posted by vball10set

probably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.

https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/30/flyers-yankees-bow-to-blind-political-correctness-kate-smith/stories/20190430009

Meh.  Private companies doing what they appear to believe is in their best interest.  She was a singer.

I mean, it's worth mentioning, but I can't say this bothers me at all.

without hearing the songs or reading the lyrics my reaction is i couldn't care less if they kept using her rendition of the song  and couldn't care less that they aren't using her renditions of the song either.  i've never been a big proponent of feeling sorry for people who did racist stuff just because everyone was doing racist stuff, because in fact everyone wasn't doing it. there were actually people in those times who recognized that it wasn't right. I also dont think people should be offended by it either.  If it were my business i would make a change.  I will comment again if i run across the lyrics and it changes my opinion i guess

posted by geeblock

I am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense 

1. One way or another the pregnancy is the fault of the mother/father. Why does everyone else have to pay for the child (logically, take feelings out of it). 

2. Christians are for helping your neighbor. Christians are not for the government stealing from me and giving to the neighbor. If you look statistically as a percent of income Christians donate more to charities than other demographics. Christian churches also tend to have far more programs to help feed/clothe/etc those not as fortunate. 

3. The mother/father are not forced to raise the child and therefore are not forced to pay for raising the child. Nearly every state has laws allowing them to drop their baby off at police/fire/hospitals and even plan on giving the baby up for adoption before that point. The argument saying that Christians that are pro-life are forcing mothers to pay for the child is a ridiculous argument and not based in facts. 

posted by geeblock

what if they are informed that the baby has severe medial issues/deformities is that child getting adopted?  people signing up to lose their life savings in medial bills to adopt a child that may or may not live? i doubt it.  What if a person is raped?  should they be forced to have the child?  

You just moved the goalposts as neither of these cases were the original argument. You asked about a woman not being ready financially for a child so Christians should be all for social welfare programs to pay for it. 

Let’s leave the child health/rape/etc cases out for now since they make up less than 4% of all abortion cases. Let’s go back to the case you were talking about before. OTrap lawyer spoke you the similar/same answer that I did just above.

what response do you have to that?

posted by jmog

1. One way or another the pregnancy is the fault of the mother/father. Why does everyone else have to pay for the child (logically, take feelings out of it). 

 

2. Christians are for helping your neighbor. Christians are not for the government stealing from me and giving to the neighbor. If you look statistically as a percent of income Christians donate more to charities than other demographics. Christian churches also tend to have far more programs to help feed/clothe/etc those not as fortunate. 

 

3. The mother/father are not forced to raise the child and therefore are not forced to pay for raising the child. Nearly every state has laws allowing them to drop their baby off at police/fire/hospitals and even plan on giving the baby up for adoption before that point. The argument saying that Christians that are pro-life are forcing mothers to pay for the child is a ridiculous argument and not based in facts. 

No i said they should have the choice to abort the baby. Others say that no they should be forced to have the baby and give it up for adoption so I gave reasons why that solution is not feasible 

posted by jmog

You just moved the goalposts as neither of these cases were the original argument. You asked about a woman not being ready financially for a child so Christians should be all for social welfare programs to pay for it. 

Let’s leave the child health/rape/etc cases out for now since they make up less than 4% of all abortion cases. Let’s go back to the case you were talking about before. OTrap lawyer spoke you the similar/same answer that I did just above.

 

what response do you have to that?

 

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

posted by vball10set

probably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.

https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/30/flyers-yankees-bow-to-blind-political-correctness-kate-smith/stories/20190430009

https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-ed-op-0428-thomas-smith-20190425-story.html

Perspective matters

posted by geeblock

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

There is a very easy and inexpensive way to solve this issue......keep it in your pants and don't procreate! 

Don't forget that part of this problem here is that social programs pay by the kid....the more kids you have the more welfare you get.  Revamp some of these programs and....viola!...there is more money to go around if we aren't expanding the base with more children.

Before you go off.....I am a proponent of welfare for those that need it.  However, it should be a temporary helping hand and not be a lifestyle.

Also birth control isn’t 100% even when used properly. And while we are on that subject isn’t birth control against the Bible teachings?

As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying 

posted by geeblock

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

No, the whole “government forcing you to do it” is not a separate argument. 

Pro-life is all for helping the children and mothers. They are for directly helping them, not using the government as an intermediary. 

We can agree to dis

posted by geeblock

Also birth control isn’t 100% even when used properly. And while we are on that subject isn’t birth control against the Bible teachings?

No, birth control is not against the Bible. Pretty much only die hard Catholics believe this. 

I will give you an example as to why your main argument in this post is invalid. 

As someone who enjoys adrenaline rushes I wanted to sky dive. It is something that is fun, exciting, etc and relatively safe with two parachutes that would need to fail before you die. Even with that reality me jumping out of a plane there was still a risk that I took because I knew that COULD happen and my life insurance was null and void if I died while sky diving. My wife/kids would be out of my income (95% or our household income) with no life insurance backup. 

Now, when someone has sex it is fun, exciting, etc but has risks (STDs and pregnancy). Even if you “double up” won’t BC pills and a condom there is still a small chance you end up with a baby. YOU are taking this risk, not the general population, so why should the general population have to pay for the “consequences” of your behavior?

I also enjoy the “my body my choice” argument. Waving my arms around with fists clenched is my right until I infringe on someone else’s rights by striking them in the face right? The second science decides that that baby is a life, you lose the right to kill it because that life has the same rights as all other citizens. 

So the “my body” argument is null and void if it is a life.

posted by geeblock

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

Ultimately, many of us who don't want said social programs believe that the absence of them would change some behavior, meaning there wouldn't necessarily be so many kids in the world ... at least not to the degree that we currently see if we were to assume abortions were to be banned (something I don't advocate, for the record).

As for the faith requiring its adherents to help those within their sphere of influence who need it, the elements contained therein are intentional.  Again, my help is intended to be me giving of myself, not voting to have my other neighbor forced to give of himself.

I can appreciate the desire to separate "helping those same children" and "govt forcing you to do it," but as long as we're talking about federal programs funded by taxes, you really can't.  At that point, they are necessarily linked.
 

posted by geeblock

As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying 

Shoot, if we're going to have taxes, let's just wipe out all the weights and manipulation, give everyone a flat tax rate, and call it a day.

In general, I agree with you.

posted by geeblock

As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying 

I agree with this, but I am for a flat tax rate (maybe even flat tax rate per income leve) and no deductions. Simplify the tax code and get rid of a ton of IRS agents. 

Wait, taxation is theft I mean...get rid of all income tax. 

posted by geeblock

No i said they should have the choice to abort the baby. Others say that no they should be forced to have the baby and give it up for adoption so I gave reasons why that solution is not feasible 

Published today:

Annie Lane on May 1, 2019

Dear Annie: I had my 14th birthday two weeks before I gave birth to my son. The hardest thing I have ever done was to sign the paper for him to be adopted. The entire time I was pregnant, I tried to think of any way I would be able to keep and raise my son. At 14, I completed my first semester in ninth grade but had to drop out my second semester.

I cried and prayed each night for a way to keep my son, to be able to take care of him. For years, I would look into the faces of boys and then men to see if I recognized my son. I silently celebrated each birthday, and prayed he was OK and in a loving home. I didn't actively try to find my son as I didn't feel I had any right to look for him, to interrupt his life, or to have any claim to be a part of his life. I never gave up hope and never gave up praying that he was happy and healthy and that he would somehow know from all the "talks" and "love" that we shared while I was carrying him that he would somehow feel that love and not feel abandoned or unwanted.

The best day of my life came more than 45 years later when I received a phone call, and it was my son!

Many times a birth mother really has no choice or is unable, for whatever reason, to raise a child, and if a loving family is unable to have a child of their own but is able to give that baby a loving home, it is a truly great thing.

I still regret that I was unable to be the mother my son needed, and I am grateful that he had a great life with his adoptive parents who loved him, and that he does not hate me for my choices. -- A Loving and Thankful Mother

Dear Birth Mother: Your letter is extremely touching. You sound like a beautiful person and mother. May your letter help people who are wondering if their birth mothers wanted them.

thats awesome and i hope more people take that route.  That being said i am against making a law forcing them to.

posted by O-Trap

Meh.  Private companies doing what they appear to believe is in their best interest.  She was a singer.

I mean, it's worth mentioning, but I can't say this bothers me at all.

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

posted by vball10set

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

I think we should just erase all our history prior to about 1960.  The US rise to prominence begins with Motown....

Still waiting for the buildings and highways named after Robert Byrd, democrat KKK leader, to be destroyed or re-named.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Still waiting for the buildings and highways named after Robert Byrd, democrat KKK leader, to be destroyed or re-named.

Sure, we also can add all the Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee signs, and the following base named from Confederate generals to be changed: 

• Fort Benning (Georgia)
• Fort Bragg (North Carolina) 
• Fort Hood (Texas) 
• Fort Lee (Virginia) 
• Fort Polk (Louisiana)
• Fort Gordon (Georgia)
• Fort Pickett (Virginia)
• Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia)

Gotta burn all the books too, especially history books.  Then confiscate guns.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Gotta burn all the books too, especially history books.  Then confiscate guns.

Nah. Just rename the signs and bases in the name of winners, not losers. History is for the classroom, battlefields, and cemeteries, not road signs and military bases. Hell, use WWII heroes names for instance. 

posted by vball10set

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

I really don't see what would be upsetting about businesses doing what the businesses think is in their best interest from a profitability standpoint.

They're not 'bowing'.  They're just in the business of making money and not standing up to some abstract, subjective concept of what is and isn't acceptable.

If you don't like that, start a business in competition with them and instead of doing what they're doing, be willing to die on the hills they're not, if you think that's what's going to be best for business.

I just don't see why this is upsetting.  They've decided to remove the use or likeness of an entertainer because the entertainer wrote song that may be seen as racist, and while there's some idea that the alleged racism might be done in satirical fashion to actually oppose racism, it wouldn't be understood by the masses today.

Which part of that makes this outrageous?

I did look at the songs today “picinanny heaven” and “that’s what darkies are for” (originally performed by a black person) both songs are neither good or entertaining imo but I’m sure there are worse songs out there during that time.