or waste someone else’s time. I already told you once I won’t waste time on proven liars. And I have proven you a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

I did provide the quote. And the link.

Actually you just went back amended a previous post you made. But I’ll take it. After all, what I actually said is much more correct, than what you have claimed that I have said.

I didn't edit a thing. I just made a new post with your full quote and the link since you were whining about it. You have still said what you said and you're still in a quandary of your own words, which you tried to pass off on me for "lying". I did not lie and I don't appreciate that. I don't like internet games of "if you don't quote me exactly you're lying". Nope. Everyone can see I gave a totally fair representation of what you said.

Again: by your statement, biologically a man can or should leave his wife when her fertility declines and the children are grown so he can spread his seed. If you have an argument against this, make it.

Actually when you “quote” someone, and put words they never said in quotes, it is lying regardless of how you feel about it. Libel specifically. It’s often done by forum goers here who rather than engage a posters actual words; builds a strawman by misrepresenting what was actually said, and debating that instead.

And yes, I’ve said what I said. Obviously. And what I said is correct. In all that I actually did say; nowhere did I mention what a man “should” do when a woman’s fertility declines. It was never made mention by me in the other thread either. You were the only poster who injected that material into the discourse.

The ONLY thing I put in quotes was "biological imperative", which you actually did type. So really, YOU are the one being dishonest here. Go back and look. So get out of here, crying about "libel". REALLY.

Now, it seems you STILL cannot figure out where your worldview is, and I suspect that is why you're whining about lying and libel and all manner of other things. I cannot help that. This is what happens to humans locked in a worldview where they make themselves god.

I’m referring to the other thread, where you not only intentionally falsely attributed a quote to me, you also claimed I underlined it; both of which were patently false. You then unabashedly went on to say how you’d not quibble about your own deceit, when called out on it. You’ve never even so much as made an empty apology. You have demonstrated across a number of threads; a habit of mirrpresenting other posters words, claiming they said things they didn’t, claiming that they meant something other than what they’ve actually said, then going on a strawman slaying expidition against statements of your own creation. Then repeating the cycle all the while trying to justify the dishonest behavior. No productive discourse can be had with someone of such character.
As for my mention of libel? I’m simply pointing out that the type of dishonest behavior you engaged in, is so prevalent that it has a specific name. It matters not that you like it. If you don’t like it; the solution is simple. Modify your behavior, and quit doing it.
Other people read the content you offer, and any person can also notice when a person espouses the virtues of a religious doctrine, only to turn around and engage in behavior that is contrary to said doctrine. That’s why they get called hypocrites. And rightly so. If one would wish to garner the respect of others when it comes to espousing doctrine; it’s most effective to walk it like you talk it.

 

[SweetSue92]

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Kinda like dope addicts today walking the strip for their pimp.

Worse actually. Prostitution is horrible but physically keeping women in cages and doping them...their bodies falling apart from syphilis....

This is taken in San Francisco in 1890

If, looking at history, we are only allowed to consider "good old days" any time or culture that did not have prostitution,

then history just became a lot less useful.


Not to mention, this skepticism of history is not limited to just formal prostitution. So, really, we dont' get to look back at anything with anything except varying levels of shame.


That is us though. I get the feeling that other people and groups, will be allowed to be proud of their histories, and heritages.

I think you just made my point for me, ending with "good old days". Right?

Maybe there were "good old days" for a lot of people and they were hell on earth for others. In fact if you are Christian, this falls right in line with the Christian worldview. You can go back to the Epistles and find out what was creeping into the brand new Christian churches just after Jesus left the earth, for pity's sake. That was a LONG time ago, and yet people seemed to be pretty depraved.

I mean way back at the time of Noah--a very, VERY long time ago--humanity was so depraved God wiped them all out save a bare handful.

So yeah. Boatloads of depravity in our past, marked by some pockets of better times. For my part, I think the better times came largely through Christian/godly influence. But let's not kid ourselves. We still have the propensity for a LOT of sinful crap. And yes, it is getting worse. And it will get worse before the end, tragically.

 

[Correll]

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Kinda like dope addicts today walking the strip for their pimp.

Worse actually. Prostitution is horrible but physically keeping women in cages and doping them...their bodies falling apart from syphilis....

This is taken in San Francisco in 1890

If, looking at history, we are only allowed to consider "good old days" any time or culture that did not have prostitution,

then history just became a lot less useful.


Not to mention, this skepticism of history is not limited to just formal prostitution. So, really, we dont' get to look back at anything with anything except varying levels of shame.


That is us though. I get the feeling that other people and groups, will be allowed to be proud of their histories, and heritages.

I think you just made my point for me, ending with "good old days". Right?

Maybe there were "good old days" for a lot of people and they were hell on earth for others. In fact if you are Christian, this falls right in line with the Christian worldview. You can go back to the Epistles and find out what was creeping into the brand new Christian churches just after Jesus left the earth, for pity's sake. That was a LONG time ago, and yet people seemed to be pretty depraved.

I mean way back at the time of Noah--a very, VERY long time ago--humanity was so depraved God wiped them all out save a bare handful.

So yeah. Boatloads of depravity in our past, marked by some pockets of better times. For my part, I think the better times came largely through Christian/godly influence. But let's not kid ourselves. We still have the propensity for a LOT of sinful crap. And yes, it is getting worse. And it will get worse before the end, tragically.

Being so negative about our pasts, is not healthy.

ANd if this negativity is selective, and I bet it is, then it is just plain old anti-Americanism.