www.wrongplanet.net

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

The problem with this whole debate is that the real point is being missed. The REAL ISSUE is whether the district holds any responsibility for what happened. Passing the blame along to others is the worst way in the world to defend oneself against this kind of thing. It's like saying, "It's not our fault 'cause the devil made him do it." What she did or didn't do is IRRELEVANT as to whether they hold responsibility.

It might, though. If she knowingly acted in such a way to provoke a sexual encounter, perhaps a consensual one, then she wasn't even really raped.It's stupid for a teacher to fall for this crap, but any idiot, I don't care how old you are, can figure out if you have sex with a teacher, you automatically have that teacher by the balls. Heck, you don't even have to know the teacher or even be in the classroom. All you have to do is say "Mr. so-n-so raped me" and that teacher gets an unpaid administrative leave. A negligence defense could very well be what it takes to help prevent abuse of the system.

SHE WAS TWELVE.
No more needs to be said, but you keep on digging anyway:

It doesn't matter how old the person is. Consent means "no rape." Rape as commonly understood means that a sexual advance has been rejected and the attacker refuses to take "no" for an answer. That is what rape is. When you hear "no," you stop. Rape happens when you hear "no" and you do it anyway. A 12 year old who invites rather than rejects a sexual advance is consenting. And no, I don't care what the law says. Laws change. Now, sure, I acknowledge WHY we have laws, and setting AOCs avoid legal ambiguities. We accept that "12 year olds can't consent" to make it easier on ourselves when it comes to pursuing child exploitation in the justice system, but--I'm sorry--laws don't reflect reality. Kids have sex with each other before they're 12 years old. Kids that age even have sex with young adults and don't see anything wrong with it. And they don't call the cops. Unless someone tells them they should, or unless they think they have something to gain from it. They are remarkably intelligent, and I'm not sure you give them enough credit.[/b[

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

Statutory rape exists as a legal reality because children are incapable of consent, regardless of what they think they're capable of.

Not buying it. Sounds too much like a rationalization to me. Children consent to all sorts of things all the time. Depending on what mood the wife and I are in, like if we're both ambivalent towards doing one activity or another, or maybe we just couldn't care any less, we'll call the oldest into the room, present him with two choices, and let him decide. Now, sure, little kids typically choose the second option, so we'll ask twice and reverse the options. If he still makes the same choice, we know it's because it's something he wants and not something he's just going along with.

Or maybe mom is making a quick trip to the store. Who wants to go? Who wants to watch a movie with daddy? And one or both of the bipeds will go along with mommy.

They get choices, and they get the option to consent to some activities. Why? Because they're capable of consenting, and to my recollection we haven't made them choose among options in which there was at least one that could harm them.

I object to child sex for completely different reasons, but I should point out that preteens do explore their sexuality and even engage in sexual intercourse. From what I gather, that is becoming less frequent than it was when I was that age, but things do happen that seem to be out of the reach of the law, like when a 12 year old has sex with a 9 year old. Of course, it could be that I'm an adult and like most adults I'm not a part of that circle anymore and thus unaware of how often it really does go on. However, I know of some former neighbors of ours who had a 12 year old boy lose his virginity to a 16 year old babysitter... Anyway, like it or not, sex is a pleasurable activity for most people and kids younger than 9 can even figure out how to masturbate. So if they know it feels good and have no problems engaging in it, they certainly can give a partner the "go ahead" while they're playing doctor.

The same kid who can consent to that can consent to sex with an adult that he or she likes and/or feels sexually attracted to.

"Cannot consent" is bs. It's a rationale, an assumption and a compromise that legislatures are forced to accept. It's a "line in the sand" because an exact age at which ALL children are able to say "yea" or "nay" doesn't exist. So an AOC of, like 14, 16, or 18 is drawn up to err on the side of safety. It's the kind of language you hear from conservative, evangelical Christians to legislate morality and keep kids sexually pure. If we suspend antiquated Biblical values in our culture and society, we might find and accept that kids are capable of consent at much lower ages than we're willing to admit.

Much of foundational western law is formalized Christian morality straight from the Bible. The "can't consent" argument is a poor one that only really works for kids less than 3 years old. "It causes physical harm" is a better argument. But past a certain age the "physical harm" argument doesn't work because it doesn't physically harm everyone. Same thing with the "psychological harm." It doesn't affect all children equally. So why even put an age on it and enforce the laws? Because it's wrong, Christians already accept that it's wrong, and the AOC is just a way to keep children sexually pure for a longer period of time and provide legal recourse against immoral people willing to violate them. Of COURSE kids can consent. It's the job of parents to make sure that they don't consent and keep them out of situations in which they would. All the rationalizations in the western world can't get around the fact that the non-religious "borrow" their values from Biblical morality. Setting the AOC at 14 or 16 is just a compromise--a pitiful one at that, but better than nothing at all.

Sean #fundie wrongplanet.net

Stupidity is nature's way of reducing the population. Homosexuality is just a warning sign that human civilization is about to crash and burn. Maybe homosexuality in itself is wrong, mabe it isn't... but the "do whatever you want" attitude towards life that comes with homosexuality is going to cause no end of trouble for mankind.

[ Last time I checked, this attitude was more prevalent amounst straights than gays. "Do whatever you want" often means getting beaten up if you are gay, which I suppose is consistent with what you've written.. ]

Hey, I quit doing that about a decade ago...and it sure wasn't due to the school administration cracking down on it!

I used to beat up on and pick on the kids that came out early. The school administration looked the other way. I would often get a singe day of lunch detention for acts that would get a mandatory 10 year prision scentence now. I once beat a gay student with a stick, and got two days detention for damaging school property (breaking off the stick) and one day for striking a student with it. A long as you didn't attack any straight blacks or Mexicans, the school didn't really care and you could get off with only a purely ceremonial (beyond light) punishment. I quit when I realized that most kids coming out that young were probably sexual abuse victims and were probably just badly mixed up about their sexuality and probably alot of other things that were less obvious.


[ I guess I have to ask - why did you do this?I've never understood why anyone would pick on someone else as I've seemingly always wanted to stay out of any involvement with people.
Life is complicated enough without provoking more trouble.
]

At the time, I would get a mild sense of euphoria from it; kind of like a good airsoft war, or a mild version of the feeling you have getting off of a roller coaster. Not only did I not like homosexuals, but they proved to be a convenient way to get that sense of euphoria. :|

*waits for everybody to run away screaming*

[ I am shocked and saddened, but mostly I am disappointed. That sense of euphoria is also the same feeling that serial killers get when they murder people, Sean. It is horribly cruel and sadistic. I really don't know what else to say.If there weren't laws against it now, would you still do it? ]


No. I wouldn't feel like doing it again if I had the opportunity. I seem to have gradually lost pleasure in violence like that. I don't like homosexuality any more now than I did then, but I don't see violent acts accomplishing anything. I still think that hate crime legislation is BS, for reasons not exclusively realted to gays and not for running around hurting people. That would be a relatively low priority for me right now. I'm far more concerned about making laws related to self defense more conservative right now anyway.

All the stuff I described happened in middle school. I was just a fairly typical loner in high school.

graemephillips #fundie wrongplanet.net

[Comments under "Raised by Aspergers parent"]

@mysterious_misfit

@graemephillips
A lot of people here born to an aspie parent seem to be saying that the parent in question was extremely strict. I am a male diagnosed (more or less) as having Asperger's syndrome in my mid-20s and would like children of my own some day. However, one thing I have considered is that I might have less slack to cut my children on account of being an aspie and may therefore need to be more of a disciplinarian than if I were a neurotypical. I am not sure what I would think about physical discipline if I weren't a Christian, but given that I am one, I view it as being mandatory (Proverbs 13:24). I view it as being paramount that parents maintain self-control wherever possible and it is my view that a responsible parent will understand that everyone has a limited patience span, attempt to learn the extent of his/her patience span and take steps to discipline his/her children long before the boundaries of his/her patience have been reached. If I have children of my own, I will want to do my best by them at whatever cost to myself, which will undoubtedly mean using physical discipline on them for matters that other parents might consider minor so that I can stay within my limits and having the courage to stay on the path because I know it is the right thing, regardless of how distressing I find it. If I have children of my own, it is my view that I will be morally obliged to lay down my life for my children and/or wife if necessary (Ephesians 5:25), and so any pain I might cause myself by the use of physical discipline on my children is a minor matter.

Many "experts" in the field of autism spectrum conditions like to berate fathers on the spectrum for being disciplinarians, but I think that in many cases, they are merely being responsible fathers. If a neurotypical wife has the luxury of having a significantly longer patience span, she should not go out of her way to make life harder for her aspie husband by berating him for resorting to discipline earlier than she would otherwise do, or by undercutting him. Instead, she should be giving him as much moral support as is necessary to function as the leader of his family.

graemephillips, if you are talking about spanking, you need to do further research into child development. Spanking is never beneficial to a child, and destroys trust between the child and parent.

I think all Aspergian parents need to make sure to constantly develop a wider parenting vocabulary. A parenting vocabulary is the mental catalog of parenting techniques you can pull from. You don't want to end up doing just one parenting technique over and over. Like my parents who spanked over every little thing because they had no idea what else they could do. They had a parenting vocabulary of only one thing.

Posted by graemephillips:

I have no intention of doing any further research into child development. If the Bible describes it as mandatory (Proverbs 13:24), then as far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no reason to look into things any further. It is my view that no human has any wisdom in excess of that in the Bible.

I fully agree that all parents need to have a wide vocabulary of techniques. A parent who only knows how to use spanking is a weak parent. Spanking should be used as part of a sliding scale of techniques (e.g. first offence verbal warning, second offence naughty corner and third offence spanking). If your parents found themselves spanking you (and any siblings you might have had) excessively, it suggests shortcomings in their application of the technique. Used properly, spanking is an essential tool for raising disciplined children, but used improperly, it either makes no difference or makes things worse.

[Bolding mine]

Fred2670 #fundie wrongplanet.net

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to any STRAIGHT aspies (are there any here?) that just because this thread has and this board seems to have a hardcore homosexual slant, doesnt mean you have to be gay. You dont have to tolerate acts that violate the laws of god or nature just because this form of heathen debauchery suits some fudge packin' jack tart with a big stretched out mouth. (see I can call names too)

I have to assume that there are those here among us who would use Aspergers (or peoples lack of friends, social ties, whatever) to take advantage and attempt some "conversion" or sick and twisted "male bonding".. so watch your ass. You can get women. You dont have to settle for hairy cheeks.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

12-Year-Old Negligent And Responsible For Own Rape' http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/05/1141331/school-district-claims-student-was-herself-responsible-for-being-raped/?mobile=nc


Whatever differences of opinion we have, this is just awful. I don't mean to be insensitive, but I am a little bit concerned as to whether the district really is at fault here. One guy committed suicide over this, and another teacher is behind bars. Was it individual teachers that abused this girl, or did the whole district abuse her? If the district was aware of it and just looked the other way as long as nobody was running their mouths, and then just passed the trash when things looked iffy, then I could see how they were at fault. Maybe if other victims of this dead guy were receiving compensation from the district, I could see that. I could be more wholeheartedly sympathetic to her cause. Otherwise it just looks like another person reaching for money.

But, I mean, come on... The courts will decide that, I guess. The lawyers ought to know better than to use "blame the victim" language in their defense. I don't see how the district is going to weasel out of paying SOME damages. Saying it's the victim's own fault isn't going to reduce damages. If anything, the judge will stick it to 'em for their lawyers being idiots.

===

Playing devil's advocate here, but is there ever a legit "blame the victim" scenario? I can't think of any intelligent examples at the moment... Something like a neighbor builds a fire in his backyard, maybe burning leaves or a bonfire, or something. The girl next door decides it will be fun to play in it and ends up getting 3rd degree burns, lung damage from smoke inhalation, etc. Is it fair to sue the guy just for building a fire? Or is it the burn victim's fault for being stupid?

No one in his right mind, myself included, will ever argue that having sex with someone without their consent is OK. However, a young woman has some degree of manipulating her odds. Does she dress provocatively and go to parties where she KNOWS there will be alcohol, drugs, and guys with too much blood in their testosterone system? I'd say she has more of a likelihood of her clothes just falling off and passing out on someone else's bed than, say, someone who dresses conservatively and prefers nice, quiet evenings at home with a glass of wine and a good book.

Similarly, everyone who lives in Greenville, MS, knows that unless you're a drug dealer, a prostitute, a gang member, or you're going to eat at Doe's (preferably before sunset), you have no business hanging out on Nelson Street. No, it's not your fault if you get robbed or shot. But you're not going to win any points with cops or judges for being an idiot! If a white person wants to avoid racial tension after dark, he stays south of US 82.

I know comparing abusive teachers to frat parties is apples/oranges, but defense is claiming the girl was "negligent," which is why they are going to fail. Negligence defenses don't work for frat parties, and they certainly aren't going to work here.

But what I can't understand is why with so many women teachers going to jail for messing with male underage students haven't succeeded in a variation of the negligence defense, especially when we're talking about young, green, attractive women teachers. As a male teacher right out of college, I took assignments where the dating pool was narrow if not non-existent. I can't even begin to imagine the psychology of a woman who goes from an overabundance of male attention to none at all. Being horrendously teased by horny male students can't help matters. So...the teacher just "happens" to need to run out to her car during her planning period, the student just "happens" to be taking a shortcut through the parking lot on his way to weight-lifting. Nobody will ever know. Not until the sex tape ends up on YouTube, anyway, and it will be his parents who bring charges.

Y'know, seduction is sometimes used as part of a rape accusation. In the olden days, young teachers running one-room schools on the frontier were often rape victims. Why is it so different now? Maybe the girl has no business teaching if she lacks the maturity to avoid that kind of manipulation. But rape is rape, and it makes no difference if it is through seduction or brute force.

I honestly don't think it works the other way, i.e. 12-year-old girls don't rape grown men.

But let's (for the sake of argument) turn this back around on the victim. If it is well-known among students that a certain male teacher is a horn-dog and a young girl KNOWINGLY and willfully puts herself in a position to be "exploited" (note the use of scare quotes here), I'd say the district has a good case for accusing the victim of negligence.

Angel Rho, a TWELVE year old girl could walk into the teacher's lounge stark naked and drunk, and plaster herself to a male teacher who's the only other person there, and it STILL wouldn't be her fault if she was raped. She was TWELVE.

[CAUTION: Devil's advocate alert]

But we don't know any extenuating circumstances. Why is she naked? Why is she drunk? Is it her fault for being either? It's possible. Did she know there might be one or more teachers in the teacher's lounge? Well, it IS the teacher's lounge, after all. It stands to reason there very likely could be at least one teacher in there. And there's a 50/50 chance that the teacher is male--you only get two options here. And how do you know it's rape? It could be consensual. And don't pull "can't legally consent" on me. I don't care what the law says. 12-year-olds are capable of "wanting it." I was 12 once, and I wasn't a year or two older than that when I discovered that there were girls roughly that age who already knew what dry-humping is and one or two who had already started having sex. It's a friggin miracle I was still a virgin at 19. Like it or not, consensual sex does happen at pre-teen and early teen years. And I don't buy for one second that they all care whether they are being "used" by someone in a position of trust, because "using" and "being used" is a two-way street.

Now, assuming that same drunk, naked 12-year-old walked into a teacher's lounge and a crusty, old, Coach Hardon happens to be in there and he DOES rape her, i.e. non-consentual sex, then no, it's not her fault for getting raped. But it IS her fault for being stupid, i.e. getting drunk, running around naked, and going inside a teacher's lounge where students aren't ever allowed. It was her poor judgment and poor choices that put her in that position in the first place.

That's assuming the middle school football team didn't kidnap her, force her to drink and strip, and chase her through the school only to have her duck in the lounge to hide or get help, only to be taken advantage of by Coach Hardon.

But if that's not what's going on, if this is something analogous to frat-party antics, and if the girl makes herself vulnerable by making stupid choices, she is negligent. She's spitting into the wind. If you run out into a busy street, you don't get to sue someone when they run over you with a car.

People who commit rape deserve to be brought to justice. Coach Hardon is going to lose his teaching creds, lose his career, lose any hope of functioning in society for being a pedophile, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. It doesn't matter if she consented or not (realistically). I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that victims of rape deserve justice. Neither am I in favor of a "blame the victim" mentality.

But there is another side to all this, and that is the side of the accused and anything or anyone associated with him. On the one hand, the accused has the right to due process. The accusations could be false, after all, and what REALLY happened was the coach said something she didn't like at P.E.--something like "you MUST wear shoes to play dodgeball." I dunno. So she chugs some vodka, strips, attacks the coach in the teacher's lounge, and when the principal rushes in to see what the ruckus is all about, she points and says "HE made me do it!! !" The guy gets fired on the spot, and if there's a case in court it's going to be her word against his, and who do you think the judge is going to believe?

10 years later and the same girl is .02 away from graduating from college with honors, so it pisses her off. She thinks about it and decides maybe she can recoup on her student loans a little, so she sues the school district for damages. All this when the wrongdoing was entirely on her part.

Purely hypothetical, I know, but not unrealistic. So I think we have to be careful how we pursue sensitive matters of seeking justice for rape when there is so much room to unfairly manipulate the system.

Back in the real world, this person was abused by two teachers, not the entire school and not the administration. Her case is against those who did her harm. One of her bullies is dead and the other will never have a normal life. I feel for her and recognize what happened to her was awful and perhaps she can't live a normal life because of it. But you punish the guilty, not the innocent, and I don't see how there is anything left to be done. With all due respect to this woman and all she went through, this lawsuit reeks of frivolity. She thinks she has someone by the balls, so she's going to play this for all it's worth. And I'm not sure why. Is it just the money? Revenge motive? Closure? Just because she can? I've never been raped, and I'm not a woman, so I can't speak for a female rape victim. But I just don't see how any of this is really going to make her feel any better. Unless she comes to terms with what happened spiritually and emotionally, and for all I know she already has, she'll never "get over it" if that's even possible. I don't know what more there can be done or what more there SHOULD be done. I don't see how making an entire district responsible for what two individuals did is going to solve anything. I'm sure the details are probably more convoluted than what we get from the article, which seems more commentary than informative, but just based on what I've read so far that's all I have for you.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

The thing I get hung up on more is the whole "consent" bs. You summarized my position on it well. The way AOC is implemented is as a safety-net compromise. If kids can have sex with each other and CONSENT to sex with each other, then they can consent to have sex with anyone they want to have sex with. If it really is true that kids CANNOT consent, which is nonsense because they consent all the time, then they all need to be picked up by the cops and hauled off to the D.C. every time they get caught, or DHS needs to come out to their homes and place them in "protective custody" (although they'll just end up getting sexually abused in foster care, but whatever). Lock up the parents for reckless endangerment for not knowing what their kids are doing. And stop freakin' holding kids to different legal standards!! ! If all we want to do is scare the hell out of them before they turn 18, fine. But if you want to start acting like an adult, make adult mistakes, you should suffer adult consequences, even if all you do is give the kids just enough to make them want to stop doing what gets them in trouble.

"Can't consent" is just downright absurd. If they cannot consent, then they never would consent. What we're really saying is they can't give LEGAL consent. But why? Because GROWNUPS made up laws to that effect. So really this just amounts to appeal to law and perhaps even circular reasoning. It's illogical. Or maybe we mean "can't give INFORMED consent." Maybe so, but not always. 12 year olds know more than some of us are willing to admit. They're having sex, they're aware of the risks, and they still like it anyway. Tell a nicotine addict that tobacco smoke can kill him and see just how much that deters him from lighting up.

Come on, I knew what was what by the time I was 12. And I knew girls younger than that who knew what was what a lot more than I did. We'd sneak out behind my grandfather's tool shed and make out until someone called for us. And I've even mentioned someone who lived close to us who had a sexual encounter at 12 years old with a messed-up babysitter. Can't consent...please! Utter nonsense.

Concrete example? Just do a quick google. Here's one:
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/10/11/teacher-falsely-accused-having-sex-student
Fortunately, this is an example of a teacher using GOOD judgment and actually NOT going to jail over accusations. But the police did come to her classroom and read her her rights, if I understand correctly, with children present. It's really disrupted her family, endangered her career, and negatively impacted the school and district as a whole.

Here's another, in fact, ACTUALLY INVOLVING a girl who was 12 years old at the time:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/falsely-accused-virginia-teacher-sean-lanigan-attempts-reclaim/story

Fred2670 #fundie wrongplanet.net

Is it ok for a dude to hit HARD on a lesbian?

I dont condone fags hitting hard on hetero dudes
I think thats grounds for a hate crime
but

she is so beautiful.. hard little rock hard ass
34 C's bustin out. Smile make a man drool

confirmed bachelorette
or so I thought

I was sitting at the bar, other side drinking rum. She came in with a guy. It surprised me . I didnt think she was like that. I had known her girlfriends well enough to learn that she was full on dike.. Turns out the guy was someone she works with but I asked her about him anyway when I got the chance. Turns out he had no idea. Sucker on a string buying her drinks without a chance.

She said "Why" and before I had could lie I said.. "because when you come out of your cocoon I want to be there". We had a good laugh over that but she ended up asking if my number was the same. I didnt know she even had my number so I updated it for her real quick. I want to take her to the drive in to see IronMan and then toss her over the front seat and see what shakes loose.

I want to marry her because I have to get married to someone in the next few months but shes probably not the right one. I know that. All we have in common is our desire to be with women and Im not wearing a wig again for any girl I dont care how hot she is. Ok maybe I would wear wig but marriage is a long time, I might start sweating after six weeks or so.

My question is should I pursue this? Should I try to marry her? Its a dream come true if it happens. I would even let her beat my kids, but maybe its wrong to go after a lesbian. It seems to me she is interested in dudes a little bit anyway. Maybe shes bisexual. That would be cool then I could do her friends too.
every woman, however misguided, must know
they need me.. or another capable man.
Its in the DNA I cant help but see a female on female relationship and not think to myself SOMTHINGS MISSING did they have a bad experiance?


[you should leave her alone if she's not interested...
and it's kinda rude, too.

have to get married?]

I guess I dont understand what is rude about it. Do you mean that its rude for a guy to hit on a lesbo? This is all uncharted territory for me. I have never had a lesbian girlfriend before and she is so hot that I admit it could be clouding my judgement a bit. Truthfully, I would want to be with her even if she wasnt a lesbo. This whole situation is complicated in the extreme so thats why I asked for opinions.

Yes I want to get married. I want to have a son to pass on the family name to. I guess I dont really need to get married in order to do that, but it seems like the right thing. She doesnt know any of this, but I dont believe it would be a problem for her. All women are hardwired to have and raise kids.. even lesbians

shopaholic #fundie wrongplanet.net

The baby is as much a human being before it is born as after. No woman should have the "right" to kill another person just for her own convenience.

Sorry, but if you insist on making it "safe", all you are doing is removing the deterrent.

If there was a 95% chance that having a abortion would kill or maim you, how many people would risk having one?

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but abortion is even harsher on the baby, who has no choice in the matter, unlike the woman.

underlying #fundie wrongplanet.net

[From a community/support forum for people with autism and their families]

The monstrosity plague is pervasive, not autism. Autism is not a pervasive developmental disorder. It is the expression of a demon, uniquely expressed in us all due to our unique selves, and it is widespread (pervasive) through our selves.

In this time, there are no treatments that impact this thing. It must be assaulted.

We reside in it. A vestige of our true selves, wrestles with it, suffer from it. Most of us know not anything different, nor can we, nor can we imagine. A living paralysis.

The demon emanates through our eyes. And upon resting on the eyes of another, can cause them horror, and convert their own eyes to the demon for a brief instance, before they themselves turn away. We avert our eyes to spare others, and to spare ourselves the heightened experience of our, selves.

JDoglio #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

The Koran is coded
THE DOLLAR IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE
SURA 90 The Soil September 20-23 2011 The code for this SURA - Day of dollar death
The dollar is about to be intentionally collapsed on the PAGAN holiday MABON The holiday symbolic for harvest/death. Also NOT by coincidence this was when the housing bubble poped AND when 9/11 occured. It is a BIZARRE Pagan plot against humanity. 9/11 happened in 2001, 10 years ago. In numerology 10 years = 1 cycle.
You have got to purchase silver coins immidiatly, the price of silver is being held down by central banks right now but they can't hold it down much longer and silver is about to skyrocket to hundreds of dollars per ounce literally over night. Silver and gold are about to be the only viable form of currency. All your paper will soon be totally worthless. People are about to lose EVERYTHING.
All the planned infrastructure "repair" you are seeing and hearing about is really part of a plan to attempt to restrict our movements. I travel 100's of miles for work and can tell you that all this construction is being done on bridges and on/off exit ramps that lead in and out of cities. Also NOT a coincidence.
Listen to the National Guard commercials your hearing all the time on the radio & TV. "Join so you'll be there when your community needs you." They are planning on using the national guard against us here in our own communities. Also, if you listen to the US Army, Navy and National Guard commercials you hear "A Global force for good." They are going to use the US militaryas a kind of world police.
The hyper inflating food prices are also being done on purpose. They are driving up food stock prices with the intent of starving BILLIONS to death. No one has to starve, it's an attempt to make food so exspensive that no one will be able to afford it. There will be people starving in cities while food is literally rotting. It is incredibly important to have food stored, as well as devise methods of growing your own food under very adverse conditions.

zer0netgain #fundie wrongplanet.net

I believe YEC is possible. I know there have been scientifically proven matters that really disrupt the claim of science that the earth must be billions of years old or that historical events took millions of years to unfold. That there is evidence of "scientists" repressing these scientifically-proven (by secular researchers no less) issues because it doesn't agree with their views just shows that scientists aren't always objective.

(emphasis added)

zer0netgain #fundie wrongplanet.net

Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.

1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.

2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.

3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.

btalex1990 #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

I need ur opinions on future peaceful resistance forces against mandatory vaccines

I am already autistic and I am allergic to vaccines and so I am fearful that in the fall over fear of the swine flu they will force us to take the vaccine or ship us all to a concentration camp I read from two federal documents a soldier told me.

They plan to kill people in those camps since they refuse to get vaccinated, so I am creating resistance videos to flood youtube searches and sites to warn people that we need to set injunctions in every state to halt forced vaccination and find a better way to fight the swine flu like rife frequencies (aka The Rife Machine aka Royal Raymond Rife).

just-me / Glenn Beck #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM30nqfasyU

This you tube link explains how going to the cash for clunkers web site is a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea ?.....

The reason will scare you to death.

If you click the accept button on the agreement then it makes YOUR COMPUTER THE PROPERTY OF THE US GOVERNMENT TO USE HOWEVER THEY WANT.

It means they can use all your files for any thing they want and watch everything you do on the internet.

This is scary ......

MrLoony #fundie wrongplanet.net

For athiests, God is science. For me (and other Taoists), it is the Tao. For (some) Buddhists, it is Bodhi. For Hindus, it is Brahman. For Discordians, it is Eris. For the Norse, it is Odin, Thor, Baldur, and all the various other Norse deities. It is much easier to compress them all into the words "under God" than in any other way of saying it. It can be extraordinarily deceptive to the uninitiated, but is correct nonetheless. Keep in mind that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear.

Tim_Tex #fundie wrongplanet.net

I wonder what would have happened to him (Fred Phelps) if he were in North Korea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea#Abuses_of_religious_freedom

That's the country I would personally live in. It's the only one that routinely and aggressively persecutes Christians, yet isn't a predominantly Muslim nation.

I carry a photo of one of Westboro's pickets and wrote a caption that says "This is what all Christians actually believe".

ruveyn #racist wrongplanet.net

Let us apply some logic. Clearly if Iran disappeared tomorrow it would be good for America. Right? So whenever Iranian A kills Iranian B it is a step in the right direction. No matter how this turns out, good will come of it. Dead Iranians are better Iranians than live Iranians.

Rejoice!

piroflip #racist wrongplanet.net

oh really!!!!!! why are they an "important minority"?

they have come to live in Britain so that they can lead a better life than they can in their own backward, stone aged countries.

and the first thing that they do is try to turn Britain into the backward muslim dump that they have just left.

i don't know one single person in Britain who isn't sick of the sight of them.
EVERY person who i speak to is fed up of the creeping islamification of our country.
they jump straight to the front of every queue, they demand special treatment because of their religious brainwashing, they expect US to change our way of life to suit THEM.
they get offended at the slightest remark against their obscene religion.

btw, if you don't think that the islamic religion is obscene, try reading it!!!!!!!

the sooner this bunch of loony left traitors is dumped out of office the better.
if the New Labour party of traitors had their way Britain will be a islamic state within forty years.

Ragtime #fundie wrongplanet.net

What kind of megalomanic is this guy (Obama)?? He wants the hall all to himself. He doesn't want to look around the room, and be reminded during his speech that many people have other gods besides him. Will Georgetown obey Obama's first Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

At the very least, the guy is for suppression of religion. Unless you happen to be thoroughly beholden to him, that is.

falcorn #racist wrongplanet.net

if you voted for him because hes black. that means you are a racist bigot and you dont like white people

i voted for mccain becuase hes white. Oh you say that makes me racist?

i guess it does, but what does that make all the black people that voted for obama. there were even commercials on BET saying vote for obama hes the "black vote"

oh yea and everyone in africa is racist too because they only have black presidents, i guess we should all go there and vote for white people and get excited about the first "white" president in nigeria.

racist scum blacks

pezar #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

Think about it-from the perspective of the global elite, a world population of autistics, especially LFA's, could be the perfect world. Why?

Autistics require extremely expensive medical therapies to function. This means loads of dollars for Big Pharma. In addition, the crypto-pharma industry benefits from additional trillions spent on biomed and various quack therapies.

Autistics typically don't work, therefore there is little need to employ them, so they do not dilute the workforce. Smaller workforce=more welfare cases=easier to control people.

Autistic brains generally function at a low level. Autistics are often consumed with special interests, or too low functioning to have much in the way of independent thought at all, so there's little chance of them leading a revolution. Even if you do get the odd stray who comes up with rebellious ideas, they have a difficult time winning others over to their cause. A single revolutionary is easy to quarantine and neutralize.

Autistics rarely reproduce. The elites want to drastically reduce ballooning human numbers by curtailing ability to reproduce, so a lot of autistics would mean fewer babies, and eventually a big population decline.

And the best part-autistics rarely complain or fight back in any meaningful way. Many are mute. Others are too scrambled mentally to organize their thoughts to revolt. Most have little ability to use weapons or martial arts due to coordination problems. So you have a big kid screaming and hitting, which is easy to control-put him in a straitjacket and stuff him in an isolation room.

Therefore, large numbers of LFA autistics would be in the best interests of the elite. In many ways, they're the perfect population-they consume much but produce little. They pad bank accounts but cost very little to maintain. The supposed goal of Autism Speaks may be mass abortions, but what if it is REALLY mass autism, and we're being lied to? Parents can always be counted on to be useful idiots, draining third mortgages looking for a cure that not only doesn't exist but which nobody WANTS to exist. Autistics are not sick enough to die, but not healthy enough to rebel. Perfect! Quality of life is low, but life itself is long, and has to be maintained with expensive drugs and other treatments.

Ragtime #fundie wrongplanet.net

(Ragtime's Daily Double?)

Deciding whether my wife should get a full-time job, or whether we should move into a smaller apartment, or both,
in the event Obama is elected. The new American Dream will be: survival.

(Then in the very next post!)

I read a news story about twenty-something politicians around the world who have officially changed their names to Barack Obama. That really raises the bar high for the Antichrist, whenever he shows up. He'll have to somehow be even more charismatic than Obama.

Ragtime #fundie wrongplanet.net

Yes, but the difference is that atheists can't logically support morals, beyond morality being merely a personal preference,
and thus something a thief can vaildly reject for himself, because when he says that stealing isn't "wrong for him",
any atheist's argument against that sentiment is not based on anything that is even logically compatible with atheism.
With atheism, you are left with believing in evolution, which teaches survival of the fittest as the one and only way that progress (evolution) occurs, whether we like it or not.
I.e., when you and your friend are starving in the desert, it's best to kill him and take his food and water. An atheist cannot call that even slightly wrong, and back up his statement with reason. After all, you're doing this to survive, so it's fully defensible to those who put a premium on survival, and to anyone who accepts survival of the fittest as the reigning concept of life. In fact, attacking your potential competition ruthlessly is what you should do based on the evolutionary theory of how progress is made: you're simply advancing the species by taking every cruel advantage you can of other people, by the evolutionary model. Who can sat you are in the wrong except a religious person? No one. The quote, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is what we're left with: pure moral relativism, when stealing isn't wrong, but is rather just someone else's version of what is right.

Stealing is survival of the fittest:
It's the smarter and/or more powerful annexing the property of the less intelligent and/or weaker for one's own furtherance.
That's simply the way life works, under the evolutionary model: Attack them before they attack you.

There is no rational defense of morality within an atheistic framework. Anything deemed "morality" must come from outside atheism, and indeed from outside the physical world itself. For physical survival (which is the only kind atheists believe in), simple expediency is best: morality when it benefits you materially, and immorality when it benefits you materially.

faberman #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

One of my obsessions has been researching the holocaust, it didn't actually happen. I have never found any gas chambers. You can visit a couple as a tourist, the one at Auschwitz was built by the Russians after the war. And the one at Dachau in Germany was built by the Americans, again after the war.

Oh and by the way, I'm jewish.

Adakin #racist wrongplanet.net

this is absurd, i applaud the "hicks" as you liberal crybabys call them for their wonderful taste in selecting a name for their child

(Really? So shall we assume you're a white supremacist, a troll trying to invoke the wrath of "liberal crybabys" or simply too young and stupid to recognize good manners and common sense?

I'm all ears.......)

well get this, my name comes from the german randolph, my last name ends in ler, so you could say i'm a little biased

i would not describe myself as a white supremacist, but i do believe in racial integrity and i believe science validates my position

to sum it up, blacks are by far better athletes, in running, basketball, fighting, et cetera

whites are better in academia, as doctors (although indians are great competition), as attorneys whites are better

but don't read into my comments, all i am trying to get across is that blacks have their strong points as do whites, now which count more in the real world, sure it's great to be able to jump 5 feet off the ground or throw a discus, or run a marathon, but i think the white's skills are a little more desirable as they open up better opportunities in life

CelticRose #fundie wrongplanet.net

I'm totally against Santa Claus.

1. I believe that all magic is evil and Santa uses magic.
2. How can it be good for parents to lie to their children about the existence of Santa?
3. He's a tool for parents to bribe/threaten their children into good behavior.
4. He's a powerful symbol of consumerism (the modern Santa was originally an advertising campaign for Coca-Cola).

I don't mind the pagan origins of some Christmas traditions since they have been changed into something good.

GoatMan #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

Now I'm so glad I didn't join the state police... If I did, I'd probably just be a pawn of Obama's upcoming paramilitary force to ensure we all turn off our electricity on time.

The guy is already talking about punishing anyone who tries to run their American incorporated businesses overseas because of supply costs, but at the same time, will still punish them for producing enough product to make a self-sustaining profit. He's even been quoted as to making our electric bills "skyrocket" (his EXACT words) in order to force companies into compliance.

Last time I checked, capitalism was about letting MARKET CONDITIONS determine what businesses survive, and which ones fall.

My income is now going directly to purchase as many survival supplies as possible. I do not intend to live with a traceable identity when things go south.

Suggestions for a constitutional monarchy or democratic nation to which I can emmigrate?

Orwell #fundie wrongplanet.net

MrCellophane wrote:After being spiritually apathetic for years, I converted to Wicca in high school. I've felt much more fulfilled and become a better person since then. Any other Pagans here? Or other non-Christians?

Is there a particular reason for this opposition to Christianity? Is your religion based on actively opposing mine?

ValMikeSmith #racist wrongplanet.net

(RSTDT? CTSTDT?)

I never would have thought he was black, if the news never lied about it.
He looks more like Jewish to me.

Last month my parents that are very political called him Barack HUSSEIN in
conversation and I thought it was a joke. Now I know, That's HIS REAL NAME!

I'm not going to rant about conspiracy theories.
I wasn't watching this information on Youtube. I found it out by myself to be true.
I'm only saying here what I found out is true and proved.
All the news lies around here, they said he was black, and kept his name secret.

His name is three words in Arabic. I haven't found out what they mean yet,
but they mean something. Not like John Doe. More like precolumbian Americans,
which have names like "Red Arrow", "Crazy Horse", "Sitting Bull", etc.

People ask me why this hasn't "come out". It has, or I wouldn't know about it.

twoshots #fundie wrongplanet.net

scientists will destroy the world because science is a religion it also dehumanizes us and refuses to recognize the obvious evidence of things that cannot be tested which is why science refuses to recognize that the lhc is going to destroy the world because they are prying into things which man was not meant to know and i;m going to say i told you so to everyone when the entire earth gets sucked into a black hole some meddling scientist made because of their hoobris this is just like the atomic bomb which is also going to destroy the world and frankenstein crops and genetic engineering and penicillin

Oscuria #fundie wrongplanet.net

[Then why should I follow God? Your god, to put it nicely, sounds like a huge jerk if he thinks the only thing worth anything is people padding his ego. I'm a pillar of salt? He's a fictional character. I guess we're even. Really though, even if we assume he is real, why should I follow a god that is so immoral? I would not kill someone for not believing in me.

Also, your god does not make the laws in the US. This is not a theocracy.]


And you sound like an idiot believing God should care for atheists who don't submit to or believe in Him.

Also you shouldn't follow God if you have such dimwitted views about Him.

Fred2670 #fundie wrongplanet.net

I find it difficult to understand why those
who purposely live their lives so far out of
the mainstream would deem it necessary to
have their lives so widely accepted. If one
desires the same rights and privilages as
that of normal society, then they should
conform to those same standards.

Fred2670 #fundie wrongplanet.net

Homosexuality isnt a condition..
its a cop out for dudes who cant get chicks

"Oh Im fat" or "Oh Im ugly" or "Oh I cant get laid"
"Oh I guess I'll do whatever I can..????
Sick Sad Wrong. Stay the hell away from my kids.

Jesus and Darwin agree
Wake up be a man

Fred2670 #fundie wrongplanet.net

I also think gays should be required by law to wear medic alert type bracelets inscribed with the word HOMO. In a hypothetical situation where I see some guy get hit by a car, I would be much more willing to administer medical attention if I knew whether or not the person on the ground (possibly bleeding) is a homosexual.

Slowmutant #fundie wrongplanet.net

Jesus Christ is hardly flavour of the month.

The Pussycat Dolls are flavour of the month.

Messiahs and 3-day resurrections are very much Christian ideas. These ideas form the keystone of the Christian faith itself. Pre-Christian examples of resurrection and messianic figures are irrevelant to Christianity, aren't they?

Invictus & snake321 #conspiracy wrongplanet.net

(just part of a ridiculously long conspiracy rant. Remainder of the thread is equally deranged.)

You can't swallow this so just go back to believing the predigested propaganda they feed you everyday. And if you do know what's up, everybody around you will disown you, fight you and incarcerate you for speaking the truth. I just did time for thought crime. My family snitched me out to the government for what I'm about to tell you now. This is no joke. George Orwell's 1984 is now. But everyone is walking around like zombies stuck in a TV daze. If you truly desire to open Pandora's box- you have to be willing to jump out of a plane with no chute. To sacrifice comfort for truth. Because in these times ahead it will be crucial weather you are asleep or awake.
To summarize: Everything you believe in very passionately is a LIE. Religion, politics- every popularized group thought. If you didn't invent it, it's been created to control you. To divide you. The masonic motto is "divide and conquer." The word "illuminati" means illumined: bright. Smart. One that can see in the dark, like an owl; one that has knowledge that the profane (you) don't have. (See the back of the dollar bill.) The people in charge of the world are evil, inbred, psychopathic, control freaks that instigate fake wars throughout centuries to profit, exterminate and keep the masses in a dumbed-down, confused state. In virtually every major "news" event, there exists a completely hidden agenda behind what was told to you. From JFK to the moon landings to 9/11 to Charles Manson to the Virginia Tech shootings to the Columbine massacre to the "education system" to the air you breathe to the food you eat, to the vaccinations you receive to the "founding fathers" to the "constitution" to global warming. That's the big one. The government is using "global warming" to gradually remove your freedoms and eventually form a one world government. Originally they were going to use a fake alien threat which Reagan talked about and that the C.I.A. promotes through science fiction, military manufactured flying saucers and government conducted "alien" abductions. That's what "The War of the Worlds" was about. To test the publics reaction. They've opted instead for environmental guilt and worship of "mother earth." And it's working.

slowmutant #fundie wrongplanet.net

Fear of Jesus reveals the depth of one's self-loathing.

Portayal of Jesus as a name-calling bully? WTF?

Read the Gospels, whoever thinks Jesus will call you names and bully you. Ask a pastor or priest about it.

I've never heard of self-hatred being able to do this. It's like deep down, being persecuted and spat on is what these people get off on. Despite all appearances, some people will engineer situations which they can be victimized. It's almost what you'd call a fetish.

Oh Lord ...