Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

Expand Messages
  • Brad
    julienne wrote: I don t think the word odious pertains, - however, I also am terribly bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      julienne wrote: "I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
      bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
      incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
      waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
      many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
      no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
      birth control.
      "


      Women have the majority of the vote in the US so why do wars still persist? Over incarceration in prison's, mainly men, stems from creating laws that make masculinity and anything male oriented illegal. Again, its roots are founded in feminism and feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us. Academia caters to girls on many levels and discourages boys.
      Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit it.
      These bully-girls demand "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

       
      Brad Beal
      Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur


      From: Julienne <julienne@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 7:43 AM
      Subject: Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

       
      At 08:08 AM 10/31/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
      Julienne,

      Well then, let me be more specific so you do not have to worry yourself
      and "assess" my statement, which assessment turns out to be offensively
      wrong.  I would not want you to be flat out wrong about anything.  I'm
      not sure your psyche could stand it.

      Snarky. I am often wrong about many things - I am not the kind of person
      who looks back on her life and thinks she would just relive it exactly
      the way I did the first.time. But I don't think it helps to start making
      personal attacks and character references when we are discussing issues.
      If one has to do that, it is usually an indication one doesn't have
      really good points to defend a position. If you disagree with me, that
      doesn't give you the moral right to criticize my character.

      I've changed my mind about many things - from becoming very
      disillusioned with men, to changes in my religious beliefs, to many
      ideas about sex - and on and on and on. haven't you? But I am not
      going to politely back down from something I believe strongly just
      because you might call me names. I find that an especially male thing
      to do to women - not that some women don't do it. 

      First personal belief: I do NOT consider it odious to provide financial
      assistance to a woman who wants an abortion.  In fact, I have loaned a
      friend money for an abortion, and not all of it was repaid.  Second
      personal belief: I DO consider it odious when such a woman cannot obtain
      the needed resources and must, as a result, resort to a "back alley,
      wire-hanger" abortion.

      Is that clear enough?

      Better.

      I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
      bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
      incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
      waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
      many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
      no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
      birth control.

      Now...what confuses you is your apparent inability to understand an
      additional personal belief, a complication that conflicts with these
      other personally-held beliefs:


      As opposed to your "personality held beliefs"?

      I also find it odious to tax people and
      use that money in order to fund another person's personal behavior that
      the taxed person finds immoral.  Hopefully, you do not need a lengthy
      discussion to see how this 3rd belief conflicts with the first two.

      Sure - but perhaps the word "odious" was part of the problem - with
      the element of disgust which that evokes.

      I resolve this personal dilemma by assuming that enough Americans are
      now both sufficiently informed about the evils of back alley abortions
      and have sufficient resources to ensure that Planned Parenthood is well
      funded.

      If they are so informed, then why are they still going out of their way
      to give women such a hard time about this?

      Why are so many spouting amazingly ignorant ideas about women's bodies?

      Why bring in Planned Parenthood? Only 2% of what Planned Parenthood does
      has to do wth abortions.

      Are you suggesting that Planned parenthood should only be privately funded?

        Hell, I'm sure Jane Fonda alone has enough money to entirely
      fund any loss of revenue that Planned Parenthood experiences if the
      Federal Government cuts its funding.

      What does Jane Fonda have to do with this? When you have to bring in
      Jane Fonda and Planed parenthood, them forgive me, but I have to
      question your motives. Jane Fonda is a very complicated person - a
      heroine to many, and an object of scorn to flag wavers.



        I am confident that no woman
      anywhere in America will ever be absent a place to turn to for a proper
      abortion that she can afford.

      I think your confidence is misplaced, There are now places already where
      the only way an American woman can get an abortion is if she is willing
      to put up with several forms of humiliation, bodily invasion, domination
      and procedures meant to intimidate her.

      And do you realize how many abortion clinics have now be closed? We are
      now going back to the days when a woman has to cross state lines, or go
      to another country, to another country?

      That last assumption is where the argument lies, not in some offensive
      characterization of my personal beliefs.

      Don't know what you mean with this last statement...

      Julienne


      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > At 09:49 AM 10/29/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
      > >Julienne,
      > >
      > >You have a very bad habit, of which you might not be aware, so let me
      > >point it out to you here.
      > >
      > >You correctly quoted me (copied and pasted) as saying, "I think the
      > >facts . . . [omitted sections not material] . . . but I do believe
      that
      > >a human life is precious, which means I sympathize with many of their
      > >positions in this particular regard.  It is odious for me to take
      their
      > >(and my) taxes and use it to support abortion."
      > >
      > >You follow that with this statement: "Thank heavens that not every
      > >country finds it 'odious' when a woman needs help."
      > >
      > >THAT IS OFFENSIVE...and I think you are smart enough to know that is
      a
      > >dirty, foul trick.  STOP IT!  I never said, nor would I ever say that
      it
      > >is odious when a woman needs help.
      > >
      > >I thought better of you, Julienne.  Maybe I was wrong.
      >
      >
      > Well, thank you, Sonny, for your interest in improving my
      character.<g>  :))
      >
      > I stand by my assessment of your statement. Your position means that a
      > woman who needs an abortion runs into your attitude that it is
      "odious" to
      > help her financially.. I pointed out the ramifications of your
      statement. I
      > find this a skill rather than a character defect. It's called
      "critical
      > thinking" - looking at the real implications of a statement, which, as
      > in your case, the speaker might not have consciously understood.
      >
      > You must also be well aware of the many statements made about a woman
      > needing an abortion, which are very insulting, denigrating, heartless,
      > mean, cruel, sneering. I think it's important to point these out if
      they
      > are ever to be ended through a raising of conscious awareness.
      >
      > It's okay, Sonny - I love you despite your own bad habits. :))
      >
      > Your faulty friend. :))
      >
      > Julienne
      >
      > <snip>
      The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012





    • Don Zimmerman
      ... DWZ: I remember that! I ll bet it is still true in China, not just in Mao s time. It was true in Russia too! And I have a suspicion that, despite the
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Brad <devilboy6x9@...> wrote:

        > These bully-girls demand "a change
        > in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in
        > the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version
        > of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's
        > time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?


        DWZ:
        I remember that! I'll bet it is still true in China, not just in Mao's time. It was true in Russia too! And I have a suspicion that, despite the collapse of communism, the Russians have retained that desirable social advance. I have always considered one of the really good things about communism to be the equality of men and women under that form of government!

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      • mark hubey
        The *principle of explosion*, (Latin : *ex falso quodlibet* or *ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet*, from a
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          "The principle of explosion, (Latinex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows") or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus,[citation needed] is the law of classical logic and intuitionistic and similar systems of logic, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] "

          That is logic.

          This, below is the reality that flows from false assumptions...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Russia

          As soon as the Burger King PhDs are flushed down the toilets, we will have more science.




          On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:
           

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Brad <devilboy6x9@...> wrote:

          > These bully-girls demand "a change
          > in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in
          > the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version
          > of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's
          > time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

          DWZ:
          I remember that! I'll bet it is still true in China, not just in Mao's time. It was true in Russia too! And I have a suspicion that, despite the collapse of communism, the Russians have retained that desirable social advance. I have always considered one of the really good things about communism to be the equality of men and women under that form of government!

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899




          --
          Regards,
          Mark Hubey

          "Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
          -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page 


        • michael haaheim
          Women have the majority of the vote in the US so why do wars still persist?- Brad Beal First, because women do not have the majority vote in Congress. Second,
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            Women have the majority of the vote in the US so why do wars still persist?- Brad Beal

            First, because women do not have the majority vote in Congress.
            Second, because there has never been a woman president in the US.
            Third, because wars involve more than a single nation.
            Fourth, because women are not a homogenous group... they too are divided into political parties, etc.


            De : Brad <devilboy6x9@...>
            À : "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
            Envoyé le : Jeudi 1 novembre 2012 17h16
            Objet : Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

             
            julienne wrote: "I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
            bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
            incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
            waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
            many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
            no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
            birth control.
            "


             Over incarceration in prison's, mainly men, stems from creating laws that make masculinity and anything male oriented illegal. Again, its roots are founded in feminism and feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us. Academia caters to girls on many levels and discourages boys.
            Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit it.
            These bully-girls demand "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

             
            Brad Beal
            Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur


            From: Julienne <julienne@...>
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 7:43 AM
            Subject: Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

             
            At 08:08 AM 10/31/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
            Julienne,

            Well then, let me be more specific so you do not have to worry yourself
            and "assess" my statement, which assessment turns out to be offensively
            wrong.  I would not want you to be flat out wrong about anything.  I'm
            not sure your psyche could stand it.

            Snarky. I am often wrong about many things - I am not the kind of person
            who looks back on her life and thinks she would just relive it exactly
            the way I did the first.time. But I don't think it helps to start making
            personal attacks and character references when we are discussing issues.
            If one has to do that, it is usually an indication one doesn't have
            really good points to defend a position. If you disagree with me, that
            doesn't give you the moral right to criticize my character.

            I've changed my mind about many things - from becoming very
            disillusioned with men, to changes in my religious beliefs, to many
            ideas about sex - and on and on and on. haven't you? But I am not
            going to politely back down from something I believe strongly just
            because you might call me names. I find that an especially male thing
            to do to women - not that some women don't do it. 

            First personal belief: I do NOT consider it odious to provide financial
            assistance to a woman who wants an abortion.  In fact, I have loaned a
            friend money for an abortion, and not all of it was repaid.  Second
            personal belief: I DO consider it odious when such a woman cannot obtain
            the needed resources and must, as a result, resort to a "back alley,
            wire-hanger" abortion.

            Is that clear enough?

            Better.

            I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
            bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
            incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
            waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
            many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
            no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
            birth control.

            Now...what confuses you is your apparent inability to understand an
            additional personal belief, a complication that conflicts with these
            other personally-held beliefs:


            As opposed to your "personality held beliefs"?

            I also find it odious to tax people and
            use that money in order to fund another person's personal behavior that
            the taxed person finds immoral.  Hopefully, you do not need a lengthy
            discussion to see how this 3rd belief conflicts with the first two.

            Sure - but perhaps the word "odious" was part of the problem - with
            the element of disgust which that evokes.

            I resolve this personal dilemma by assuming that enough Americans are
            now both sufficiently informed about the evils of back alley abortions
            and have sufficient resources to ensure that Planned Parenthood is well
            funded.

            If they are so informed, then why are they still going out of their way
            to give women such a hard time about this?

            Why are so many spouting amazingly ignorant ideas about women's bodies?

            Why bring in Planned Parenthood? Only 2% of what Planned Parenthood does
            has to do wth abortions.

            Are you suggesting that Planned parenthood should only be privately funded?

              Hell, I'm sure Jane Fonda alone has enough money to entirely
            fund any loss of revenue that Planned Parenthood experiences if the
            Federal Government cuts its funding.

            What does Jane Fonda have to do with this? When you have to bring in
            Jane Fonda and Planed parenthood, them forgive me, but I have to
            question your motives. Jane Fonda is a very complicated person - a
            heroine to many, and an object of scorn to flag wavers.



              I am confident that no woman
            anywhere in America will ever be absent a place to turn to for a proper
            abortion that she can afford.

            I think your confidence is misplaced, There are now places already where
            the only way an American woman can get an abortion is if she is willing
            to put up with several forms of humiliation, bodily invasion, domination
            and procedures meant to intimidate her.

            And do you realize how many abortion clinics have now be closed? We are
            now going back to the days when a woman has to cross state lines, or go
            to another country, to another country?

            That last assumption is where the argument lies, not in some offensive
            characterization of my personal beliefs.

            Don't know what you mean with this last statement...

            Julienne


            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > At 09:49 AM 10/29/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
            > >Julienne,
            > >
            > >You have a very bad habit, of which you might not be aware, so let me
            > >point it out to you here.
            > >
            > >You correctly quoted me (copied and pasted) as saying, "I think the
            > >facts . . . [omitted sections not material] . . . but I do believe
            that
            > >a human life is precious, which means I sympathize with many of their
            > >positions in this particular regard.  It is odious for me to take
            their
            > >(and my) taxes and use it to support abortion."
            > >
            > >You follow that with this statement: "Thank heavens that not every
            > >country finds it 'odious' when a woman needs help."
            > >
            > >THAT IS OFFENSIVE...and I think you are smart enough to know that is
            a
            > >dirty, foul trick.  STOP IT!  I never said, nor would I ever say that
            it
            > >is odious when a woman needs help.
            > >
            > >I thought better of you, Julienne.  Maybe I was wrong.
            >
            >
            > Well, thank you, Sonny, for your interest in improving my
            character.<g>  :))
            >
            > I stand by my assessment of your statement. Your position means that a
            > woman who needs an abortion runs into your attitude that it is
            "odious" to
            > help her financially.. I pointed out the ramifications of your
            statement. I
            > find this a skill rather than a character defect. It's called
            "critical
            > thinking" - looking at the real implications of a statement, which, as
            > in your case, the speaker might not have consciously understood.
            >
            > You must also be well aware of the many statements made about a woman
            > needing an abortion, which are very insulting, denigrating, heartless,
            > mean, cruel, sneering. I think it's important to point these out if
            they
            > are ever to be ended through a raising of conscious awareness.
            >
            > It's okay, Sonny - I love you despite your own bad habits. :))
            >
            > Your faulty friend. :))
            >
            > Julienne
            >
            > <snip>
            The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012







          • Julienne
            And the ramifications of these details are that: women don t get to declare war, women don t make the laws Brad gets around this with the amorphous its roots
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              And the ramifications of these details are that:

              women don't get to declare war,
              women don't make the laws


              Brad gets around this with the amorphous "its roots are founded in feminism" - which means that, whatever
              men do, it's women's fault - the devil made them do it - women made them do it.


              Julienne



              At 06:32 AM 11/2/2012, michael haaheim wrote:



              Women have the majority of the vote in the US so why do wars still persist?- Brad Beal

              First, because women do not have the majority vote in Congress.
              Second, because there has never been a woman president in the US.
              Third, because wars involve more than a single nation.
              Fourth, because women are not a homogenous group... they too are divided into political parties, etc.


              De : Brad <devilboy6x9@...>
              À : "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
              Envoyé le : Jeudi 1 novembre 2012 17h16
              Objet : Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

               
              julienne wrote: "I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
              bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
              incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
              waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
              many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
              no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
              birth control."


               Over incarceration in prison's, mainly men, stems from creating laws that make masculinity and anything male oriented illegal. Again, its roots are founded in feminism and feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us. Academia caters to girls on many levels and discourages boys.
              Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit it.
              These bully-girls demand "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

               
              Brad Beal
              Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur


              From: Julienne <julienne@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 7:43 AM
              Subject: Re: To Sunny: Re: [evol-psych] Re: "Atheists" against free speech -- example

               
              At 08:08 AM 10/31/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
              Julienne,

              Well then, let me be more specific so you do not have to worry yourself
              and "assess" my statement, which assessment turns out to be offensively
              wrong.  I would not want you to be flat out wrong about anything.  I'm
              not sure your psyche could stand it.

              Snarky. I am often wrong about many things - I am not the kind of person
              who looks back on her life and thinks she would just relive it exactly
              the way I did the first.time. But I don't think it helps to start making
              personal attacks and character references when we are discussing issues.
              If one has to do that, it is usually an indication one doesn't have
              really good points to defend a position. If you disagree with me, that
              doesn't give you the moral right to criticize my character.

              I've changed my mind about many things - from becoming very
              disillusioned with men, to changes in my religious beliefs, to many
              ideas about sex - and on and on and on. haven't you? But I am not
              going to politely back down from something I believe strongly just
              because you might call me names. I find that an especially male thing
              to do to women - not that some women don't do it. 

              First personal belief: I do NOT consider it odious to provide financial
              assistance to a woman who wants an abortion.  In fact, I have loaned a
              friend money for an abortion, and not all of it was repaid.  Second
              personal belief: I DO consider it odious when such a woman cannot obtain
              the needed resources and must, as a result, resort to a "back alley,
              wire-hanger" abortion.

              Is that clear enough?

              Better.

              I don't think the word "odious" pertains, - however, I also am terribly
              bothered that so much of our money goes for immoral killing wars, for
              incarcerating so much of our population, for corporations polluting our
              waters and air, and for welfare for oil and other conglomerates while so
              many people starve and live in poverty. One in 6 people in the US have
              no food toward the end of the month. maybe these people can't afford
              birth control.

              Now...what confuses you is your apparent inability to understand an
              additional personal belief, a complication that conflicts with these
              other personally-held beliefs:


              As opposed to your "personality held beliefs"?

              I also find it odious to tax people and
              use that money in order to fund another person's personal behavior that
              the taxed person finds immoral.  Hopefully, you do not need a lengthy
              discussion to see how this 3rd belief conflicts with the first two.

              Sure - but perhaps the word "odious" was part of the problem - with
              the element of disgust which that evokes.

              I resolve this personal dilemma by assuming that enough Americans are
              now both sufficiently informed about the evils of back alley abortions
              and have sufficient resources to ensure that Planned Parenthood is well
              funded.

              If they are so informed, then why are they still going out of their way
              to give women such a hard time about this?

              Why are so many spouting amazingly ignorant ideas about women's bodies?

              Why bring in Planned Parenthood? Only 2% of what Planned Parenthood does
              has to do wth abortions.

              Are you suggesting that Planned parenthood should only be privately funded?

                Hell, I'm sure Jane Fonda alone has enough money to entirely
              fund any loss of revenue that Planned Parenthood experiences if the
              Federal Government cuts its funding.

              What does Jane Fonda have to do with this? When you have to bring in
              Jane Fonda and Planed parenthood, them forgive me, but I have to
              question your motives. Jane Fonda is a very complicated person - a
              heroine to many, and an object of scorn to flag wavers.



                I am confident that no woman
              anywhere in America will ever be absent a place to turn to for a proper
              abortion that she can afford.

              I think your confidence is misplaced, There are now places already where
              the only way an American woman can get an abortion is if she is willing
              to put up with several forms of humiliation, bodily invasion, domination
              and procedures meant to intimidate her.

              And do you realize how many abortion clinics have now be closed? We are
              now going back to the days when a woman has to cross state lines, or go
              to another country, to another country?

              That last assumption is where the argument lies, not in some offensive
              characterization of my personal beliefs.

              Don't know what you mean with this last statement...

              Julienne


              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > At 09:49 AM 10/29/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
              > >Julienne,
              > >
              > >You have a very bad habit, of which you might not be aware, so let me
              > >point it out to you here.
              > >
              > >You correctly quoted me (copied and pasted) as saying, "I think the
              > >facts . . . [omitted sections not material] . . . but I do believe
              that
              > >a human life is precious, which means I sympathize with many of their
              > >positions in this particular regard.  It is odious for me to take
              their
              > >(and my) taxes and use it to support abortion."
              > >
              > >You follow that with this statement: "Thank heavens that not every
              > >country finds it 'odious' when a woman needs help."
              > >
              > >THAT IS OFFENSIVE...and I think you are smart enough to know that is
              a
              > >dirty, foul trick.  STOP IT!  I never said, nor would I ever say that
              it
              > >is odious when a woman needs help.
              > >
              > >I thought better of you, Julienne.  Maybe I was wrong.
              >
              >
              > Well, thank you, Sonny, for your interest in improving my
              character.<g>  :))
              >
              > I stand by my assessment of your statement. Your position means that a
              > woman who needs an abortion runs into your attitude that it is
              "odious" to
              > help her financially.. I pointed out the ramifications of your
              statement. I
              > find this a skill rather than a character defect. It's called
              "critical
              > thinking" - looking at the real implications of a statement, which, as
              > in your case, the speaker might not have consciously understood.
              >
              > You must also be well aware of the many statements made about a woman
              > needing an abortion, which are very insulting, denigrating, heartless,
              > mean, cruel, sneering. I think it's important to point these out if
              they
              > are ever to be ended through a raising of conscious awareness.
              >
              > It's okay, Sonny - I love you despite your own bad habits. :))
              >
              > Your faulty friend. :))
              >
              > Julienne
              >
              > <snip>
              The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012









              The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012



            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.