Calm Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Sorry for the confusion. That was my own embellishment. Maybe he did find it offensive as I do, I don’t know for sure, but I think he was more concerned about the law, as he should be. Thanks for the clarification.
pogi Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, provoman said: Under the influence means what? Had she had a sip of alcohol that day? Had she had a single glass of wine or a single beer? To claim she was inebriated is interject owns opinion as fact. The investigation was weeks or month(s) after the event. That is all besides the point. It is not illegal to be under the influence even to the point of being inebriated. Even if I fond it ugly. Her words and behavior are reminiscent of a drunk person to me, so I took “under the influence” to mean inebriated. I could be wrong though. Certainly, it would be a strange thing to remember if the investigation was “weeks or months after the event” if she only had a “sip of alcohol that day. It seems she made a lasting impression to even mention it, no? Edited January 23, 2020 by pogi
Calm Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: It seems she made a lasting impression to even mention it, no? Who mentioned it and why isn't it being reported anymore iirc? It could have been an embellishment by the biomom as far as we know. Added: looks like it is not uncommon to be reported in the recent news. Edited January 23, 2020 by Calm
mnn727 Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Quote There’s another more sinister aspect to this bill: placing children at risk of medical experimentation and bleak futures when they are given the “right” to hormone blockers and sex change operations. Most children, 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls, who question their gender identity will accept their birth gender after passing through puberty. Under the Equality Act, however, physicians are only given one option: affirm a child’s questioning. In other words, doctors will be forced to perform double mastectomies on healthy 13-year-old girls, and pediatric endocrinologists will have to provide hormone blockers like Lupron to kids experiencing gender dysphoria or be charged with “discrimination.” Parents who dare to oppose doctors performing life altering surgical procedures on their children or using cancer drugs—suspected of causing lasting health problems—on kids without cancer, will be considered abusive and neglectful. I am so glad this was not possible in 1960. When I was about 5 or 6 (1961-1962) I told my parents I wish I were a girl. not because I was confused about my gender, not because I felt I was a girl in a boys body, not because I felt I had the wrong "equipment" - but because my 1 year older sister got a brand new bike and I just got my older brothers hand me down bike. Had I said that in 2020 as a 5 or 6 year old I might have been wisked off to have who knows what done to my body. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Thank God that what I knew when I was 5 and what I know now that I'm 50 are two completely different (sets of) things!!!
MorningStar Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 Breasts are not genitals, but they are considered private parts. Not cool of her to spring that on her step-sons and instantly demand that it not bother them because feminism. There's a big difference between feeding a baby and topless dry walling. Just put a cruddy shirt on. 3
Calm Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 11 minutes ago, MorningStar said: Breasts are not genitals, but they are considered private parts. Not cool of her to spring that on her step-sons and instantly demand that it not bother them because feminism. There's a big difference between feeding a baby and topless dry walling. Just put a cruddy shirt on. But do you think it merits criminal charges and getting put on a sex offender registry as opposed to having to take parenting classes? 1
MiserereNobis Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 Sex offender registry lists are unjust, but it would be a rare politician who would risk his political career to say so and try to do something to reform them. 2
MorningStar Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Calm said: But do you think it merits criminal charges and getting put on a sex offender registry as opposed to having to take parenting classes? I think putting her on the registry is too far (unless there's some detail I don't know about), but I think the kids should live with their mom full-time since their dad apparently didn't do anything to prevent the situation from happening. As a woman, I would find it obscene if I walked in on that. 1
pogi Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, MorningStar said: I think putting her on the registry is too far (unless there's some detail I don't know about), but I think the kids should live with their mom full-time since their dad apparently didn't do anything to prevent the situation from happening. As a woman, I would find it obscene if I walked in on that. From what I understand, the dad did ask her to put her shirt back on and she refused. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 5:11 PM, Calm said: Rather than second class, I would say "different rules are applied based on biology rather than social relationship". Would it have made a difference if the stepmom was the only mother in the picture and had been for years? Not from what we can tell by what is reported. It makes little sense to me that "step" seen as sufficient to define the relationship as a nonimmediate family member when there are several more important mothering factors to be considered imo. After 40 years it is bizarre for me to think of my relationship with my wife a "social relationship" instead of a "biological" one. Watching those 4 babies being born made it all pretty "biological" to me since I am the "biological father" and she is of course, as evidenced by the event itself, the "biological mother" But nothing here to argue about.
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 6:26 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: I know you didn't draft this law, but I have to wonder what magically happens to a woman's breasts the moment she stops feeding a child that causes them to go from not lewd to lewd ... Well really from lewd at first to not lewd while nursing to lewd again... Here in the land founded by the Puritans, women needed protection from arrest just for giving their beautiful and natural best nutritional option to their babies. Absurd but true, unfortunately. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 9:59 PM, Calm said: Who mentioned it and why isn't it being reported anymore iirc? I think quite frankly because everywhere else in the world it was kind of a funny story. Here in LA the reporters always started their reports with "A woman in UTAH..." while grinning broadly. We just also started a second run of "The Book of Mormon" which is being advertised, it seems a hundred times a day.... I know Scott always gets on me for mentioning "Utah Culture" but honestly-- that is the way it is reported. You folks can't get a break from the media outside the state. It is almost like "Utah" is mentioned with a wink. It is what it is, I suppose. CTR!
strappinglad Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 Utah , UFO , Bigfoot.... wink , wink, nudge , nudge 1
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 2 hours ago, strappinglad said: Utah , UFO , Bigfoot.... wink , wink, nudge , nudge Seriously.
InCognitus Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 5 hours ago, strappinglad said: Utah , UFO , Bigfoot.... wink , wink, nudge , nudge You left off sightings of the three Nephites. 1
Recommended Posts