Three Memes

 There are two memes I've seen frequently over the past few days.  I'd like to address the flaws in them.

"If a child is hitting people with a stick, I would blame the child and not the stick.  However, I would still take the stick away."

The flaw in this reasonable sounding meme is obvious.   What is being proposed is not to take the proverbial stick away from the child who is hitting others, but to take away most sticks from most children regardless of how they use their sticks.   This sounds good, and it does acknowledge the problem with those who focus on the stick, but it still punishes or restricts children who have done nothing wrong.

"Thoughts and Prayers (crossed out), Policy and Change"

There are a couple of flaws here.  First is the false conclusion that it's an either/or choice.  The second would only apply to those who's belief system includes an all powerful, personal, God who can and does intervene.   If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing,  deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God?     Obviously an all powerful, all knowing God can and does work through people, even politicians, and governments.   But even if not, there is still potentially room for both thoughts and prayers, and policy and change around any issue.   

I think that for many Christians praying for God to intercede and work in a situation is the absolute highest and best they can offer.  Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned.

 

Saw a third that's relevant.

 

"If you outlaw abortions, abortions will just happen illegally.   But if you outlaw guns, we will all be safe from crime.

 

Obviously some hyperbole in the second premise, but I can't help but think that there's a little dissonance between the two positions.   

 

 

Random Thought

 Occasionally when I type the word government, I type it incorrectly.    Thankfully the red line under the word tells me that I don't type well and I have to fix my mistake.   The most common way I misspell government is "giverment".     I realize that for some people "giverment" probably accurately describes how the view government.  They believe that the government exists to give them stuff.   They don't understand that the government doesn't actually have the resources to give people anything.   They don;t understand that for the government to give something to them, the government must take (or borrow) from someone else.    Of course, when the government borrows to give people things, they are still taking the money to pay back the loans, they are just taking it from future generations.  

Anyway, that's the random thought for the day.

What a strange position to take.

 "Modesty makes your body more alluring.  Celibacy makes sex more intimate.  We choose to protect those things, not because they are shameful, but because they are precious."

@LibertyAnders

I've noticed an increasing number of young women lately who are rebelling against the current cultural trends and reclaiming more "traditional" values.    I find this sort of thing refreshing in a world where so many young women define themselves by how much skin they can show on social media, and the number of sex partners they can accumulate.   I suspect that many would suggest that these women haven't chosen this path, but have had it imposed on them.   

I think that one of the conversations most needed in this country is about agency for one's actions and what people are actually responsible for.  

In a previous post,  I commented on my "admiration" for a young woman who goes by the name Jasmine Rice.   She grew up in severe poverty, graduated from the Wharton School of Business, and started a company to compete with OnlyFans which paid a higher percentage of reciepts to the young women who create content.    At the time I expressed dismay that this form of exploitation was considered empowering, but that I was impressed that this young woman had chosen to start her own company, instead of being exploited by others.  

Yet, this is the kind of thing she posts.

"First of all horny.  Second of all, also horny."

Proudly claims the label "Professional Twitter Flirt"

"Looking for someone to spit in my mouth."

"idk who needs to hear this, but my fingers are under 3 inches long and they always make me cum."

I think the difference is an interesting commentary on society.

Limitations

 Reporter:  "Do you think there should be any limitations on abortions?"

NYC Mayor Eric Adams (D): "No. I do not."

Reporter:  "None?  Day of birth, totally fine?"

Adams:  "No, I do not think-I think women should have a right to chose their bodies."

 

Currently 7 states have no limit as to when an abortion can take place.

 

FYI, it's a federal crime to kill a bald eagle.  This protection extends to bald eagle eggs.    Would it be an exaggeration to say that unborn bald eagles are valued more highly than unborn humans?

 

"Who wins in a battle where one person's right to life conflicts with another person's right to property?"

Unknown college ethics professor

Pronouns

 I'm considering changing my pronouns to y'all and yun's.  I appreciate your support.

Free speech Twiter

 This is the kind of free speech that makes Twitter so great.

"True progress will never be achieved until every obese woman is valued as much as Scarlett Johnasson and the most incompetent, uninteresting man is as high-status as Elon Musk."

@NassauAlex

If Alex was speaking of everyone's intrinsic value as people who bear the Imago Dei, I'd agree with him.  Unfortunately, I don't think that's what he means.  

This seems a little closer to what some of us actually experience.

 

Secular Person:   I want to do X.

Christian:  You're free to do it.

 

SP:  But you think X is wrong.

C:  Yes

 

SP:  Because you want to control me.

C:  No, you're free to do whatever you wish.

 

SP:  But you think X is wrong.

C:  Yes, but only because I want the best for you.

 

SP:  But I want to do X.

C: You're free to do it.

 

SP:  But I want you to say that X is good.

C:  I can't say that.

 

SP:  Why are you such a hateful, intolerant, bigot?

 

 

Although this link isn't to Twitter, it's where I first saw the video.

 

 https://www.facebook.com/tknighttactical/videos/%EF%B8%8Fguy-shoots-himself-in-leg%EF%B8%8Fthis-is-a-great-example-of-how-not-to-disassemble-you/717172672413606/

To start with, you never want to see someone get hurt or laugh at them when they do so.

1.  The fact that this guy not only filmed himself doing something he clearly didn't know how to do, and them kept and posted the video, does open him up to some level of something.

2.   This guy managed to break the 3 most important rules of handling a firearm simultaneously.

3.   The gun isn't in any way at fault for what happened here.

4.  It's at least a little amusing to see this guy trying to act like he's an expert, and shooting himself in the leg because he's not.

5.  Hopefully he'll learn how to do things the right way in the future.

6.   The three basic rules of gun handling he broke.

     A.   Always remove the magazine, and work the action to eject a round in the chamber (ensure the gun is safe)

     B.  Don't ever put your finger on the trigger unless the gun is pointed downrange.

     C.   Don't ever point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to shoot.

The very fact that he was doing this in the back seat of a car with people in the front indicates that he was not interested in safety.  

 

 

Hurry, Hurry, Super Scurry

 It is kind of strange that the DFL controlled congress, as a show of how much it esteems women and children, is rushing to pass a law that will "override state laws and set a national abortion policy.".   

 

This bill will potentially do the following. 

"[…]The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice."

"After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy."

 

This bill is somehow a higher priority than addressing the massive shortage on formula plaguing the US.   What a strange set of priorities the DFL has.  Inflation at the highest levels in decades, empty shelves in grocery/drug stores, gas prices at their highest levels maybe ever, a new wave of COVID, and the DFL wants to rush through abortion legislation.

The funny part is that Dan who opposes "any restrictions" on abortion will probably not protest against this bill which is full of "restrictions" because maybe "restrictions" are OK when it's a bunch of old, white, rich, liberals imposing their will on people. 

Congratulations

I wanted to congratulate Dan on his firm and courageous stand on abortion.  He is quite clear in saying "We want this philosophical and medical matter to be left to the woman with the fetus. Not a Supreme Court. Not a Congress of predominantly men. And not even a Congress of predominantly women, if we had one.".   This clear and straightforward statement affirming that no one should place any restrictions on this decision except the "woman" and "her doctor".      That's right,  Dan is clear that there should not be "any restrictions" on a woman who wants to abort her child at certain phases of normal development.  

For those of you that have moral, ethical, or religious concerns, too bad.  We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".

For those of you who have concerns about the potential emotional damage, risk of serious health problems,  or possible sterilization.  We don"t know anything, we don't have any answers, we must default to abortion without any restrictions.

For those of you that have religious concerns, perhaps you believe that "The least of these.", might include vulnerable human children at the early stages of life.  We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".   Clearly there are absolutely no principles that can be gleaned from scripture, or from the actions of the Early Church that would inform our positions.  Clearly, "The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to life.".  Dan has spoken "Ex Cathedra" and there is no possible way to disagree with this fact.

For those of you with public policy concerns.   Concerns that actual licensed/trained MD's with hospital admitting privileges be the ones to perform this "medical procedure", or concerns that the places where this benign "medical procedure" are performed adhere to at least some minimal standards, too bad.  We know for a "fact" that  we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".

For those of you who might agree that while some rights are age dependent, that maybe all rights are not age dependent.  That if science tells us that conception starts the development process of a living human being, unique from any other human being,  that we might presume a right to not have one's life shortened arbitrarily.  
We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".

Finally for those who are concerned with the growing movement for post birth abortions, well we're sorry.  Since those babies are still dependent on their mothers, all of the rationales for pre birth abortions still apply.  Unfortunately We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".

 

It's sad that the views of the left wing of American politics have gone from abortion being "safe, legal, and rare", to  "no one should place any restrictions" on abortion in such a short time.  

 

Again Dan, thank you ever so much for your candid exposition of the "facts" and your honesty in unwavering support of abortion with no "restrictions".  

 

In closing.  This is the "philosophical and medical" decision that Dan says should be free from "any restrictions", described by an MD in testimony to congress.   This is what you are advocating, how about being honest about that as well? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE

Abortion Facts

 Let's look at a few actual objective facts about abortion.

Reasons for abortion

Incest-.001%

Mother's life in danger--.065%

Rape-.085%

Mother's physical health threatened-.288%

Mother's psychological health threatened-.294%

Serious fetal abnormality-.666%

Social or economic reasons-6.268%

No reason--92.330

 

Why do we only hear "Rape, incest, and life/health of the mother "as justification for abortion as if those things are statistically significant?

Right On Target

A while back I posted links to a company selling fancy, high dollar, underwear sized for small children which was designed to "pack" little boy genitals in a way that could cause harm to the child's development.   

Well now, Target has decided to get into the act and is launching a line called (I believe) Tomboy X.

What's interesting is that these "packing" and "binding" undergarments come in sizes intended for children. 

 https://www.bustle.com/style/target-tomboyx-humankind-pride-collab 

Because children need to start the potential damage to their genitals as early as possible, right? 

Damn Right Wing Media

https://www.newsweek.com/you-cant-side-womens-rights-if-you-dont-know-what-woman-opinion-1704592

It seems like...

 It seems like the LGBTQXWZPDQ monolith is showing some cracks.  Although people have been pointing out for a while that many aspects of the alphabet soup coalition are actually not complimentary and we're certainly seeing feminism being eroded by the alphabet soup folx.  

"I feel like if someone just said  "Fine, asshole, I'll get my wedding cake somewhere else" that we'd be in a slightly better place today."

@X_Aeon_X

"If someone said they didn't want to sell to me on the basis of my gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc I wouldn't waste my time suing for the right to buy there or whatever.  I'd just buy somewhere else."

@woodz115

"I'll never forgive the LGBT community for allowing the slippery slope argument I grew up hearing from Christian conservatives to actually come true."

@MsBlaireWhite (a "trans woman")

It's almost like the APL took these disparate sub groups, crammed them all together, then hijacked their issues to the point that the members of each group are actually supporting things that aren't in their best interest.  

The Red Ones

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

This small excerpt from Jesus speaks to so many of the contentious issues in our society today.   I keep asking myself, "What if He is correct?".

Disinformation

 Although overshadowed by other news, Pfizer "released" the results of their research into the "vaccine" that the federal government touted as the best way to stop the spread of COVID.   Well, after a quick glance of the data, maybe the federal government, CDC, Fauci, Biden,  Trump (to the extent he was aware of these results) and a bunch of other folx need to answer for disinformation on a massive scale.    Good lord, whoever exempted these companies from liability, tried to prevent the distribution of their research, and kept/keeps writing them checks for billions of dollars should probably be run out of office, fired, or impeached. 

The last couple of days

 As I've navigated social media the last couple of days, I've been struck by the number of women (many of them incredibly unattractive and off-putting) who have decided that they should stop indiscriminately sleeping with men in an irresponsible way.  One put it that they should "decimate hook up culture".     I say you go girls.   

Whoever convinced girls/women that the way to gain empowerment was to sexualize themselves, flaunt their sexuality on social media, use various apps to hook up with random guys who aren't responsible, and focus on themselves, was one of the most brilliant guys ever.  To be able to ensure that irresponsible, immature, underemployed, guys have a steady stream of sex without attachment has been a bonanza for the guys who swim in that pool.   But to convince girls/women that it's their feminist duty to screw these guys was brilliant.   

By all means ladies, decimate hookup culture.  Just say no to booty calls.  Find guys who value you for more than your looks and willingness to have sex.    What's the old saying, "Why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free?".   Well a glance at social media, and the proliferation of apps like Fanhouse, and the rest of the amateur porn apps, makes it look like there's a lot of free milk out there.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea.  I am NOT advocating preventing women from being promiscuous, sexualizing themselves, hooking up with hot losers, on any other behaviors.  You go girls.  What I am saying is that you've been convinced that giving guys (not all of us, but a lot) exactly what they want in terms of unlimited sex with no strings or responsibilities, might not be the wonderland of empowerment that you've been told.   There are plenty of media stories of women in their 30' and 40's that might serve as cautionary tales.  

But ultimately y'all do whatever you want. 

Empty

 If I had to choose one word to describe the economy under Joe Biden, that word would be empty.   As I've walked through multiple retail establishments over the last year or so, I keep seeing more and more empty shelves.  As I drive past car dealers, I see empty parking spaces in the lots.   As I saw on the news this morning, companies are downsizing their products and selling them for the same price.   Most of all every time Biden opens his mouth we get either incoherent rambling or empty promises. 

Occaisionally

Occaisionally I think, "I wonder if Dan ever answered my question(s) about X, Y, or Z?".   Then I go back and look to see if he did.  Fortunately, that is not particularly difficult.   What I found is the list below.  It's not exhaustive, it's not particularly recent,  and it's not unrepresentative.   These are all specific questions, which haven't been answered.   In the past, I've done multiple posts where I'll go question by question and provide answers to questions I've been asked.   I'm not going to make predictions about this list, because I don't want to affect the choice Dan makes.   For now, I'll just leave this. 

 

 If your "orientation" was "God given", then wouldn't it logically follow that it is an orientation that is "given" for life?

 If so, then wouldn't it logically follow that ones "God given" "sexual orientation" would involve actual sex at some point? 

 Therefore wouldn't it follow that if a 4 year old was "RECOGNIZING" their "God given, natural, orientation", that they are "RECOGNIZING" that that "God given, natural, orientation" (if it's same sex) will lead to a lifetime of having sex with people of the same sex?

 Or a lifetime of celibacy.?

The question then becomes, if a 4 year old who announces that he "likes" (whatever that means to a 4 year old) Billy, is told the he's just "RECOGNIZED" his "God given, natural, orientation" by every adult he knows wouldn't he be influenced by what he was told? 

What if "liked" just meant that Billy had cool toys, or good snacks, not that Billy was the object of sexual desires?  

Good lord, the "penis" obsession continues. Where have I ever argued that a "penis" gives a man an advantage?"

When I said "musculus-skeletal and cardiovascular systems" did you really think I meant "penis"? 

Speaking of "penis" I guess the girls who aren't comfortable in a locker room with penis wielding "trans" people, should just shut up and deal with their discomfort, right? 

  Why would anyone undergo this sort of thing without understanding the risk/reward calculus of their choice? 

What sort of adult would encourage a child to make this sort of decision without knowing the risks?

  If the possibility of physical differences in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems are excluded from comparison (as would be the case if men and women were identical), what could possibly explain these differences? 

 How is it that literally the fastest women swimmers in the country can't swim as fast as the men?

What's more, t least 19 Men swam faster than the fastest women. What could possibly explain this phenomenon? 

When measuring apples/apples (except for gender) men consistently outperform women at the highest levels. What could be causing this? sexism? Misogyny? Slavery? Oppression?

Does anyone really think that if you took the fastest girl swimmer in the US at age 10, and transitioned her into a boy and gave her the very best available training until peak performance was reached, that her times would be on par with the men st the same level?

  Really, you think that a 4 (or 8) year old is really capable of making a decision to be sexually attracted to boys, that will remain constant throughout life? 

 Are you suggesting that this just passed bill is directly related to this case? If so, provide proof? 

 Does this bill also legalize robbing the dead, and not calling 911 to report a murder?

This report raises questions

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-skulls-not-crime-scene-human-sacrifice-ad-900/ 

1.  How do they know they were women?

2.  How can anyone suggest that the North American continent was filled with peaceful, benign, wonderful tribes until the Europeans came over and screwed everything up?

I wonder?

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/silent-heart-condition-predicted-kill-6573334

I wonder if this new killer could be related to anything that's happened over the last few years?

Listen to Black voices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdHCTy_dsFE 

Damn, Van Jones (a Black person with a voice) isn't very positive about how well the Biden administration has treated "Black folks".   But a very high percentage of "Black folks" will likely vote for Biden (if he runs) in 2024.  Makes one wonder why they'd vote for someone who prsided over their "day to day" lives having "gotten worse"?

"Radical idea: constantly and falsely telling Black Americans that our country is trying to exterminate us ("The Legalized Genocide of Colored People") and that every single problem in our communities is due to white racism, may not be the best thing for race relations."

Will Reilly