14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You interrupted my nap for that ?

I don't understand.  Wouldn't you have had to be awake and alert to browse this site and see a new post?

Or do you have notifications set to buzz your phone when there is a new post?

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This just made me think of Ed Gein ... 

Spend an hour or so reading some mtf transgender subs on reddit.  sadly, some of these folks are already too close to ed gein! 

Don't let sissy-porn addicts redefine what it means to be a woman

https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/letting-sissy-porn-addicts-redefine

Quote

Redefining women from a sex class to a mixed-sex class based on male sexual projections reifies sex-role stereotypes and requires actual women and girls to dissociate body and mind. After all, we’re not allowed to say we’re women because we’re female anymore. We’re supposed to look inside ourselves and find something else that makes us women—something that has nothing to do with female embodiment—that a man can experience, too, like getting turned on by the idea of your own sexual defilement. If some men want to wear ‘women’ as masks, then women must be masks, nothing more.

More:
 

Quote

 

The same gender ideology that redefines women and girls in such dehumanizing terms—as mindless bimbos, ******** objects, costumes men can take on and off at will—also says: If you don’t feel comfortable with all of that, maybe you’re not a woman or a girl at all.

Maybe you’re a boy.

Maybe you’re nonbinary or agender or genderfluid or asexual…

Whenever men redefine women to serve their own purposes, they push women and girls to debase ourselves by continued association with 'womanhood' or identify out altogether. If men like Andrea Long Chu and Grace Lavery and Julia Serano and Alok Vaid-Menon and Jeffrey Marsh are the new authorities on what women are, wouldn’t you want out, too?

 

Trans women are men.  Most experience autogynophelia.  A sexual fetish where they are aroused by the thought of being female.

To use pronouns other than those aligned with sex, is an affront to language.  Just like the word, "latinx"

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

On 7/1/2022 at 12:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There are remedial courses that teach adults how to read/listen for comprehension. It’s a useful skill to have.

You are a liar and a fraud.  There is no Christ in you.  You KNOW GBH lied.  YOU KNOW IT!

But, just like the Bishop who told you not to sing harmony, you must defend the lie to the end!

I hope this is only a bad hair day, you are banned from thread.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist.

It really is amazing.

8 hours ago, Islander said:

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

He was willfully lying and later joked about it in a general Priesthood meeting.  Of course GBH would be familiar with King Follett.  Or Mormon Doctrine.  Perhaps he didn't personally agree with the doctrine, but it well understood.  Or at least it was when I was still a member.

General Authorities have a pretty bad track record when it comes to dishonesty with the press.  Elder Oaks had to release a public statement because he lied to the press about his conversations with the moronic Steve Benson.  Joseph lied about polygamy.  So did Wilford Woodruff as Polygamy was openly practiced until the 1920s.  In Mormonism, just as with the Patriarchs, lying is acceptable if it accomplishes a greater purpose.

I am incredibly sad to see the aggressive actions some state legislatures and leaders are taking.  Criminalizing interstate travel?  Being "open" to criminalizing homosexual sex and banning birth control?  What the h*ll is going on?

And I say all of this as a political conservative. Some extremist Republicans are confirming the worst fears of moderates and those on the left.  They are confirming that Republicans really are theocrats.

This leaves me in no-man's land politically.  I can't align with the extremists on the right.  But I also can't get on board for anyone who "celebrates" abortion.  Clowns to the left and right ...

My very lefty spouse has become so disgusted with "shout your abortion" crowds, her feelings are similar to mine.  We live in a very blue state where abortion is legal.  We have reached out to a local religious organization to offer a room in our home for women who may need to travel here.  Regardless of how you feel about abortion, I think we all can agree that if an abortion is going to happen, it should be safe.  Same reason it is good public health policy to provide clean needles.  I don't think shooting up is a good idea, but if you are going to do it, at least do it safely.

Anyway, I don't know who I'll support in November, not to mention 2024.  As it stands, I don't think I can support any politican at this point.

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but even when I go for the big sins I want to go for the fun ones.

Ok.  Finalize our bet while smoking weed.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On the other hand gambling is a very minor sin and when I sin I like to go for the big ones.

We could finalize our bet on Temple Square grounds.  I think that qualifies as a big sin.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t trust you to pay up. She has over a 50% disapproval rate in her own party. She won’t make it to the general election.

I'll give you 10:1 odds.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Enjoy it while it lasts. She is not getting another term.

I'll wager serious money on this.  Send me a message.

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

I can confirm that Kari Lake is a glory seeking loon.

Seems Sinema leans that way a bit too.  But I really like her quirky style.  And anyone who openly admits she to pursuading Republican senators with the strategic use of cleavage, is ok in my book.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Certainly not as much attention as they pay to ours.

I suppose that is the price of being a (diminishing?) superpower.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

uh, only if those Grandmas funded the illegal "trucker convoy" nonsense. Do you know any Grandmas whose bank accounts were "seized?"

No.  I've only read inflammatory headlines from the UK Daily Mail.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

t might be difficult for some to realize how fragile the barrier is for some between safety and danger, be the danger homelessness, inadequate medical care, abuse, poverty, etc...If significant numbers of Americans are facing eviction, or crippling medical bills, or are a paycheck away from financial insolvency then of course a pregnancy can easily disrupt the stability and actual safety of a family or person.

And that is why it is absolute foolishness to try and regulate abortion with any level of specificity around conditions.  It's a legislative and bureaucratic time bomb.

There is no way to regulate abortion without massively expanding the power of government.  Moreover, in this case we are seeing expansion of government power into the most private and personal choices a woman can make.  Absolutely insanity.

If the state doesn't allow an abortion for a women's circumstances and she later experiences serious health complications or dies.  Who is liable?  Can her family sue the doctors?  The state?  The individual bureaucrat who reviewed the paperwork?

If I'm a Democrat this morning, I start hiring an army of lawyers and pull a Scientology-v-IRS move in restrictive states.  These new laws are so full of problems that they will be tied up in courts for decades.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No baloney stuff.:)

Except for seizing bank accounts of grandmas exercising their God-given right to free speech. 

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

in general Americans are much less informed and have a more screwed up view of Canada than the reverse

This is most certainly true.

I've only been to a few major Canadian cities.  So I have no real sense for what the "real" Canada is like. 

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Apparently, your hatred for America affects your critical thinking skills.

In fairness, the Canadian media generally repeats the self-loathing expressed by our own media and academic elites.  So I don't blame any Canadian for having a skewed version of the USA.

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and you trust the idiots on the Supreme Court of your own dumb country to know all this

Unfortunately, the media does a horrible job of framing the actual issues.

The issue here IS NOT abortion itself.  The Justices give no consideration to morality of abortion.  The only question they are considering is if "substantive due process" is a justifiable approach to interpreting the constitution.  This decision concluded that substantive due process is not a legitimate way of interpreting the constitution and that the particulars of regulating specifics should be left to state legislatures.

So I'm of two minds on this specific ruling.  On one hand, I do like to see sovereignty remain primarily with states.  On the other, I do support safe, legal, and rare abortion.  Good reasoning, bad short-term outcomes until states get their own abortion laws together.

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

unintended consequences of bad law:

and conservatives should know better.  one reason we support limited government is because government involvement in anything often makes things worse. 

just imagine the logistics of trying to police and enforce these laws.  What happens if a doctor-approved procedure is later challenged.  who had right to challenge his/her medical decision?  an unelected government employee churning out page upon page of regulation?  heaven help us

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion.

It's like watching a Pharisee go to work in real-time.

Fascinating.

If an incoming member of SCOTUS cannot define what a woman is, how can we expect this court to protect women's rights?  LGB, drop the T.