posted on June 24, 2001 04:41:11 PM
BC is not implemented at the onset of puberty and girls are not educated because most christians and republicans feel like it encourages overt sexual behavior. They tend to pretend everything is fine and handing out BC and sexual education is wrong, wrong, wrong. Like I said though they yell loudest over teenage pregnancy and HIV next to how wrong it is to have an abortion and how you will go to hell for being gay. They don't want abortion to be legal but they don't want BC to be available. What sense does that make??
____________________________
[email protected]
Caravaggio/confusedandsleepy are not my names at eBay.
[ edited by caravaggio on Jun 24, 2001 04:57 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2001 04:52:32 PMExpressed right here by Hepburn, Spazmodeous and Toke are the meanest, most vile, obnoxious and contemptible thoughts that I have ever read, illustrating mans inhumanity to man at it's very worst.
I really think it's pointless to even try to explain this to you...but, hey...I'm obviously nutso or I wouldn't even be foolish enough to post to a thread like this. When I posted the quote from Spaz, which I completely agree with...try to understand...
This is not a desired or wished-for outcome, by either of us. This is what we believe will happen because it is the way of the world...now, and throughout recorded history.
Spaz, I spoke for you, because it was obvious to me (although apparently not to everyone) what you meant. If I'm wrong, please feel free to smack me upside the head.
posted on June 24, 2001 04:57:00 PM
Admirable? This is the nastiest way of spewing racism, cloaking itself in an aura of concern. For this kind of trash, Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" is much better, at least it rhymes.
posted on June 24, 2001 04:59:34 PMAdmirable? This is the nastiest way of spewing racism, cloaking itself in an aura of concern. For this kind of trash, Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" is much better, at least it rhymes.
Why is it racist? Did I miss someone bringing skin color into the thread?
____________________________ [email protected]
Caravaggio/confusedandsleepy are not my names at eBay.
posted on June 24, 2001 05:12:57 PM
Really, toke, to say that one is pandering to popular opinion just because they agree with another's opinion is a generalization and, therefore, unfair.
It seems to me that those with differing views on a lot of RT's subjects don't stick around long to defend their views. The result...a lot of like-minded people on the same board. This board is certainly not unique in that.
I, too, admire those who are passionate enough about their opinions to stick around and defend them. Discussing different viewpoints is one of the reasons I stay at RT.
I recall a time when voicing an opinion contrary to the majority on AW was very unpleasant. I, being a gutless wonder at that time , authored many lengthy messages about the injustices (IMO), edited those messages, took a few breaths, and then hit the delete button. Unless someone really gets my back up, I'm not an in-your-face kind of person. Depending on my mood, I either thank or blame my upbringing.
My motto is the same today as it was then: one does not always have to say what they are thinking.
I actually didn't say "one is pandering to popular opinion just because they agree with another's opinion." I said I found Hepburn admirable because she didn't pander to popular opinion. Somewhat different in meaning...
She often jumps into a thread with her own divergent and sometimes wildly unpopular opinion. Takes guts and conviction. It requires no bravery to agree with the majority. I certainly didn't mean it was wrong to be a member of the majority. I was apparently unclear...I meant to applaud her courage and independence.
posted on June 24, 2001 05:42:34 PM
Hepburn broached the issue of the enslavement and poor condition of children in the area of the Ivory Coast (which of course we all know to be in Africa) as an example of a problem she feels strongly about.
That in itself is not racist or an expression of racism.
But when another poster follows in response with [i}"There really is no answer, hepburn. They'll waste away and die off, just like populations of deer or coyote or any creature that continues to breed in an environment without predators and without a viable food source to sustain the ever-growing population. Only the strongest or most resourceful will survive."[/i] knowing the problem as described by hepburn that poster has made an racist remark and has "spewed the nastiest form of racism" as described by donny.
posted on June 24, 2001 05:56:27 PMIt's really all very simple.
What's simple is that you have a preoccupation with trying to goad me. But twisting logic to find some backdoor way to call me a racist is just a cheap shot.
posted on June 24, 2001 08:13:53 PM
In essence then 'Those little black children will waste away and die off, just like any creature that continues to breed in an environment without predators and without a viable food source to sustain the ever-growing population'.
posted on June 24, 2001 09:12:47 PM
I really shouldn't even honor your comment with a response, krs, but I will because of the off-chance that one or two people would interpret my lack of response as tacit agreement.
When discussing nature in general, we're all creatures. Organisms. Lifeforms. Take your pick. Usage of "creature" in reference to man is fairly common. It even extends to religion. Ever hear that old cliche, "We're all God's creatures"?
You know exactly what I meant. You know the context in which I was speaking.
posted on June 24, 2001 09:55:02 PM
It is sickening to think of babies starving in other countries but there's starving babies right here in our own country and what are we supposed to do about it? I mean really? I'm the type of person who would give anyone my last 5 bucks if they needed it. I've always been that way. But what I don't understand (and I'm being completely honest here) is what are we supposed to do?? I know that I don't have thousands of dollars to donate - and even if I did, I'd give it to the needy in OUR country first, right in our OWN backyard. I remember as a 17-year-old with my first baby and teenage marriage. We would be so broke by the end of the week and the baby was on her last bottle. He got his paycheck and we went to the grocery store to buy formula - I actually mixed it in the car and fixed her bottle ..... that's how close we would come. And during the week I can't even count the times that I counted pennies out of a jar to be able to by formula and diapers. BUT I fed my baby. And while I was divorced in my 20's I had three little girls to support - working the graveyard shift at a foundry - but that's what I HAD to do ...... you just do what ya gotta do.
posted on June 24, 2001 10:12:44 PM
How much is 250 million pennies? Well, it's $25,000,000. Am I right? What about a penny a day? $9,125,000,000. Maybe I'm off a buck or two.
So if the population of this country, rounded down, were to give a penny a day, Three dollars and sixty five cents a year (think of leap year!) over nine billion dollars would be what could be done. Imagine if every person who could afford to in the world gave that one penny a day.
Call it the Power of a Penny.
Or the world can simply give out a great collective "No skin off of MY ass", with a smilie of course, "they'll all die off because only the strong and resourceful deserve to live anyway".
Ain't it great that Mahatma Ghandi was so strong and resourceful?
[ edited by caravaggio on Jun 24, 2001 04:57 PM ]
