When the antiabortion movement meets the antivaccine movement...

Cap'nKrunch: It means he is the only one in this thread who thinks respecting a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is a radical idea.

He's also the only other guy on this site who doesn't believe women are people. There's another rape apologist on another thread, and although EH doesn't specifically identify as a Christian, I really wouldn't be surprised if he was. He and SN might be the same person too.

You know, I'm so glad I learned to read at a young age, and like loud syncopated music since it'll probably keep me out of Heaven. Who'd want to go given that G*d is such a douche and welcomes fragwits like SN?

Ok, I'll bite. SN, what exactly is your argument for making a rape victim suffer for 9 months and unleashing a monster/born victim on the world? Or making a ten-year-old give birth and damage herself for life? Is there any non-theological reason you could offer?

Also, do you believe that women are human? Have you ever met a grown woman, not a doormat?

To Politicalguineapig #1503:

“Ok, I’ll bite.”

No, you haven’t bitten anything,
but I’ll give you something to chew on.

Apparently you can’t read or can’t follow simple instructions.
You have not given *JUST ONE* pro-abortion position/argument, but have instead asked a question, actually two questions.

I’ll give you just one more chance.

What is your *ONE* (ideally favorite/best) pro-abortion position/argument?

What I'm hearing from See Noevo is "after ignoring any moderately difficult question or inconvenient point I'll answer address one argument but only if you play by my rules and lob it really slow." And to that I say, "how about , no." I've made dozens of posts on this thread asking a number of questions, making a number of arguments, and pointing out a number of flaws in yours. Take your pick.

This might be my ego speaking but I think this "generosity" of See Noevo's today might have something to do with #1484. Think about it. I called him out for ignoring everyone. This ploy let's him claim he's not running away while still avoiding having to answer anything he finds too difficult. Plus he can turn the running away argument around on anyone who refuses to play along.

It was a nice trick but a trick stops working once you see through it. There's a huge backlog of posts for you to address. That's how you might get people to see you as anything but a dishonest, cowardly shitweasel; not by playing these little games.

I’ll give you just one more chance.

As if you and your misshapen ego are in charge around here. You are not the dispenser of permissions and demands, to Pgp or anyone else: you're just a misogynistic nobody with an active keyboard, and we all know it.

Okay, I'll help out here. One question:

SN, what non-theological reason could you offer for making a ten-year-old rape victim suffer for 9 months, give birth, and thereby damage herself for life if she even survives?

To LW #1507:

“Okay, I’ll help out here. One question…”

Okay, I’ll help YOU out here.
Please re-read #1500 and #1505. Slowly, and let them sink in.
Now, would you like to rephrase your words in the form of your ONE pro-abortion position/argument?

I’ll give you just one more chance.

What is your *ONE* (ideally favorite/best) pro-abortion position/argument?

You forgot to explicitly specify your epistemological terms, moron.

To Narad #1509:

Me: “*The condition* of getting a response from me is this:
You submit *JUST ONE* pro-abortion position/argument. (Ideally, your ONE position/argument will be your *favorite/best*.)”

You: “You forgot to explicitly specify your epistemological terms, moron.”

What part of
“submit”, or
“*JUST ONE*”, or
“pro-abortion”, or
“position/argument”, or
“Ideally”, or
“Favorite”, or
“Best”

do you think needs explicit epistemological specification, moron?

Now, would you like to rephrase your words in the form of your ONE pro-abortion position/argument?

You've been given many good reasons for the pro-choice position.

Obviously your not going to change your own view, so there's no reason for people to keep flogging a dead horse's ass.

On a positive note, your babbling throughout this thread has nicely demonstrated that the first sentence of Orac's post "Many are the lies and epic is the misinformation spread by the antivaccine movement. " is equally applicable to the anti-abortion movement.

Not that hypocrisy, deceit and unethical behaviour are anything new to anti-abortion rabble rousers:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/22/361020/--The-Only-Moral-Aborti…

I'll play, why not.

I am pro-choice because it is morally repugnant to make a ten-year-old rape victim suffer for 9 months, give birth, and thereby damage herself for life if she even survives.

Your turn, See Noevo.

And yet, regardless of all it's posturing and pointless bravado, it will not - because it cannot - provide eight quotes saying what it wants them to say, about people here supporting all abortions in all cases, without exceptions or caveats.

But I'll ask a question anyway. Did you find the multitude of examples of you ignoring evidence, me and pretty much everybody else here has been providing sufficient or do you still feign not doing it so you wouldn't have to admit being wrong (or dishonest, you pick)?

Little lying creep.

^^ If only to alleviate its self-inflicted loneliness for even a moment, but mostly because this fugly 3d model takes forever to render.

Comment in moderation... again. Long story short, I think this most recent ploy by See Noevo is an attempt to turn the accusation of being a cowardly rat back on us. I'm not playing. There's plenty of content (personally I've made dozens of posts) to address. He wants us to play by his rules and lob some soft ones and thinks that when we don't he can say "but I gave you a chance, you were the coward who didn't take it."

Here's a simple one. See Noevo I have asked you a number of direct questions in this thread. Answering just one of them would make you look like far less dishonest coward than this stupid game, I'll even let you pick.

P.S. Orac, apologies about getting auto-modded twice in this thread. I'll have our shadowy backers deduct the standard penalty from the next pay period.

@ Bill Price #1506 -- Obviously, God died and left SN the job.

To Pickwick #1512:

“I am pro-choice because it is morally repugnant to make a ten-year-old rape victim suffer for 9 months, give birth, and thereby damage herself for life if she even survives.”

Well, Pickwick, congratulations for being the first to take up my offer.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that I don’t see your argument making any sense for the following reasons:

1)While it IS morally repugnant to MAKE anyone suffer, no one apart from the rapist has made the ten-year-old to suffer, i.e. through physical and emotional trauma of the rape.

2)If making a ten-year-old take her pregnancy to term under medical supervision with a likely Caesarian section (see, for example, http://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html) is making a child suffer for 9 months, then so is making a child undergo, say, cancer treatments and surgeries for 9 months. Or 9 years. Should the child die from cancer because you don’t want to make her suffer the required medical treatment that could make her well?

3)The girl need not “damage herself for life if she even survives” the birth of the baby. There’s counseling, family support, adoption. Even without those things, plenty of females continue to live their lives after rape.

4)The emotional trauma of the rape, those memories, will never go away for the girl. Why compound them with the emotional trauma she’ll have to deal with for the rest of her life for what she IS responsible for (i.e. murdering the innocent life inside her)?

5)If not even the rapist would get the death penalty, why should the baby?

Let’s not add one tragedy onto another.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/754/387/a46.jpg

Looks like Pickwick will ALSO be the ONLY one to take my offer.

Why so still, you little “lambs”?

The “Silence of the Lambs”!
Disturbing movie.

And a disturbing thread here.

At least the lambs in the phrase “Silence of the Lambs” were innocent.

The most disturbing aspect of the The Silence of the Lambs was the psychopath at the center of it all.

Kind of like one of the participants in this comment thread, which I must come right out and say as one of us is not terribly quick on the uptake.

Once again, See Noevo kindly proves a prediction of mine a mere 4 posts after I made it. It says more about his predictability than my intelligence though.

[See Noevo in #1519]Looks like Pickwick will ALSO be the ONLY one to take my offer

"[me, in #1513]:But I’ll ask a question anyway.[...]

It sure makes one wonder if the misogynistic eugenicist creep really is that stupid, or just dishonest.

Not to mention capnkrunch's point, as well as the numerous questions he has asked earlier.

Looks like Pickwick will ALSO be the ONLY one to take my offer.

Not to mention Narad and Politicalguineapig, to which the creep even replied before making that statement...

See Noevo@1517

1) While it IS morally repugnant to MAKE anyone suffer, no one apart from the rapist has made the ten-year-old to suffer, i.e. through physical and emotional trauma of the rape.

Because women exist only to give birth. She should be happy she's pregnant regardless of who the father is.

2) If making a ten-year-old take her pregnancy to term under medical supervision with a likely Caesarian section (see, for example, http://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html) is making a child suffer for 9 months, then so is making a child undergo, say, cancer treatments and surgeries for 9 months. Or 9 years. Should the child die from cancer because you don’t want to make her suffer the required medical treatment that could make her well?

No difference between these things, huh? Recall, the specific case was an 80 pound 9 year pregnant with twin. The doctors judged it to be life-threatening but you don't even need medical knowledge to figure that out; simple geometry will do. If anything, it is the abortion that is similar to cancer treatment. But best to roll the dice with the little girl's life because of your ideaology right?

3) The girl need not “damage herself for life if she even survives” the birth of the baby. There’s counseling, family support, adoption. Even without those things, plenty of females continue to live their lives after rape.

This one I somewhat agree with. As I'm not a woman, much less a young pregnant rape I (apparently unlike See Noevo) can't speak for what's best. In this case the overriding perogative is protecting the young girl's life. But, even in a situation where there is no life threat I think she should have the option. If an abortion will making coping with the trauma of the rape easier go for it. That's her decision to make. I'm not so heartless as to say, "no, you must suffer for my ideals."

4) The emotional trauma of the rape, those memories, will never go away for the girl. Why compound them with the emotional trauma she’ll have to deal with for the rest of her life for what she IS responsible for (i.e. murdering the innocent life inside her)?

Why compound the trauma with having to relive the rape every time she feels the baby kick? Would that be worse than the trauma of an abortion (which I readily acknowledge is a traumatic experience)? I don't know. But neither do you. That is the woman's decision to make and hers alone.

Beside, the ones intensifying emotional trauma from the abortion are you and yours by condeming her as a murderer. It was a 15 week abortion. In your extreme view it was the murder of a living person. As you have seen here, in the view of others not so much.

5) If not even the rapist would get the death penalty, why should the baby?

The biggest reason in this case: to protect the mother's life. I'm going to ignore your loaded langauge here, please don't take that as me conceding that abortion is equivalent to the death penalty. Are your morals really worth risking both the unborn twins and the mother (and make no mistake, the risk here is far from trivial) when we can virtually guarentee the mother's life (relatively speaking abortion is an incredibly safe procedure)?

Let's see if you can be a discussion going or if this one argument deal was simply a saving face maneuver.

Forgot to mention, well played Pickwick. As See Noevo's response demonstrated in that situation his position is undefendable. Interestingly he didn't answer literally the same statement just phrased as a direct question from LW in #1508. My guess as to why is that it's easy to hand wave away someone else's position than it is to defend your own with hand waving.

And this is what happens when I type these long comments in my phone. Corrections to #1525:

...much less a young pregnant rape victim,...

Let’s see if you can keep a discussion going...

I'm sure there's a dozen more (in fact I can already see some punctuation issues) but these two really bothered me.

Tic tac toe. Just noticed #1506 is out of moderation.

As this issue achieved world world historical importance while my back was turned, allow me to try this again: slowly, using small words, so that maybe someone will understand this time.

Little weasel thinks women are stupid, and must be restrained with draconian laws. The fact that many women will then die, to no purpose and in great pain, is a price that he is eager to pay.

I, Robert L Bell, think there is no crisis of women murdering their precious babies. I think women can be trusted to make these decisions without submission to an army of control freaks. One price we pay for this scenario is in hospitals torched and doctors murdered, which by a peculiar moral calculus is alleged to redound upon the victims.

Little weasel skips around denouncing us as morals degenerate, I roll my eyes and tell my friends anecdotes about the internet loon who makes feeble attempts to stalk me, and everybody gets what he wants. Well played, Orac.

What I want to know is, why is God on the rapist's side? Why can't God love the rape victim, or the woman who chooses feeding her existing kids over the fetus she can't afford? Why is God's heart so small that he can only love men and fetuses?

SN: So, here's a question: if you had to choose saving two young girls or a fetus, which would you choose?

Of course, we all know that you'd walk away from any child you created, even if a woman somehow was stupid enough to actually marry you.

Now, gaist, you surprise me a bit.
I would have thought you would take my offer and provide *JUST ONE* pro-abortion position/argument (Ideally, your ONE position/argument will be your *favorite/best*).

You probably have MANY such pro-abortion positions/arguments. You may have even posted them here.

All you have to do is pick one.
If you can’t think (and I understand you can’t) how to pick just one - like a kid in a candy store - than draw straws or flip a f****** coin.
Put pick one. And I’ll respond.

Poor, going-out-of-his-gourd, gaist.
Untangle your underwear**, and free yourself!

** [“I don’t have my panties in a bunch…”
You fooled me. How about “underwear”?
“After had to explain, re-explain, plead and rave for the last over two hundred posts to get you to …”
OK, then. You DO have your underwear in a bunch.]

#1528 should say connect four not tic tac toe. Oops

So, in response to my #1500 offer, the one and only “argument” presented for abortion is the case of a ten-year-old rape victim.

And it makes no sense to me (ref. #1518).

By the way, just out of curiosity, out of the over 55 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade, about how many involve PRE-teen mothers?
And how many PRE-teens who are mothers due to rape?

Anyway, hope springs eternal:

“Girl, 11, Gives Birth to Baby Boy in Northeast Hospital”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/02/05/girl-11-gives-birth-to-baby-boy…

See Noevo@1533

So, in response to my #1500 offer, the one and only “argument” that played by my rules presented for abortion is the case of a ten-year-old rape victim.

FTFY. I responded not once but twice and was ignored both times. I also responded point by point to your reply to Pickwick and, big surprise, was ignored. No. You don't get to play cards from your opponent's hand.

For all you sports fans out there, in light of the (*ahem*) surprising degree of interest that this thread continues to draw I have moved the over/under line on comment #2000 to September 1, 2015, at 11 AM.

Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets!

@Politicalguineapig #1530

I know your question is rhetorical, but the answer is important and it needs to be said more often: God does love the rape victim. He does understand what people do, and why. and He has not appointed our little weasel to be our judge or our jury or our executioner: those are tasks that LW has taken upon himself by his own authority.

Certain people like to blow smokescreens and set themselves up as little demigods who are in charge of everyone else's lives. This posture runs contrary to all of Christian theology, as well as the letter and spirit of the Ten Commandments, so these people are to be neither trusted nor obeyed. Certainly they are to be kept far away from our law making machinery.

I apologize on behalf of all Christians for the horrible job they have done in bastardizing our movement and creating such a mess for everyone else to clean up.

Baby's are never asked if they want to be born. I rather wouldn't have been born, though I don't want to be dead yet.

Because you really are that stupid that you can't parse a statement out of a simple question, and/because you are so petty and desperate for attention you keep milking anything, even ridicule and disgust to alleviate your self-inflicted loneliness...

I do not need to lie, mis-characterize others by quote-mining or downright dishonesty, ignore evidence or to categorically denigrade whole groups of people to support my pro-legal* abortion stance, which is one reason I think it is preferable to any alternative that does. Like yours.

* Thereabouts pro-legal stance, I'd expand local abortion laws but my version would probably fall a little short of the most accepting of State legislations (just a hunch, not particularly interested in this part of US law, just comparing to an impression).

@Robert L Bell:

He does understand what people do, and why. and He has not appointed our little weasel to be our judge or our jury or our executioner: those are tasks that LW has taken upon himself by his own authority.

Uh, what? I hope you mean SN. I have appointed no one as judge, jury, or executioner, nor will I.

See Noevo is very casual about "making a ten-year-old take her pregnancy to term under medical supervision with a likely Caesarian section". Being sliced open so as to remove even one baby, much less two, is a pretty grueling experience*. It is painful, takes a long time to heal, can be fatal, and (I was told by a woman who experienced it) ensures that the victim will not be able to have a vaginal birth ever again. And See Noevo sees no evil in forcing a child to go through that.

* I've talked to women who've experienced it, though not ten-year-olds and not with twins.

@Robert L Bell #1536

I find your apology insufficient, I want an official apology from the POPE for See Noevo's very existence.

Joking aside, you don't really strike me as a christian judging by your other posts.

To Garou #1541:

“@Robert L Bell #1536 … Joking aside, you don’t really strike me as a christian judging by your other posts.”

Garou, for once I agree with you.

Doesn’t anyone out there have the stats on how the number of PRE-teens pregnant by rape compare to
the over 55 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade?

While you’re digging, here’s another pre-teen birthing success:
“12-Year-Old Dutch Girl Gives Birth on School Trip”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/30/12-year-old-dutch-girl-gives-bi…

And yet, regardless of all it’s posturing and pointless bravado, it will not – because it cannot – provide eight quotes saying what it wants them to say, about people here supporting all abortions in all cases, without exceptions or caveats.

There's no point playing this game with See.

This is its position:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

See will not change its views .... which I'll note require no thought on its part as it just regurgitates the church's position.

My position when talking with someone like See will always be that a female should have access to abortion at any time and for any reason she chooses and every female, and male, should have easy access to reproductive health information and their choice of birth control.

It isn't up to me, or See or anyone else to determine when and why an abortion will be allowed. This should remain a matter between the female and her own conscience.

Any equivocation about this just serves the purposes of creatures like See, who are determined to get back to the days of no legal abortion under any circumstances, save perhaps to save the female's life, and maybe not even then and no "non-natural" birth control available

I'll point out that Canada has no abortion law whatsoever and things are working fine here.

Comparing "later term" abortion statistics ... which presumably is the area that may give some pro-choice people pause ... between Canada and the U.S. we find 2% of yearly abortion for the former and 1.8% for the latter ... in which a number of states have already rolled back abortion rights, largely due to the same anti-abortion rabble-rouser wedge issues that See has attempted to employ in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

So not a significant number in either country.

At any rate, discussing anything with See is as productive as talking to a wall however, treating him as a reasonable person, e.g., another pro-choice person, with whom one could have a reasonable discussion about hypothetical limits to a the female right to choose is completely pointless, if not counter-productive.

There can be no compromise with creatures like See.

I

Robert L Bell, I'll remain an optimist and bet this thread will never reach 2000,due to See Noevo - realising how untenable his position has gotten - quietly and cowardly slinking away.

In doing so, I'll help him do good for once I'm its miserable existence: I will donate a goat or a patch of vaccines to the needy "overbreeders" (regardless of their religious affiliations) in Africa if this thread will not reach 2k.

See wrote:

I’m an extremist for life.

Really?

Outside of trolling the web blathering on about imaginary babies and spreading misinformation, etc, exactly have you ever done to make a real world positive difference in anyone's life?

I'd guess nothing.

But please tell us of anything, other than possibly employment duties, e'g., school janitor, you've done in your life at some sacrifice to yourself, e.g., time, and that has materially improved any non-family member's life.

For example, helped the blind see, the lame walk, cured a leper, etc.

Show us exactly how being an "extremist for life" is something other than empty words.

...for once in its miserable existence... Thank you auto correct.

See wrote:

Anyway, hope springs eternal:

“Girl, 11, Gives Birth to Baby Boy in Northeast Hospital”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/02/05/girl-11-gives-birth-to-baby-boy…

The comment of an obviously disturbed mind ... as if we needed more evidence of that.

Of course given its political views, if there's a future story about the new "mom" going on social assistance, See will be of elsewhere decrying the burden of "welfare mothers", or some-such thing, on society.

Hey, See.

Are you in any of these anti-abortion rabble-rouser photos.

Are you the K of C guy in the top photo?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/23/3694274/planned-parenthood-p…

I'd be really grateful if you folks in the U.S. could get your religious crackpots ... both in government and otherwise ... under control so that their malign influence doesn't seep more to the north ... and elsewhere ... than it already has.

And we don't want Ted Cruz back ... you're stuck with him.

While you’re digging, here’s another pre-teen birthing success:

He thinks this is a success story.

To DGR #1544:

“At any rate, discussing anything with See is as productive as talking to a wall … completely pointless, if not counter-productive.”

Then, why are you, DGR, STILL here asking me questions and responding to my posts, four weeks after you started doing so?

See Noevo@1543

While you’re digging, here’s another pre-teen birthing success: [emphasis mine]

I had to take a sip of my coffee just so I had something to spit out. Luckily I'm on my phone so See Noevo doesn't owe me a new keyboard.

A profound projection and a fantastic Freudian slip by gaist #1545:

Projection:
“Robert L Bell, I’ll remain an optimist and bet this thread will never reach 2000,due to See Noevo – realising how untenable his position has gotten – **quietly and cowardly slinking away**.

[BTW, I'm not going anywhere. Maybe I'll take this to 2,000.]

Freudian slip:
“In doing so, I’ll help him do good for once **I’m its miserable existence**…”

Ah, from the mouth of intellectual babes.

One again, and to no surprise, notices a distinct lack of promised reply from the creepy angry creature.

Freudian slip:
“In doing so, I’ll help him do good for once **I’m its miserable existence**…”

Not to mention correcting it myself, and thanking auto-correct, less than a minute later. Way to go, dishonest creep.

Then, why are you, DGR, STILL here asking me questions and responding to my posts, four weeks after you started doing so?

I like to waste my time, or at least, have time to waste?

I mean, it's one thing to waste time when you know you're doing it and another to do so without realizing you're doing it, e.g., discussing anything with you the same way one would with a rational individual.

Getting back to my comment at #1546, how long do you expect it will take to come up with a list of things you've done in your life, other than possibly employment duties, e’g., school janitor, at some sacrifice to yourself, e.g., time, that have materially improved any non-family member’s life?

Couple of weeks?

Until hell freezes over?

Maybe I’ll take this to 2,000.

Do you really hate Africans so much, dishonest creep?

Considering gaist’s projection of his sick self – “quietly and cowardly slinking away”…

got me to thinking:
Who is it that’s been virtually completely ignored in these discussions of mothers and their babies?
You know who?
MEN.

And tying the two together, as in ‘MEN, quietly and cowardly slinking away’,

I came up with ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS:

*Both the legalization of abortion and the promotion of contraceptive use were primarily the desires, inventions, and causes OF MEN.*

That is, *Both the legalization of abortion and the promotion of contraceptive use were primarily the desires, inventions, and causes OF THE WORST KIND OF MEN.*

The quietly and cowardly and slinking away men;

the selfish, irresponsible, immature, sex-obsessed, unloving men.

Advancement of women my a**.
Abortion and the Pill were “godsends” to the kind of men attacking me here.

But keep attacking if you will. I’ll carry on.

Doesn’t anyone out there have the stats on how the number of PRE-teens pregnant by rape compare to the over 55 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade?

Why. Would it matter? You're still a misogynist.

Considering gaist’s projection of his sick self – “quietly and cowardly slinking away”…

Care to explain how me expressing hope you would slink away is projection?I know you haven't shown any grasp of language before, so I'm curious if you have an alternative definition for "projection" that isn't shared by the rest of the world?

And once again, after all the posturing and bravado, it keeps fearfully slinking away from keeping its promises. Lying creep.

I came up with ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS:

So what?

How about just telling us what "you’ve done in your life, other than possibly employment duties, e.g., school janitor, at some sacrifice to yourself, e.g., time, that has materially improved any non-family member’s life?

Hey, See.

Can you explain why any of us should view the anti-abortion movement rabble-rousers as anything other than hypocritical busybodies.

If you haven't already, read this, oldie but goody, illuminating article first.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/22/361020/--The-Only-Moral-Aborti…

And please provide your opinion on whether the, from your earlier comments, young girls who had babies are deserving of any state social assistance ... if available ... given that an eleven or twelve year old might have difficulty finding gainful employment.

Or should they just go with the old "leave them on the riverbank" or "church steps" route?

What part of
“submit”, or
“*JUST ONE*”, or
“pro-abortion”, or
“position/argument”, or
“Ideally”, or
“Favorite”, or
“Best”

do you think needs explicit epistemological specification, moron?

Spoken like a true occultist–supernaturalist sterile hybrid. It's OK, Bitsy – I'm arranging a flight on short notice to accompany a friend who just got into town, so I was a bit short on time.

This entire display of utterly pathetic desperation for attention merely signals that the notion "people are talking about me, rather than to me is finally sinking in.

But anyway....

Hey, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/27/when-the-antiabortion-move… am I?

*The condition* of getting a response from me is this:
You submit *JUST ONE* pro-abortion position/argument. (Ideally, your ONE position/argument will be your *favorite/best*.)

And I’ll respond!

Now, there's clearly no value proposition here whatever, because nobody gave a fυck about you before you started whining like a bitch in heat for more attention.

But I did briefly speculate about what the nature of the inputs and outputs would be. What use is making a Snazzm point when you're utterly mired in a combination of Bad Fazzm and Bad McPozzm?

@#1525 --

Would that be worse than the trauma of an abortion (which I readily acknowledge is a traumatic experience)?

I don't know why. There's no reliable evidence that it is. And there's extensive evidence -- including the big, recently published long-term longitudingal study right here -- that it isn't:

Women in this study overwhelmingly felt that the decision was the right one for them: at all time points over three years, 95% of participants reported abortion was the right decision, with the typical participant having a >99% chance of reporting the abortion decision was right for her. Women also experienced reduced emotional intensity over time: the feelings of relief and happiness experienced shortly after the abortion tended to subside, as did negative emotions. Notably, we found no differences in emotional trajectories or decision rightness between women having earlier versus later procedures. Important to women’s reports were social factors surrounding the pregnancy and termination-seeking. Having had difficulty deciding to terminate the pregnancy, and reporting higher pregnancy planning levels, were strongly associated with negative emotions and lower decision rightness, while being in school and working at the time of the pregnancy was associated with far higher feelings of decision rightness. Community stigma and lower social support were associated with negative emotions.

IOW: Social shaming and the loss of a desired pregnancy hurt women. But abortion does not.

DGR's link @#1512 kinda makes the same point a different way.

Rape, on the other hand, is a traumatic experience. And one of the reasons for that is that once you know that your power of self-determination is effectively an illusion whenever someone else wants it to be -- literally to the point that you can't even keep other people out of your body -- it's very hard to forget. Because that's pretty damn powerless. And it's a very frightening thing to know.

So. The upshot of that is that there's really no particular reason why either having an abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term would necessarily be a more traumatic experience for a rape victim than they would be for anybody else who made the same choice.

But either could be traumatic for anybody who was forced to submit to it against her will, and especially so for rape victims.

Consequently, a ten-year-old rape victim who was taken away from her mother and forced to carry a pregnancy to term that had led to the complete, permanent destruction of her home, her family and her childhood -- which, however bad they may have been were the only ones she had; her life, in effect -- would not be suffering less because she was "under medical supervision." FFS. That's actually how you would be making her suffer.

And it's obviously meaningless to say that making other people suffer is morally repugnant if you reserve the right to say when they're suffering and when they're not, then exercise it in accordance with your personal preferences to the exclusion of theirs. Again. that's actually how you would be making them suffer.

(But the comeback to that will no doubt be some variation on: "Oh, yeah? You think I'm making others suffer? Well, that's what people who have abortions are doing to fetuses! I fight for the voiceless! I'm rubber! You're glue!"

And since that's even more obviously not a meaningful distinction when you can't even make a case that there are any other people that isn't premised exclusively on your personal beliefs, another eighty cycles of completely pointless rinse-and-repeat would then no doubt follow.

But, you know. You can't really expect people who don't grasp that unilaterally setting the terms of the discussion wherever you want and then judging others for how well they abide by them is actually the opposite of winning an argument to recognize when they've lost one. QED. )

Anti-Planned Parenthood Group Caught Passing Stillbirth Photo Off As Abortion

The Center for Medical Progress is apparently using the same playbook as Robert Schenk. (ref: #1392, #1398)

<blockquote

Let’s not add one tragedy onto another.

Not what the word means, BTW. If S.N. were honest, he'd have used the correct one for his construction, crime.

"Psychedelic experience refuses to conform to any system involving an external dynamic and will inevitably betray anyone who tries to control either his own or his troop’s trips. Indoctrination can confuse or delay the correct interpretation of psychedelic experience, can make doing it much more stressful than it needs to be, can sometimes warp the content somewhat, but cannot determine the content.

"I think this fact drives some people, commonly and accurately known as 'control freaks,' half out of their minds with rage and frustration, but these are the kind of people who would be displeased to discover that their neighbors think a thing of beauty is a joy forever, so not much can be done for them."

@LW #1539

Apologies, apologies, apologies: I meant LW as a contraction for little weasel, my pet name for our resident pest.

And, since people are wondering, I really am a Christian. Honest! Some of us are stupid humorless literal minded gits, but not all.

And, based on decades of experience tussling with crackpots of many varieties but creationists in particular, I expect this thread to blast way beyond #2000 on the strength of little weasel and his delight in the dishonest and disruptive. Truly, that man is the worst advertisement ever for the Whore of Babylon.

I'm sure this won't surprise many people.

But unless liberals have grown so daring that they're now altering the documentary record of events that are well within the living memory of millions of people, that OTHER HYPOTHESIS about abortion and contraception being the work of THE WORST KIND OF MEN is not so much a hypothesis as it is a complete fantasy.

Gaining reproductive freedom for women was one of the primary objectives of second-wave feminism. And numerous women's groups had been making significant progress on that score for years before Roe v. Wade. That's why abortion was already legal in New York and Connecticut. For example.

Chance being a fine thing, there's a 400-plus page pdf illustrating the truth of that in great detail, right here..

Well, the window I opened to the pariahs in #1500 is now closing.
Only one response, from one non-pariah (yet) Pickwick.

So, out-of-his-gourd gaist and capncrunchycranium, Robert L Bats-in-the Bell-fry and Nada Narad and whoever else (I’m losing count) go back on the “No fly”/”Do not call” list.

They blew it.

To ann #1563:

I’m not really surprised by the study’s finding that “95% of participants reported abortion was the right decision, with the typical participant having a >99% chance of reporting the abortion decision was right for her.”

I’d imagine women would present similar numbers when reflecting on their decision to have a cancerous growth removed from their bodies. And that’s kind of how they see their babies – as cancerous growths.

And more basically, people who evaluate possible options about anything and then choose one of the options, are generally going to say they made the right decision at the time.
Also, people being prideful, they’re less apt to admit their mistakes, especially if they think their mistakes MIGHT have taken innocent lives.

Study: “Having had difficulty deciding to terminate the pregnancy, and reporting higher pregnancy planning levels, were strongly associated with negative emotions and lower decision rightness…”

I would think studies of sociopaths might produce similar sentences. For example: ‘For non-sociopaths, having had difficulty deciding to murder was strongly associated with negative emotions and lower decision rightness. The sociopaths, by contrast, had no difficulty deciding to murder and had no subsequent negative emotions and feelings of lower decision rightness.’

ann: “The upshot of that is that *there’s really no particular reason* why either having an abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term would necessarily be a more traumatic experience for a rape victim than they would be for anybody else who made the same choice.”

I can think of one particular reason.

“Consequently, a ten-year-old rape victim who was taken away from her mother and forced to carry a pregnancy to term that had led to the complete, permanent destruction of her home, her family and her childhood — which, however bad they may have been were the only ones she had; her life, in effect — would not be suffering less because she was “under medical supervision.” FFS.”

BS.
Complete, permanent destruction of her home, her family and her childhood?
The rapist took her childhood away. And if the rape and pregnancy caused complete, permanent destruction of her home, her family, then, she didn’t have a real home or family to begin with.

“And it’s obviously meaningless to say that making other people suffer is morally repugnant if you reserve the right to say when they’re suffering and when they’re not, then exercise it in accordance with your personal preferences to the exclusion of theirs. Again. that’s actually how you would be making them suffer.”

You go, girl. So, if, say, a sociopath complains honestly that you’re making her suffer by preventing her from doing her dirty deeds, then, YOU are the BAD girl.
Got it.
Bad girl, annie.

And back to that study briefly. When I saw “longitudinal” study, I was kind of expecting a study over more than 3 years. I would have hoped for something closer to 30 years. Here are some gals who had regrets or continued to have regrets in perhaps that 3 year to 30 year time period: https://www.youtube.com/user/SilentNoMoreCampaign

P.S.
The only reason I haven’t placed archbishop 0-fer annie on the “No fly”/”Do not call” list, is that she at least makes an attempt at sounding smart with her specious reasoning – like a wannabe academic or the worst type of PhD.

So, I’ll continue to play with her, for now.
Maybe she’ll even learn something.

Only one response, from one non-pariah (yet) Pickwick.

Demonstrably false, on multiple accounts but here's mine, again.

"I do not need to lie, mis-characterize others by quote-mining or downright dishonesty, ignore evidence or to categorically denigrate whole groups of people to support my pro-legal* abortion stance, which is one reason I think it is preferable to any alternative that does. Like yours."

@ ann ( re # 1563):

BUT ann, there you are invoking shades of meaning ( and data) when you're addressing someone who only understands black vs white, good vs evil, death as a negative outcome vs 100% okay hunky dory results- it's dichotomous thinking without qualification.
Developmental psychologists know about this scenario only too well.

In any event, I'm pretty sure that the WORST KIND OF MEN is the kind who think they're entitled to force their desires right up into the reproductive organs of a ten-year-old child if that's what they feel like doing.

@#1571 --

That's why I wasn't addressing him!

Semantics aside, well said.

See wrote:

Well, the window I opened to the pariahs in #1500 is now closing.

I guess the fact that you're the only "pariah" in this thread eludes you.

Go figure.

Re: #1569, just say "I've got nothing" and save you and us the drivel.

Also, prior to posting more verbose restatements of your previous empty drivel, please respond to my #1561 and #1562.

@ #1571

And speaking of See NoBraino:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/business-commerce-meet…

I imagine to a control freak obsessed with traditional roles , the development of contraceptives and the legalization of abortion would be the work of the worst kind of man - that is, one who believes women are capable of making their own decisions.

To DGR:

“How about just telling us what “you’ve done in your life, other than possibly employment duties, e.g., school janitor, at some sacrifice to yourself, e.g., time, that has materially improved any non-family member’s life?”

Your stupidity is stupefying.

If I responded to your request by saying I won the Nobel Peace Prize, and a Mother Teresa award, and volunteered 40 hours/week helping raped pregnant 9-year-olds, and gave a million of my dollars to help them and others…
what would your response be?

I think your response would be the same as it would be if I said I did many “smaller” good works to help others. Like:
“Sure. Liar! Prove it!”

Would you also like my picture ID, address, and Social
Security #?

Stupefying stupidity.

DGR, you’re officially joining the others on the “No Fly/Do not call” list.

If I responded to your request by saying I won the Nobel Peace Prize, and a Mother Teresa award, and volunteered 40 hours/week helping raped pregnant 9-year-olds, and gave a million of my dollars to help them and others…
what would your response be?

Well, I would have been a bit skeptical about the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not sure trolling the web with anti-abortion propaganda, misinformation, etc. would qualify you as a worthy recipient, like President Obama, for example.

Mostly I just wanted to see how imaginative you could be.

Would you also like my picture ID, address, and Social Security #?

Sure, if it's not inconvenient.

Might help me to validate your self-described "extremist for life" bona fides.

Though if these, as I suspect is the case, are limited to the above-mentioned trolling and the occasional quarter in a Salvation Army kettle at Christmas, just say so and save us both the bother.

@ shay :

I wonder how these throwback fellows will to react to the latest addition to women's arsenal in liberation- the so-called female Viagra?

ann@1563
Thanks for that information, the numbers are even more positive than I would have expected. I had said that based on a friend's experience but it's a position with no really great choices. See Noevo seems to think there is no cost (emotional or otherwise) to putting a child up for adoption or trying to raise a child that you are unprepared for. I highly doubt many women make the choice lightly; my friend certainly didn't. She made what she felt was the best choice from a list of unpleasant options and it bothers me greatly when people like See Noevo call her a murderer. It's just vile.

Anyway, I didn't mean to make it sound like abortion was necessarily more traumatic than the alternatives but rather that unwanted pregnancies are kind of a no-win situation and only the woman can decide what the best choice is for herself.

In #1488 I said I thought the most significant finding from the many comments here was basically that, even assuming a “no-problem pregnancy”,
*NONE of you would forbid ANY abortion a mother wanted.*

I could probably boil that down even further to

*You wouldn’t forbid a woman from doing anything she wanted.*

Oh, sure, you might make a queer quibble and say
“No! We wouldn’t forbid a woman from doing anything she wanted, *provided she doesn’t hurt anybody else.*”

But everyone has always known the “doesn’t hurt anybody else” is a lie.
Everyone knew there was at least one other body being hurt. And for a long time now, even scientists have known (i.e. separate human DNA of the zygote).

So, it really comes down to

*You wouldn’t forbid a woman from doing anything she wanted.*

And that’s pretty significant.

The most disturbing aspect of the The Silence of the Lambs was the psychopath at the center of it all.

I might be reading too much into the word "center." But assuming that you mean Hannibal Lecter and not Jame Gumb:

He's the only person in the entire movie who notices or appreciates a single thing about her other than her potential value as an object of desire.

At least in a movie-narrative context, that's not at all abnormal, except of him. But abnormalcy doesn't really stand out on him, obviously. So it's kind of hard to notice.

I think that's one of the reasons it's such a disturbing movie as well as such a frightening one. It's like you can't quite put your finger on what's wrong or where the looming threat to her is, exactly. (Apart from at the end, obviously.) But it always feels like there is one, except when she's with him. And that's very unnerving.

/my two cents.

SN, I would like to thank you for the compliment of making me one of the earliest members of your "Oh-sh¡t-this-guy-is-too-tough-to-handle" list.

To the rest of you, not yet listed: you're good, but you're going too easy on the jerk's evil ways and utterances.

In the time (admittedly longer than normal, I went to see Mission Impossible during that time; 7/10) between when I starting typing #1581 and posted it See Noevo had already hit on two points I made in the worst possible way in #1570.

me

I highly doubt many women make the choice lightly; my friend certainly didn’t.

See Noevo

And that’s kind of how they see their babies – as cancerous growths.

me

..it bothers me greatly when people like See Noevo call her a murderer. It’s just vile.

See Noevo

I would think studies of sociopaths might produce similar sentences.

And why he's called a misogynist still eludes him. I could feel the contempt for women in #1570 oozing through my screen.

You wouldn’t forbid a woman from doing anything she wanted.

This has a real Old Testament patriarchy feel to it.

So no, See.

This isn't 2000 B.C.E or the an episode of the Duggars.

Of course secular law "forbids" certain things however, in our modern democratic society, it applies equally to all (well, maybe not so much the 1% but, you get my drift).

What do you forbid the women in your life from doing, e.g., escaping from the secret room in the basement?

May I just point out for the record that the reason there have been more than a thousand uncontradicted posts completely uncontradicted posts pointing out the myriad ways in which everybody has not always known that "there was at least one other body being hurt" is this:

Not only has everybody not always known it, nobody knows it beyond the point of personal belief now.

And clearly, if SN "knew" something other people didn't, he wouldn't have had to drop his dialogue with JGC like a box of rocks back @#1166 due to his complete inability to come up with anything besides an argument from potential or an article of faith to back up his so-called knowledge.

(Furthermore, the only way that there's always been any consensus on the subject at all is that for the last 4,000 years or so, most cultures have believed that the only person who's affected by the loss of a pregnancy early on is the woman.

But never mind.)

What do you forbid the women in your life from doing, e.g., escaping from the secret room in the basement?

It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.

Ten-year-old girls not excepted. It's his world, after all.

Me: “I came up with ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS… *Both the legalization of abortion and the promotion of contraceptive use were primarily the desires, inventions, and causes OF THE WORST KIND OF MEN.* The quietly and cowardly and slinking away men; the selfish, irresponsible, immature, sex-obsessed, unloving men. Advancement of women my a**.
Abortion and the Pill were “godsends” to the kind of men attacking me here.”

archbishop 0-fer annie: “I’m sure this won’t surprise many people. But unless liberals have grown so daring that they’re now altering the documentary record of events that are well within the living memory of millions of people, that OTHER HYPOTHESIS about abortion and contraception being the work of THE WORST KIND OF MEN is not so much a hypothesis as it is a complete fantasy.
Gaining reproductive freedom for women was one of the primary objectives of second-wave feminism.”

Oh, those women got their “reproductive freedom” all right. Which makes me think, I have an EXTENSION of my HYPOTHESIS…
Here’s what else they got SINCE the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s:

1)More men who don’t want to marry or stay married.

2)More single mothers. (And we all know what great prospects await the average single mom. To say nothing of her kids’ prospects.)

3)More single women in general, each of whom must make it on her own. (And many of whom are battling, or are past, the biological clock for child-bearing by the time they’ve “made it” on their own. And about the same time, more of the certain kind of men have also “made it”, and now want to settle down with decidedly younger women.)

4)More single women with STDs or with an abortion history, neither of which increases the prospects for marriage or for future reproductive success.

5)More gray haired, angry, bitter “Gloria Steinem”s.

It's just a hypothesis.

But Up with Women!
Go Hillary! (But that’s a whole other sordid story.)

This has a real Old Testament patriarchy feel to it.

So no, See.

This isn’t 2000 B.C.E or the an episode of the Duggars.

Per the Code of Hammurabi, ""If a man strikes a woman [with child] causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekalim for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death."

It's 1754 BCE, not 2000. But that's pretty close.

And it's also very close to the only direct reference to the loss of fetal life in the Old Testament, which is Exodus 21:22 - 23:

"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow – he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow – then thou shall give life for life"

^^"Harm" was occasionally construed to mean "harm to the fetus" (ie -- stillbirth not live birth) by Karaites, Samaritans and others, notably Philo of Alexandria. And it's still construed that way by fundies. (And, for all I know, Christians generally.) But Talmudic scholars take it to mean what the Code of Hammurabi does.

It's basically one of those things where the Old Testament is considerably more patriarchal than the Hebrew Bible, even though they're the same thing.

So that's actually just the Duggars.

Se wrote

I have an EXTENSION of my HYPOTHESIS

See, do you ever discuss these brilliant hypotheses of yours with women in the real world?

It comes across that you may just be bitter because you're not getting any in this age of, in your eyes, unbridled promiscuity.

Assuming this is the case, it could be because most women, or at least the sane ones, might not warm to these
deep hypotheses on the first date.

Keep the conversation light.

You'll find this useful:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/08/22/how-to-make-small-talk/

Here's the Pic of the Day!
The good news is: They’re with YOU.

The bad news is…
well, skip it. You wouldn’t think it was bad news anyway.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/satanists-drown-women-for-planned-par…

The new new hypothesis is also a complete fantasy.

Marriage rates have declined in part because of no-fault divorce, which did become the general rule at about the same time that second-wave feminism was fighting for reproductive freedom. But it's an unrelated development. And the National Organization for Women was initially opposed to it.

But I mostly mean the parts about how not being forced to comply with SN's wishes for their lady parts has turned aging desperate women into withered, bitter crones who sure are sorry now. (coughPure projectioncough)

I could feel the contempt for women in #1570 oozing through my screen.

Considering that he evidently only feels empathy for the suffering of millions of voiceless, unborn beings whose feelings are -- PS -- known to him only in his imagination, he's not really in the best position to suggest that other people are sociopaths.

I mean, it's not really empathy when you only care about your own feelings. Especially when calling it that is your excuse for getting up inside a ten-year-old child so that your will might be done in her womb.

“Per the Code of Hammurabi, “”If a man strikes a woman [with child] causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekalim for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death.”

I don’t know what ten shekalim from 3700 years ago would be worth in today’s dollars, but it MIGHT be pretty substantial. I know one Israeli shekel is currently worth about a U.S. quarter.
If they're comparable to Hammurabi's shekalim, and we assumed 1% inflation per annum for 3,769 years,
we’d get something in the “whatever comes after Trillions” of dollars.
Couldn’t be that much. But ten shekalim way back then might have been worth a lot more to the Code of Hammumurabi people than we moderns might think.

Maybe it was not too unlike life insurance today. I know for a fact that children - even non-celebrity, non-famous children - can have life insurance policies. And certainly, adults can. If a highly productive, wealthy adult dies, his life insurance policy may pay out in the millions.
But understandably, probably not so with the little child's policy.
Nevertheless, if you deliberately killed either one, it would still be murder.

Hear ye, hear ye!

Let it be known that archbishop 0-fer annie has declared the following “a COMPLETE fantasy”:

SINCE the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s, women have seen:
1) More men who don’t want to marry or stay married.

2) More single mothers. (And we all know what great prospects await the average single mom. To say nothing of her kids’ prospects.)

3) More single women in general, each of whom must make it on her own. (And many of whom are battling, or are past, the biological clock for child-bearing by the time they’ve “made it” on their own. And about the same time, more of the certain kind of men have also “made it”, and now want to settle down with decidedly younger women.)

4) More single women with STDs or with an abortion history, neither of which increases the prospects for marriage or for future reproductive success.

5) More gray haired, angry, bitter “Gloria Steinem”s.

------ End of Complete Fantasy -----------

That is all.

The latest Neilsen ratings are in on this thread.
(For previous surveys, see #1119, #1314).

For the 30 comments #1565 through #1594,
6 were by me, 24 were by others.
Of the 24 comments by others, AT LEAST 21 or 88% were about me or my comments.

This is up from previous results of over 70%.

Advertising rates for The See Noevo Show are bound to rise.

See Noevo@1595

I don’t know what ten shekalim from 3700 years ago would be worth in today’s dollars, but it MIGHT be pretty substantial. I know one Israeli shekel is currently worth about a U.S. quarter.

This was so utterly stupid that I had to look into myself. Googling "babylonian shekel" leads immediately to the Wikipedia page which states:

Initially, it may have referred to a weight of barley. This shekel was about 180 grains (11 grams or .35 troy ounces).

Clearly far from the significant amount See Noevo wants it to be. I wondered where the "new Israeli shekel" thing came from at first. But, you'll notice there's a link to it at the top of the Wikipedia page.

Here's what I think happened. See Noevo had this stupid idea and went to confirm it. He found the Wikipedia page and realized it was, of course, stupid. He saw the reference to the new Israeli shekel and desperately grasping for something spawning this abomination masquarading as a thought.

Here's the real kicker though, his attempt was misguided from the very beginning. As anyone who passed middle school Social Studies can tell you the Code of Hammurabi was very much an eye for an eye system. The amount of money doesn't matter. If it was considered murder the offender would be put to death, same as the punishment for killing the mother. I think we can check of History as another subject of which See Noevo knows nothing.

Sigh.. corrections for #1598. One day I'll make a post without any mistakes.

...grasping for something , spawned this abomination...
...
I think we can check off History...

See Neovo@1597

This is up from previous results of over 70%.

Advertising rates for The See Noevo Show are bound to rise.

Bigotry is a time honored way of getting attention. Jist ask Donald Trump. What I don't understand is being proud of it.

By the way, these double, triple, quadruple, etc posts make for less reliable ratings.

Given that requiring people who cause a fetus to abort to make restitution by paying a small monetary fine doesn't involve an insurance company, or insurance policy, or -- not to put too fine a point on it -- insurance of any kind, I would say that it was decidedly unlike life insurance today. As to whether it was regarded as murder:

First of all, the punishment for killing the woman was death.

But just in case that seems inconclusive, let's see how a small monetary fine stacks up against the penalties for a few other offenses in the same code:

4. If a free person kidnaps the son of another free person, the kidnapper shall be executed.
15. If a free person helps a slave of either a palace or a civil-servant escape, that person shall be executed.
16. If a free person gives shelter to a fugitive slave of either a palace or a civil-servant, that person shall be executed.

25. If a fire breaks out in a free person's house and another free person who went to extinguish the fire saw, wanted, and looted any of the property in the house, the looter shall be executed by being thrown into that fire.
109. If rebels meet in a bar and the woman who owns the bar does not capture them and take them to the palace, that woman shall be executed.
125. If a priestess who does not live in the temple owns and operates a bar or even enters a bar for drink, that priestess shall be executed by burning.

229. If a carpenter has erected a poorly constructed house, so that the walls cave in and kill the homeowner, that carpenter shall be executed.
230. If the poorly constructed house causes the death of the homeowner's son, the carpenter's son shall be executed.
231. If the poorly constructed house causes the death of the homeowner's slave, the carpenter shall provide an equivalent slave for the homeowner.
232. If the poorly constructed house causes the destruction of the homeowner's property, the carpenter shall replace whatever has been destroyed; if the entire house caves in, the carpenter shall rebuild it free of charge.

Unless it falls on a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. Then it's another ten shekalim. But if it kills her, it's murder.

Early Monday morning I’ll be heading down to the shore for a couple days to meet up with some friends for some golf, the beach, maybe some time at the craps tables. I won’t be making any posts for a while.

But you can carry on without me.
Have some dialog amongst yourselves!
In your ghoulish group-think echo chamber.
Have fun!

I know I will.

Abortion is an outright evil, simple fact, has nothing to do with religon. Science says it human from the moment of conception. Any other time frame used is simply one that is arbitrarily made up based on predjudice for some reason. An

*snicker*

What’s the over/under on flogging this thing to #2000?

I call September 26.

Dear Robert,

I challenge you up to 3300 by my special date* on the 23rd of September. 3300 comments by then :)

Al

@Al: Having run better information through my probability calculusator and pulled back my marker for comment #2000, I think you have a strikingly good estimate for #3300. Do you want my money now, or can you wait for Oct 1?

We can be confident that little weasel will do his bit to pack the numbers with his usual act of bullying and bragging and missing the point with the volume cranked up to 11.

Somehow I'm not surprised that the dishonest creep failed to keep an explicit promise. Two in fact. But for him, par for the course.

For the 30 comments #1565 through #1594,
6 were by me, 24 were by others.
Of the 24 comments by others, AT LEAST 21 or 88% were about me or my comments.

It's not hard to "generate traffic" by begging for attention and asking for statements you then fail to address despite promises, and despite reminders and prompts - each of which you count.

But at least it isn't trying to incite lynchings of gay people by maligning them as pedophiles.*

(* This coming from a self-identified Catholic, who after trying his hardest to deflect any claim of pedophilia away from the Catholic church and to mitigate it's traumatic effects applauds pre-teen pregnancies as successes).

Considering gaist’s projection of his sick self – “quietly and cowardly slinking away”…

got me to thinking:
Who is it that’s been virtually completely ignored in these discussions of mothers and their babies?
You know who?
MEN.

It's comforting to know my presence on this thread has made an effect on your life, and helped you along your path to self-improvement. First steps are crucial, and while you stumbled into another inconsequential hypothesis, don't let it discourage you. Learning new things can be scary if you've lived your whole life avoiding it, but if you persevere it can open wonderful vistas of insight and compassion.

@Al

Having regained access to my patented Stuponitron Decopulator(R), I see that the not so smart money is on Oct 3 for crossing comment #3300. We shall see, my pretties, yes we shall.

DGR@1549

Look at the tweets cited in the Donald Trump article linked on the same page as your article.

"Women's health issues. We're gonna fix it." - Trump

If not See,then definitely his kind of people.Truly a picture for the ages.

What was it Sinclair Lewis said about "wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"?

Early Monday morning I’ll be heading down to the shore for a couple days to meet up with some friends for some golf, the beach, maybe some time at the craps tables. I won’t be making any posts for a while.

I find it so shocking that you said "down to" rather than "down the shore" that I feel I have no choice except to address you directly:

What kind of Catholic guy from Philly are you? As the people who write querulous letters to the editor of the Cape May County Weekly News might say, it's a disgrace.

Except they usually say it about taxes, parking, or what some people want to do with that empty plot of land down by the canal where the Nut Hut used to be.

I mean, you usually conform to such usages.

I think Pope Francis’ encyclical was largely, but not entirely, a disgrace of ignorance and lefty-politics.

^^For example.

So I really don't know how that "to" got in there.

Probably liberals, though. It's the kind of thing they would do.

Well, I think we're nearing the end of the See Noevo show. He has put pretty much on his ignore list save ann, and ann is half ignoring him.
I get the impression S.N isn't there to have any kind of conversation and is jsut preaching to an invisible audience because he likes the sound of his own voice.
See you next thread, GG!

Robert,

I can wait and see (& run stats).

:)

Al

On Almost Every Major Issue, Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Average American

For years, liberals have decried the conservative theology of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, lamenting U.S. bishops’ efforts to push back against LGBT equality, for example. But a new study illustrates a widening ideological gulf between Catholic leadership and people in the pews. In fact, typical Catholics are not only more left-leaning than the Church, but also more progressive than average Americans on most major issues — sometimes by significant margins.

The report, created through a joint polling effort of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Religion News Service (RNS), was released on Friday in preparation for Pope Francis’ visit to the United States next month. It chronicled America’s ongoing love affair with the popular pontiff, but also pointed out the increasingly liberal politics of the country’s Catholics.

According to this 51% of Catholics polled support legal abortion.

To Roger Kulp #1615:

I’ll save you the trouble of referring you to #1327 above.
Here it is:

Ann: “<blockquote Catholics around the world more liberal than Vatican
(65% say that abortion should be allowed in some or all cases; 78% support the use of contraception.)”

Me: [Block quote] translation: Most people may be going to hell.
["Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Mat 7:13-14;
“And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them, “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”” Luke 13:23-24]

As I expected.

In the two and a half days I’ve been away, only a dozen new posts.

At least 7 of the 12 were about me or my posts.
Only about 5 involved “dialog amongst yourselves”, and even then, it was just about how long this thread would go.

As I expected, in the ghoulish group-think echo chamber, the discussants never have much to discuss.

This video has gone viral.

[Maybe someday, this person will do a slightly different one - on how the media largely ignores the facts that about 70% of black births are to single mothers and that black pregnancies are aborted at almost FIVE TIMES the rate white pregnancies are.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8p_NGuQq6Q

@SN: or maybe we all got bored with you and found more interesting things to talk about. You will never change your mind, nor ours.

Gee, SN, I had hoped we could, for a little longer anyway, avoid you splattering your ego all over everything.

Some remarkable disclosures here by Dawn Dyer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz1gRNPgMvE

about 70% of black births are to single mothers and that black pregnancies are aborted at almost FIVE TIMES the rate white pregnancies are.]

So?

If your implication is that there's a eugenicist plot against blacks, it's incredibly easily falsified by checking birth rates.

And if it's that black women are immoral, you're a filthy racist,

But maybe there's a third choice that I'm not seeing. You tell me.

@ann

We have known for some time that he was a filthy little racist, and a liar to boot. And we were not surprised.

@Al

As recent experience shows all too clearly, the machinery of interpolation may be quite similar to that of extrapolation, yet the two arts are of completely different natures. Be ever wary of Poles lurking in the complex plane.

To ann #1622:

Me: “about 70% of black births are to single mothers and that black pregnancies are aborted at almost FIVE TIMES the rate white pregnancies are.”

You: “So? If your implication is that there’s a *eugenicist* plot against blacks, it’s incredibly easily falsified by checking birth rates. And if it’s that *black women are immoral*, you’re a *filthy racist*, But maybe there’s a third choice that I’m not seeing. You tell me.”

My, my, archbishop 0-fer annie!
Have your hormones frazzled your thinking?
Are you going through that change of life?
Such acerbic accusations and loaded language!

Can’t you just stick to the facts?
Facts such as the following?
1)Having a moral code and living according to that moral code are two different things.

2)The traditional American moral code, and certainly the Catholic moral code, is that sex outside of marriage and having babies outside of marriage and aborting babies, are, let’s say, “frowned upon”.

3)Following 2), the traditional American moral code as well as the Catholic moral code would generate more frowns for the black community than for other communities (although the Catholic code certainly encourages repentance and can grant absolution).

4)While Planned Parenthood might not provably eugenicists, as the largest abortion provider they certainly are assisting in the extermination of more blacks (relative to the total population of blacks) than they are of any other race.

So, those 4 facts above are “a third choice” that you weren’t seeing. And I told you.

Try putting a cold rag on your forehead, calm down, and consider these things.
Don’t be a wacky woman.

I, for one, approve of sex outside of marriage. Back before I was married that was the only kind of sex I had.

I'm not Catholic.

I have known several Catholics who appeared to not disapprove of sex outside of marriage.

I don't remember (and I'm sure not going to search *this* thread): is SN also anti-birth control?

To Mephistopheles #1627:

“I have known several Catholics who appeared to not disapprove of sex outside of marriage.”

I would not be surprised in the least if you were telling the truth this time.

BTW, did you enjoy the photo of your brethren I posted in #1592?
Here it is again. Celebrate!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/satanists-drown-women-for-planned-par…

JustaTech: oh, absolutely. Gotta punish those women for having sex, doncha know.

"The traditional American moral code, and certainly the Catholic moral code, is that sex outside of marriage and having babies outside of marriage and aborting babies, are, let’s say, “frowned upon”."

Were you born in 1850 or something?

"BTW, did you enjoy the photo of your brethren I posted in #1592?
Here it is again. Celebrate!"

What does the church of Satan have to do with us? Except that they hold the same view on abortion? They're much cooler than the catholic church IMO, they've got a nice statue!

(I know I'm on SN's bad list, since I don't give proper credit to his ego and his ramblings. Maybe some honest people around can enjoy my ramblings. ;-).)

Can’t you just stick to the facts?

OK, Got any?

Facts such as the following?

The question mark is appropriate, since all the "facts" you propose are questionable.

1) Having a moral code and living according to that moral code are two different things.

You and the RCC demonstrate that every day you show up. This is accepted as fact, without cavil.

2) The traditional American moral code, and certainly the Catholic moral code, is that sex outside of marriage and having babies outside of marriage and aborting babies, are, let’s say, “frowned upon”.

Which "traditional American moral code" are you citing here? How does it compare and contrast with "the Catholic moral code"? We know how the Catholic moral code differs from the teachings that the RCC promotes as its substitute for morality, so that doesn't pertain. (The RCC's morality-substitute consists primarily of (a) pay the RCC in homage and cash, submitted via the RCC's local subsidiary; (b) shut up; and (c) obey.)
Protip: there are a couple of recent articles at Friendly Atheist and Dispatches that cover a recent anthropological study on these questions. Since these articles actually give citations, they might give you a place to start rounding up the facts you're so concerned about. Be aware, though, the facts don't support your contentions very well.

3) Following 2), the traditional American moral code as well as the Catholic moral code would generate more frowns for the black community than for other communities

[Citation—i.e., facts—desperately needed]

(although the Catholic code certainly encourages repentance and can grant absolution).

Unfortunately, the Catholic morality substitute does not mention making right anything that one might have broken: just "give us some blackmail material on you, perform some meaningless rituals, maybe pay us more money, and we'll call it good."

4) While Planned Parenthood might not provably [be?] eugenicists, as the largest abortion provider they certainly are assisting in the extermination of more blacks (relative to the total population of blacks) than they are of any other race.

The figures you give in lieu of the facts you demand,

“about 70% of black births are to single mothers and that black pregnancies are aborted at almost FIVE TIMES the rate white pregnancies are.”

uncited as they are, do not support your contention, even if the figures are, somehow, correct and you have, somehow, characterized them honestly.

3) Following 2), the traditional American moral code as well as the Catholic moral code would generate more frowns for the black community than for other communities

There's no reason to break it down along color lines, unless -- granting for the sake of argument that the figures are correct -- your hypothesis is that blackness causes sexual immorality, which is despicably and repellently racist.

Could be that if you took the race filter off the data and just looked for single motherhood, multiple abortions, etc, you'd find that ALL women living in X, Y, and Z environmental conditions matched those numbers.

The way you're stating it is disgusting.

Your other point is absurd. The abortion rate for black women is higher for reasons that have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, which does not have the power to round up women and give them abortions against their will or while they're napping.

There's also no proof outside the wingnut-o-sphere that they have more clinics in black neighborhoods. And that's not a reliable source.

So basically, what you've got there is crypto-racism masquerading as a nonsensical, easily disproven conspiracy theory for which there's not one whit of evidence.

No doubt that means that you will continue to repeat it just as if it were true.

Typical.

^^I meant there's no reason for you to break it out along color lines, as an item of special interest.

There's nothing wrong with keeping stats by (among other things) race, per se. Obviously.

See can talk all he wants about moral codes, but his lack of compassion for pregnant children speaks for itself. He isn't a moral person, he can only fake it.

To ann #1633:

“There’s no reason to break it down along color lines, unless…”

Unless our Uniter-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his “Justice” Department, and his liberal media enablers break just about EVERYTHING down along color lines. I’m just going with the politically-correct flow.

“granting for the sake of argument that the figures are correct…”

No need to grant them for the sake of argument. They’re correct.

“your hypothesis is that blackness causes sexual immorality, which is despicably and repellently racist.”

I’m making no claims about cause and effect. I’m just stating statistical facts.

“Your other point is absurd. The abortion rate for black women is higher for reasons that have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood…”

My point is not at all absurd. I just said that while Planned Parenthood might not be provably eugenicists, as the largest abortion provider they certainly are assisting in the extermination of more blacks (relative to the total population of blacks) than they are of any other race.

“There’s also no proof outside the wingnut-o-sphere that they have more clinics in black neighborhoods. And that’s not a reliable source.”

Perhaps you’re referring to National Review. But are you also calling blacks wing-nuts? http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

And as I noted earlier, I decided to look at an area I was particularly familiar with – the Philadelphia area.
In the Philly area, Planned Parenthood has 8 facilities, 5 of which are in areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages. Of the 8 PP facilities, only 3 perform abortions. All 3 are in those areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages.

“So basically, what you’ve got there is crypto-racism masquerading as a nonsensical, easily disproven conspiracy theory for which there’s not one whit of evidence.”

Not one whit of evidence? That reminds me so much of “not even a smidgen”!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/02/obama_on_irs_scandal_…

Speaking of race and politics, I find it appalling that the Obama narrative has always been in large part:
“Our first black president.”
It’s a lie.
His momma was white as snow.
The only thing that made his election notable race-wise was that he was our first president who was not fully white. If he had been half-white and half Chinese or half Latino the same ground would have been broken.

Now, MY pick for president, WOULD be the first black president (ref. #1187).
But it just so happens that he’s my pick NOT because of the color of his skin.

But speaking of Barack, time for a break, and a musical tribute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiAR8I8wRmk

And keeping with the theme of liars and presidential politics, one more. It’s been said of her
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.” – The New York Times’ William Safire, 1996

“Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.” – Hollywood mogul David Geffen, circa 2001

Anyway, another musical tribute to a liar -
but written long before she decided to run for Queen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7rqB9E_0M

Regarding #1638, it looks like I forgot to mention she's also a Margaret Sanger Award winner.
Shame on me. Sorry, Hil.

Well, I'm happy to see that SOMEONE is pulling his weight around here. Only 360 to go, see you on the other side!

Speaking of race and politics, I find it appalling that the Obama narrative has always been in large part:
“Our first black president.”
It’s a lie.
His momma was white as snow.

See NoReality's runaway ego has taken it upon itself to redefine "black" (as pertaining to "race") now. SN would eliminate the long history of racism and white supremacy that gave us the "one-drop rule" (q.v., starting in wikipedia, for instance) and various other hypodescent (e.g., 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 disfavored ancestry) rules and of racial imputation. A SN's imagined matrilineal rule has not been favored in any US jurisdiction that I am aware of (YMMV, of course).

It's unclear what the point of this Bartonesque attempt to rewrite reality might be. It might just be that SN's ego feels the need for attention.

Oh, look, the woman-hating gay-bashing eugenicist deceiver is back. What fun.

An still unable to muster even a modicum of a response to a statement it proudly proclaimed it would answer. This, in addition to everything else it has lied about, misinterpreted on purpose, and its continued evasion and active ignoring of any contrary evidence, can - after all this time - be ony interpreted as utter and complete admission of intellectual defeat.

But same as it ever was, really. I don't mind spending a few minutes of spare time every now and then poking holes into it's inane and flawed arguments for fun - after all, by its own admission, it's working. I made it think, even if only another inane and flawed idea, but progress is progress, even if minuscule. No doubt the novelty of the experience shocked it out of any fruitful reverie back into bigotry and hatred familiar to it.

To Mephistopheles #1627:

“I have known several Catholics who appeared to not disapprove of sex outside of marriage.”

I would not be surprised in the least if you were telling the truth this time.

No doubt the dishonest lying creep is eager to list the implied multitude of instances where Mephistopheles O'Brien has lied....

“Our first black president.”
It’s a lie.
His momma was white as snow.

Now he actually has the gall to tell someone else what their cultural self-identity should be? By SN's criteria of defining race by genetic ancestry there are no black people in the US:

According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.

* According to AfricanDNA, [...] the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

[...] A whopping 35 percent of all African-American men descend from a white male ancestor who fathered a mulatto child sometime in the slavery era, most probably from rape or coerced sexuality. In other words, if we tested the DNA of all of the black men in the NBA, for instance, just over one-third descend from a white second or third great-grandfather.

I would love to see SN explain to all those African Americans, UK 'Afro-Caribbeans' and others largely descended from slaves that if they call themselves 'black' they are lying because some of their ancestors, by rape or otherwise, were white people. Or perhaps SN would like to establish a demarcation line for the definitions of the various categories between 'black' and 'white' as used in slavery .

The idea that providing birth control to deprived communities is somehow racist is a new one on me. I suppose providing contraception to women in the developing world is racist too. I don't think it would be good for India if its population continued to increase, but since most of those souls aren't baptized Catholics, perhaps SN isn't concerned about that.

Oh no! future "first black president" Ben Carson has 20% white ancestry! Is this enough for Carson to also be lying when he claims to be black? If not, what percentage of white ancestry is allowed for a person to truly claim to be black?

Here's the link, sorry.

@gaist - Thanks.

I would not be surprised in the least if you were telling the truth this time.

I endeavor to tell the truth, though sometimes I may be mistaken. I've also been known to crack wise on occasion, or make random literary or cultural references.

By the way, SN, I did look at the link in #1629 - is that you holding the cross? The beard's coming in nicely. Hope the Rogaine helps

I’m making no claims about caus

Sorry to interrupt, but yes you are. Your claim is that Planned Parenthood is exterminating black people.

That's not a fact for multiple reasons, including that your belief that it is extermination is exactly that -- a belief. Same goes double for your belief that fetuses are people.

Furthermore, it's absurd to assign agency for Planned Parenthood for doing something that it's obviously impossible for them to do. And you are doing that implicitly (as well as explicitly elsewhere on the thread) by suggesting that their motives are eugenicist.

I mean, how exactly do you think they manage to get access to those fetuses without tipping off the women?

Perhaps you’re referring to National Review. But are you also calling blacks wing-nuts?

I haven't looked at your link, so I couldn't say whether it was wingnuttery or just paranoia or some third thing.

But it's irrelevant. The source of that factoid is the wingnut-o-sphere, where it's been rattling around in various urban-legend-like forms for years.

For example, back in 2011, when Herman Cain trotted it out, it was that 75% of the clinics were in black neighborhoods back in Sanger's time.

Which, as factcheck.org notes, was false then and is false now:

Cain’s claim also isn’t true today. Tait Sye, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, told us in an email that “73% of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas.” Not all of those would be predominately black communities.

Also, the Guttmacher Institute reported this year that 9 percent of abortion clinics in the U.S. are in neighborhoods in which 50 percent or more of the residents are black. That’s according to the group’s “census of all known abortion providers.”

It's also been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked more recently. See ABC News Destroys the Zombie Lie That Planned Parenthood Targets Black Fetuses for Abortions for details.

And as I noted earlier, I decided to look at an area I was particularly familiar with – the Philadelphia area.
In the Philly area, Planned Parenthood has 8 facilities, 5 of which are in areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages. Of the 8 PP facilities, only 3 perform abortions. All 3 are in those areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages.

And I decided to go down to the corner and find out what color car most Americans drive by looking at the local traffic. The answer was bright yellow. You could even say "New York taxi-cab yellow." Who would have thought?

Your example means as little as mine.

Not one whit of evidence? That reminds me so much of “not even a smidgen”!

I just found about forty examples of the phrase "not one whit" being used by realclearpolitics, PJmedia, and CNSnews. So you must make that association often.

Kind of a drag for you, since it's inherently meaningless.

All you've got is crypto-racism, masquerading as a ludicrous, easily disproven conspiracy for which there's not one whit of evidence, in other words.

That's loathsome and abhorrent. I

All you've got is crypto-racism, masquerading as a ludicrous, easily disproven conspiracy for which there's not one whit of evidence, in other words.

That's loathsome and abhorrent.

I have to say, I'm amused at SN's use of the Satanist group. Such a sensational headline to inform people that a Satanist group poured milk over women (they weren't "drowned" by any means...no one died) to support Planned Parenthood.

@SN: did it ever occur to you that maybe PP puts services where the demand is highest? While PP clinics may be used by people (women AND men) in many economic groups, those women with health insurance that covers terminations generally will use a private provider instead of PP. But women who have no insurance and little money, will use PP for desired terminations because they charge less for the service than a private provider. Note that even having health insurance (say a girl under her parents' policy) does not guarantee your termination will be covered. Many health insurance policies do not cover pregnancy care/terminations for a dependent child.

Also, if you have been using PP for other health services (i.e. annual gyn visits, birth control), then you are more comfortable using them for a desired termination of pregnancy.

@#1640 --

I don't know about that.

Let's review:

Can he argue that Planned Parenthood broke the law?

Investigations spurred by the "evidence" in those videos found nothing. And there's really not anything that anybody says in them that isn't capable of an innocent explanation anyway.

So not really.

Can he prove that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human beings?

Nope.

Has he got any evidence that Planned Parenthood is racist or eugenicist?

Not one whit.
___________

He could keep on posting the same falsehoods that have already been refuted umpteen times, of course. But that isn't going to draw a lot of response. I mean, he's had to resort to heavily padding with off-topicality already.

I guess he'll probably make it though.

See argues that PP works to "kill" or reduce the number of children black women have as being a negative because he can only understand the situation in simplistic terms like that as though MORE babies = a win.

Perhaps the women want less children and that that enables them to take better care of the children they already have, wait until their situation is more secure financially and/ or improve their own lives through employment and education . Aren't lower numbers of children usually descriptive of higher socio-economic groups and so-called First vs Third World living conditions? Aren't less children a measure of increasingly good economic conditions in countries which have been traditionally impoverished?

But then he thinks of situations in Us vs Them terms so I suppose this makes sense in some bizarre way.

AND -btw- doesn't Mr Obama have African-American as well as African ancestry through his mother's side? That was on the news a while ago.

AND we're all originally from Africa, aren't we?

I know, I know I'm asking for it because of that last statement which has got me in trouble previously-

at a conference, I blithely said that to a fellow who, despite his reasonably good education, managed to convince himself that the so=called races all developed separately on different continents through evolution no less.

I took it upon myself as one of the whitest -looking individuals present to enlighten him about the grievous errors of his way..

To Krebiozen #1644:

Your post got me to thinking. Instead of me saying my heritage is Irish, German, Yugoslavian (or what used to be), and French,
perhaps I’d be more politically correct to just say I’m Irish, if that helps me, say, get a free beer on St. Patrick’s Day.

Or just say I’m German, if I’m in the market for another BMW.

Or just Yugoslavian, or just French, if it might be to my advantage in some way.

But when I said “The only thing that made [Obama’s] election notable race-wise was that he was our first president who was not fully white. If he had been half-white and half Chinese or half Latino the same ground would have been broken”,
I got to thinking maybe I was wrong. Could you do some more research and see if any of our past presidents was not considered white or fully white?

Because it is obviously stupid enough to fail typing "ethic heritage of us presidents", I'm moved to pity.

Also, to show the creep that the decent thing is to answer questions, if one can, even if not directed at me and even if I haven't promised like it did, that I would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_heritage_of_United_State…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/black-presidents-6-united-stat…

Hi See,
Glad you decided to come back,it wouldn't be the same without you.I had you pegged all wrong.I would have sworn you were a Trump guy.

What a lot of those on your side don't seem to realize is there are many of us on the left who are sick to death of the Clintons,and have been for years.Their lies,their war mongering,their pandering to "their people" in the top 1-2%.

Our friend Mike Malloy nailed it when he talked about Hilary the last time she ran for president.

I don't care a rat's ass about Hillary Clinton - I do not - she's a war monger - she is as much as a fascist as anyone in the Republican party - she is a corporatist - she is doing her part to destroy representative government in this country!

That's why Bernie Sanders,this old white cracker in a rumpled old suit,has taken this country by storm,and captured the attention of the world.He is the first politician in at least 60-70 years incapable of lying.You have to go back to the days of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to find anybody in politics this honest. As Politico wrote the other day,getting down in the mud,and flinging it around is simply not in his makeup.Sanders says what he means.

Sanders truly looks out for the interests of the disenfranchised,the poor,the young,and veterans.Google "Bernie Sanders" and "American Legion".Unlike the Clintons,Bernie has gotten where he has completely without the help of the corporate wealthy.Go Bernie.

ann, not to mention the pitiable little conspiracy-theories-of-the-day, like gays infiltrating the Catholic church in order to molest children, or leftists brainwashing the Pope to care for the environment, or Muslims breeding weaponized babies (to name just a few)...

But somebody has to be the bad example. It's just weird and a bit creepy to be so proud of it, and flaunt it in public.

Gaist's first reference above includes what I mentioned about Ms Dunham's African American heritage.

People should not be so sure of their origins-

I know a family from Ireland where one of the younger members became interested in genetic testing to 'learn about his family' ( he lost his father when he was a child due to terrorism- but not what you're thinking- no connection to Ireland whatsoever) so he sent away to be tested and lo and behold!
he's 15% Iberian .
No one knows anything about ancestors from that region and no one looks particularly Iberian. Another family member was tested and received similar results.

I tend to think that although the part of my family I resemble is remarkably white there appears to be 'something else going on'. I could imagine similar results for myself.

See @ 1637 Krebiozen @ 1645

Lord Kitchener had a little something to say about this back in 1952.

Or just say I’m German, if I’m in the market for another BMW.

*SPLORF*

Taking S.N. to be the worst Gallagher ripoff ever, I suppose this line would be immediately followed by smashing the trick watermelon that he's been feverishly filling with his seed.

The Visqueen is not optional, people.

To ann #1648:

You: “your hypothesis is that blackness causes sexual immorality, which is despicably and repellently racist.”

Me: “I’m making no claims about cause and effect. I’m just stating statistical facts.”

You: “Sorry to interrupt, but yes you are. Your claim is that Planned Parenthood is exterminating black people. That’s not a fact for multiple reasons, including that your belief that it is extermination is exactly that — a belief. Same goes double for your belief that fetuses are people.”

How about this revision:
While Planned Parenthood might not be provably eugenicists, as the largest abortion provider they certainly are terminating more black pregnancies (relative to the total population of blacks) than they are of any other race.

How’s that, annie?

“Furthermore, it’s absurd to assign agency for Planned Parenthood for doing something that it’s obviously impossible for them to do.”

It’s not impossible for PP to NOT perform abortions.

“And you are doing that implicitly (as well as explicitly elsewhere on the thread) by suggesting that their motives are eugenicist.”

Well, PP founder and eugenicist Margaret Sanger and all…

Me: “Perhaps you’re referring to National Review. But are you also calling blacks wing-nuts?”

You: “I haven’t looked at your link, so I couldn’t say whether it was wingnuttery or just paranoia or some third thing.”

Well, perhaps you can look now, for here I’ll provide again the non-National Review link:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

“Which, as factcheck.org notes, was false then and is false now…”

We may have a disconnect. This factcheck keeps trumpeting “only 9 percent of U.S. abortion clinics are in neighborhoods where HALF OR MORE of residents are black…”

But the National Review article said “In 2011 the pro-life organization Life Dynamics analyzed the zip codes of every abortion or abortion-referral facility in the United States. They noticed that these facilities were overwhelmingly located in zip codes with MINORITY populations WELL ABOVE THE STATE AVERAGE… zip codes with DISPROPORTIONATE black and/or Hispanic populations.”

Blacks make up about 13% of the U.S. population. If a zip code had a 45% black population or even say a 25% black population, that zip code would be DISPROPORTIONATELY black.
And it’s in those zip codes that PP appears to be disproportionately represented.

“It’s also been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked more recently. See ABC News Destroys the Zombie Lie That Planned Parenthood Targets Black Fetuses for Abortions for details.”

Right now I’m heading out the door for golf and don’t have time to look at your ABC link.
But ABC’s not a reliable source anyway regarding PP and abortion, since ABC is pro-both.

OMG. I'm glad I wasn't drinking, I would have spit all over my keyboard. SN doesn't like ann's ABC link because ABC is pro PP and pro abortion, but he expects us to accept a PRO-LIFE organization's review of locations?

Strangely - almost all the PP's I know of have been in cities. Some areas of cities have higher black populations (and lower rents for buildings). Since PP does not have a huge financial budget for rent, they go for places with low rent. Strange how that happens to be in poorer population areas, huh?

SN: find me a highly populated area that is in the "rich" part of any big city. Look at the rents charged for offices in that area. Look at the demographics of race for that area. Then come back and tell me why most PPs are in areas of minority populations.

On President Obama's 'blackness', it's worth noting, perhaps, that within living memory he would have been classed as black and banned from riding in a 'whites only' train carriage in some states. That's quite black enough for me.

How about this revision:
While See Noevo might not be provably completely full of shit, as the largest bullshit provider it certainly is responsible for more ridiculous theories, lies and deceit than any other poster on this thread, up to and including AH.

It also keeps providing example after example of its bigotry, as if it was proud of the fact, and keeps dismissing any and all evidence contrary to it's foul bigotry opinions.

Not to mention its habit of deceit, by once again failing to address any of the points it has promised to address - in fact - begged for. Not to mention ignoring practically any and all points raised addressing its lies and bigotry.

But what can you except from someone who thinks murder (see #901) is more acceptable to its personal moral code than saving the environment (see #1277)...

See isn't thinking in terms of "Is this right or wrong?" or "Will anyone be helped or hurt by this?" but "How will what I say win the argument?" Again, he is an immoral person pretending to be a moral person, and failing badly.

You must admit though, that as a Bad Example, SN is an eminent success.

LOL, SN doesn't understand concepts like correlation. Hey SN, did you ever think (no) to look at the relationship between median income and PP clinic locations? Have you ever asked yourself how poverty might impact a person's ability to access medical care?

Of course not. SN doesn't care.

And to roll all the way back to the OP: SN doesn't want anyone to use any form of birth control (beyond 'not tonight'), thinks all pregnancies must end in live birth (or miscarriage, or stillbirth or death), but that it is terrible that any of those children might be protected against polio or rubella.

Like so many forced-birthers (but even more so), SN loves you right until the moment you exit your mother. Then, who cares? Go die of a VPD.

Kreb -- yeah, but anyone looking at the man's photo would immediately assume he was white.

//snark//

To ann #1652:

“Let’s review:
Can [See Noevo] argue that Planned Parenthood broke the law?”

Yes, I can so argue and so have many others. As was noted earlier -
Plenty of evidence, but perhaps not yet proof, that PP broke at least four laws:
1) Illegal profiting from the sale of baby parts.
2) Illegally manipulating abortion procedures to maximize parts harvesting.
3) Illegally committing partial-birth abortions.
4) Illegally committing abortions with the knowledge that the baby will be “donated”.

http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-admits-to-breaking-federal…

Just because PP hasn’t been indicted yet doesn’t mean PP won’t be indicted.
...........................

“Can [See Noevo] prove that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human beings?”

Can you prove they’re NOT? Nope.

.................
“Has he got any evidence that Planned Parenthood is racist or eugenicist? Not one whit.”

“Not one whit” if you’re a nit-wit.
....................

To Denice Walter #1653:

“[See Noevo] argues that PP works to “kill” or reduce the number of children black women have as being a negative because he can only understand the situation in simplistic terms like that as though MORE babies = a win.

"Perhaps the women want less children and that that enables them to take better care of the children they already have, wait until their situation is more secure financially and/ or improve their own lives through employment and education .”

Perhaps a woman overburdened with four little mouths to feed and four little bodies to take care of and four little minds to educate would want fewer children in retrospect. Her killing one or more would certainly relieve her burden and enable her to take better care of the remaining children.

“Aren’t lower numbers of children usually descriptive of higher socio-economic groups and so-called First vs Third World living conditions? Aren’t less children a measure of increasingly good economic conditions in countries which have been traditionally impoverished?”

No they are not.
Fewer children are a measure of fewer children.
And usually the “fewer” is due to the selfishness and materialism of the parents.
Fewer children doesn’t improve economies, they just make for fewer pieces to divide the economic pie.
Declining fertility will inevitably lead to declining economies and cultures.

To Denice Walter #1654:

Really, there is only one race: the human race.

"Plenty of evidence, but perhaps not yet proof, that PP broke at least four laws:"

And yet, no one has managed to produce any evidence, let alone any proof.

To Denice Walter #1660:

“People should not be so sure of their origins…”

Did you know the scientists say that all 7 billion or so human beings on this planet trace their biological heritage to one and the same woman – “Mitochondrial Eve”?

In the spirit of #1671, little weasel is quite the whit-wit. He's not as epsilon minus submoronic as he appears, so much as perpetually distraught over all the fully formed human beings flushed down the toilet and thrown out with the garbage - the fate of about 85% of all fertilized eggs, the ones that fail to implant.

To MI Dawn #1664:

“Since PP does not have a huge financial budget for rent, they go for places with low rent. Strange how that happens to be in poorer population areas, huh?”

I don’t know what the rental/lease budget is for the world’s largest abortion provider, but I can understand how some residents and businesses might not want PP next to them or near them.

I DO know, however, that PP has gotten at least one primo lease deal:
$1 per year for 7,000 square feet,
in Austin, Texas, no less!
http://canadafreepress.com/article/71734

Apparently, this will save PP in Austin $7,000 per month.

If you knew someone was murdering six-year-old children and selling their organs on the black market, what would you do?

If someone had video evidence that Planned Parenthood was committing terrible crimes, why didn't they go to the authorities first?

1) Illegal profiting from the sale of baby parts.

Evidence adduced for this is known to be fraudulent.

2) Illegally manipulating abortion procedures to maximize parts harvesting.

Is this illegal, when the host has requested it?

>3) Illegally committing partial-birth abortions.

No evidence has been adduced.

4) Illegally committing abortions with the knowledge that the baby will be “donated”.

Is this illegal, when the host has requested it?

So, as usual, you've got nothing except a runaway ego that doesn't seem to mind misrepresentation and other evils.

@#1663 --

WRT the revise --

Yes, that appears to be true and -- except for the when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife part about eugenics -- uncontroversial.

I mean, there are lots of explanations for those numbers that are a hell of a lot more plausible than genocide.

If that's a plot why isn't this?

Catholics account for 28% of all abortions, and they're only 22% of the population.

About those minority-neighborhood stats: As MI Dawn has already pointed out, most of the clinics are in cities. And most cities have higher percentage minority populations than the rest of the state in most zip codes where a no-frills women's health clinic could conceivably be.

The NR is just jiggering the stats so that it is has something to keep the unquestioning crowds roaring, basically.

I therefore don't need to look at that link. Because whether it's racist or paranoid or simply misinformed or some other thing, it's wrong.

What you said, however, was crypto-racist. And not very crypto-.

To ann #1680:

“Catholics account for 28% of all abortions, and they’re only 22% of the population.”

Dear archbishop 0-fer annie, those “Catholics” aren’t Catholic,
certainly not if they stand by their deadly decision unrepentant.
……………….
“About those minority-neighborhood stats: As MI Dawn has already pointed out, most of the clinics are in cities. And most cities have higher percentage minority populations than the rest of the state in most zip codes where a no-frills women’s health clinic could conceivably be.”

Agreed!
You got to go where the targets are.
Except I have a question on that last part. Are you saying the blacks should get a “no-frills” health clinic?
……………………
“I therefore don’t need to look at that link.”

Well, I’ll help others look.
Blackgenocide dot org was founded and is currently directed by Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. , who is also black.
His website says this about Planned Parenthood:

“Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?”

Directly below those words is an interesting 5-minute video on Obama’s support for PP and on Obama’s opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and legislation like it.

And here’s a different website, titled ProtectingBlackLife dot org. Among other things, it has a map of PP facilities around the U.S. and these words:
“2010 Census results reveal that Planned Parenthood is targeting minority neighborhoods. It has located 79% of its 165 surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood located 62% of its abortion facilities within 2 miles of African American neighborhoods, and 64% near Hispanic or Latino neighborhoods, thus establishing them as "targeted neighborhoods." Sadly, Black women are three times more likely to have an abortion than White women, and Hispanic or Latino women are nearly twice as likely.”

I guess Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. and the other blacks involved in these websites are “crypto-racist”, too.

Good Lord, it's using No True Scotsman! Uncut with the faintest trace of irony or self awareness.

You’ve heard of scary UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects).

Here are some scary ULOs (Unidentified Living Objects).

http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/what-my-baby-looks-like/

I think I saw something like this in the movie “Alien”.
What the hell could that thing have been?
Whatever the hell it was, it needed to be exterminated.

The dishonest lying creep isn't even trying anymore.

It just posts flings meaningless copy-paste in the vain hope that nobody would see it slinking away from promises it has made, and from being called out for its dishonest and reprehensible behavior.

And it's fumbling arguments even work against it...

I DO know, however, that PP has gotten at least one primo lease deal:
$1 per year for 7,000 square feet,
in Austin, Texas, no less!

It resides squarely in an Hispanic region, and by the looks of it (type the adress from here into street-view to see the "$7000" facility in all it's glory. I rather doubt the "for a city building that is worth $1.86 million and that should cost approximately $7,000 per month to rent." from the creepy liars link. And besides, that seems like a not-too-bad a way for the city to outsource medical aid to where it is needed. Or is the creepy lying one accusing Austin City Council of supporting Hispanic Genocide too?

Except that even when it's own quote says PP "targets" Hispanic or Latino neighborhoods more than African American ones, it keeps harping on and on about Black genocide. Maybe it hates Latinos and wants to see them wiped out, and is trying to create a smokescreen by pointing at black people and jumping up and down, like it does now.

The area surrounding the "$7000/month" facility has aproximately 40% of inhabitants living below poverty line, with 2010 median household income $31,662.

Prime real estate, for sure.... But definitely and obviously not consistent with what ann, MI Dawn and others wrote, nooo.... Because according to the lying responsibility-dodging people-hater it must be a secular racist conspiracy.

Remember this classic from Chris Matthews?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc

I wonder if Chris this time got a tingle going DOWN his leg, a warm wet tingle,
when he saw his gal Hillary read away here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOTN6LhK5sU

But hey, I guess in Hillary’s eyes I’m the equivalent of an Islamic terrorist, too.

Fewer children are a measure of fewer children.
And usually the “fewer” is due to the selfishness and materialism of the parents

Yes, how dare them women want an education and a career and possibly even hobbies or personal interests instead of complacently bumping out an ankle-biter or two per annum.

The dishonest misogynistic creep keeps getting creepier and more misogynistic and bigoted by the post. Not to mention more dishonest.

Blackgenocide dot org was founded and is currently directed by Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. , who is also black.

Heh. I had to set aside the composition of a reply to something that preceded this S.N. endorsement or exemplar of Black "bona fides," but I'll get back to it.

In the meantime, where's Visanthe Shiancoe when S.N. really needs him?

But hey, I guess in Hillary’s eyes I’m the equivalent of an Islamic terrorist, too.</bockquote

(FBI definition):
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Check - Banning already legal contraceptives and abortions would increase danger of bodily harm faced by pregnant women.

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Check. You're not relying on reason and logic to even try to win, you're constantly lying, mis-characterizing and demonizing your opponents and by trying to imply whatever criminal activity or nefarious intent you hope might stick, are in essence, trying to limit the opportunities and liberties of civilians (and possibly daydreaming of some sort of backlash against those you think are your "enemies").

The (iii)-part, not so much. So despair not, ye foul deceiver, continuing on our journey you'll get to those depths of depravity eventually.
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Check.

If the shoe fits, little dishonest people-hater, if the shoe fits...

(see also #966 for extra credit).

sick to death of the Clintons,

I've always thought the Clintons and/or Obama = socialist/radical/dirty-commie-hippies stuff was one of the under-appreciated idiocies of the right-wing noise machine.

All three of them are to the right of Nixon, ffs.

Agreed!
You got to go where the targets are.

^^You can't possibly be that stupid.

But just in case, here's a hint: Are there any other reasons you can think of why national businesses open regional offices in cities?

I guess I assume that's supposed to be a snappy comeback, though.

Except I have a question on that last part. Are you saying the blacks should get a “no-frills” health clinic?

Obviously effing not, since there's no effing reason to think that it's effing race-specific.

You are really too dishonest, unscrupulous and nasty to be talked to, rather than about. I'm going back to the latter.

@S.N #1675

"Did you know the scientists say that all 7 billion or so human beings on this planet trace their biological heritage to one and the same woman – “Mitochondrial Eve”?"

In which way is this supposed to serve your point? Because the bible tells us we all came from one woman? According to the bible, god created more than one woman.

SN would fit into the Quiverful world very well. But then, in his insecure little brain, all women are good for is birthing children and keeping house. Heaven forbid they do strange things like work outside the some, do research, or have a life outside of the hubby and kids!

Even my good Catholic relations had limited families. Of course, they almost all grew up post Vatican II....

I feel sorry for SN. Trying so hard to drag the "True Catholics" back into the darker ages. Seeing more and more people become "Not True Catholics", even though they attend mass regularly. Must be scary to realize that your vision of the world and afterworlds isn't shared by everyone.

Did you know the scientists say that all 7 billion or so human beings on this planet trace their biological heritage to one and the same woman – “Mitochondrial Eve”?

Impressive. It both fumbles with the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, as well as undermines its own silly pet theory about Obama's non-blackness in a single swoop of ignorant ranting.

To ann #1691:

You: “About those minority-neighborhood stats: As MI Dawn has already pointed out, most of the clinics are in cities. And most cities have higher percentage minority populations than the rest of the state in most zip codes where a no-frills women’s health clinic could conceivably be.”

Me: “Agreed! You got to go where the targets are.”

You: “You can’t possibly be that stupid. But just in case, here’s a hint: Are there any other reasons you can think of why national businesses open regional offices in cities?”

Which national businesses establish corporate headquarters or open regional offices primarily in disproportionately black and minority zip codes?
Please let me know, because if I own stock in any of them, I’m going to sell.
………….
You: “And most cities have higher percentage minority populations than the rest of the state in most zip codes where a no-frills women’s health clinic could conceivably be.”

Me: “Are you saying the blacks should get a “no-frills” health clinic?

You: “Obviously effing not, since there’s no effing reason to think that it’s effing race-specific.”

OK. Here’s the not race-specific revision:
Are you saying the *minority populations* should get a “no-frills” health clinic?
…………………….
“You are really too dishonest, unscrupulous and nasty to be talked to, rather than about. I’m going back to the latter.”

If I was 0-for-30 or so, I probably wouldn’t be engaging in the debate either.
..........
P.S.

archbishop 0-fer annie, have you or anyone else you know come up with any ideas on what the UFOs are,
or rather, what those ULO are?
Here are the Unidentified Living Objects pics again:

http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/what-my-baby-looks-like/

have you or anyone else you know come up with any ideas on what the UFOs are,
or rather, what those ULO are?
Here are the Unidentified Living Objects pics again:

Aww, the ridiculous obsessively creepy dishonest woman-hater thought its "witty" wordplay so witty and clever it had to repeat it, just in case everybody missed it the first time.

Well, the main thing, See Noevo, is that you tried. Don't worry, you'll still get a medal for participating, I'm sure.

To MI Dawn #1693:

“SN would fit into the Quiverful world very well. But then, in his insecure little brain, all women are good for is birthing children and keeping house. Heaven forbid they do strange things like work outside the some, do research, or have a life outside of the hubby and kids!”

MI, are you in agreement with archbishop 0-fer annie that the following is “a complete fantasy”?
SINCE the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s, women have seen:
1) More men who don’t want to marry or stay married.
2) More single mothers. (And we all know what great prospects await the average single mom. To say nothing of her kids’ prospects.)
3) More single women in general, each of whom must make it on her own. (And many of whom are battling, or are past, the biological clock for child-bearing by the time they’ve “made it” on their own. And about the same time, more of the certain kind of men have also “made it”, and now want to settle down with decidedly younger women.)
4) More single women with STDs or with an abortion history, neither of which increases the prospects for marriage or for future reproductive success.
5) More gray haired, angry, bitter “Gloria Steinem”s.

Are these views of a contracepting world complete fantasy, MI?
…………..
“I feel sorry for SN. Trying so hard to drag the “True Catholics” back into the darker ages. Seeing more and more people become “Not True Catholics”, even though they attend mass regularly. Must be scary to realize that your vision of the world and afterworlds isn’t shared by everyone.”

MI, I’m going to promote you like I did archbishop 0-fer annie.
You shall be monsignor MI Dawn. Or maybe even metropolitan MI Dawn.

SINCE the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s, women have seen:
1) More men who don’t want to marry or stay married.
2) More single mothers. (And we all know what great prospects await the average single mom. To say nothing of her kids’ prospects.)
3) More single women in general, each of whom must make it on her own. (And many of whom are battling, or are past, the biological clock for child-bearing by the time they’ve “made it” on their own. And about the same time, more of the certain kind of men have also “made it”, and now want to settle down with decidedly younger women.)
4) More single women with STDs or with an abortion history, neither of which increases the prospects for marriage or for future reproductive success.

What's really impressive is that he seems to believe that all this is not only True but Fair and Balanced.

We can safely infer that he is unfamiliar with the history of Modernism, stretching back to 1870 - odd, for someone claiming to be such a Big Cheese Catholic - and that he has no idea of the magical powers imputed to the automobile when it first became an item of mass consumption.

We can also safely infer that he has never actually read and understood The Bible: lots of interesting stuff in the Good Book.

Should I feel bad about pointing out what a deceitful creep See Noevo is? I mean, what if it's obvious compulsion to lie or its inability to not put made up words into other people's mouths is some sort of condition?

...But then I remember it thinks murder is morally acceptable but protecting the environment isn't, and I don't worry anymore.

Bored at work.

or rather, what those ULO are?
Here are the Unidentified Living Objects pics again:
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/what-my-baby-looks-like/

Unless artificial intelligence has made some fantastical breakthrough that I haven't heard about, those aren't unidentified, nor living, or even necessarily objects although that might depend on your views on intangible, intellectual property...

But they sure are lacking in subsurface scattering and a proper vRay (or equivalent) renderer. Also, in 3d graphics it's been a cardinal error to let the eyelids and inside of the mouth glow like that since 2004 at the latest, longer if you're working with still images...

...I'm also left to wonder who supposedly would have given it a shave since week 24 (although that's not a bad thing, I mean, that "hair"... preset fur-particle generator for the "win"?)

@See: No thanks as to the promotion. I'm an agnostic, so your offer is meaningless to me.

Regarding your other comments:

SINCE the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s, women have seen:
1) More men who don’t want to marry or stay married. So forcing them to marry and make 2 people miserable is a good thing?
2) More single mothers. (And we all know what great prospects await the average single mom. To say nothing of her kids’ prospects.) Sure, there are more single mothers because women aren't being forced to give their children up for adoption. But single moms who have good family support do fine. And, what about all those widowed or divorced or abandoned moms? Do ALL those children do horribly?
3) More single women in general, each of whom must make it on her own. (And many of whom are battling, or are past, the biological clock for child-bearing by the time they’ve “made it” on their own. And about the same time, more of the certain kind of men have also “made it”, and now want to settle down with decidedly younger women.) Not every woman wants to have children. Not every man wants to have children. And if a woman can support herself and a child on her own, why should she worry about a husband if she doesn't want one?
4) More single women with STDs or with an abortion history, neither of which increases the prospects for marriage or for future reproductive success. More men with STDs, too. Should women not marry them, either? STDs effect a man's reproductive success too, you know.
5) More gray haired, angry, bitter “Gloria Steinem”s. Awwwww.....THANK YOU, See! I didn't know you liked me that much! I'm greatly honored that you think I'm as wonderful as Gloria Steinem. (Without the misplaced apostrophe, please. Why abuse the poor thing?) However, while I may be going gray, I'm not angry or bitter. My (divorced) life is wonderful, the men and women in my life are wonderful, and my children are wonderful. I love my life.

For the benefit of the one or two self-professed Christians here, some readings from the book you call good.
(These are taken from today’s Mass.)

From 1 Thes 4:
“Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more.
For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity;
that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor,
not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God;
that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you.
For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness.
Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.”

From Mat 25:
"Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;
but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.'
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.
Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

The nerve of that misogynist Messiah!

Was Matthew overstocked with lamp oil?

I am glad to hear there were all night lamp oil sellers in Jerusalem. It was a hopping town.

See: The Bible also exhorts its readers to be honest, humble, and charitable. Yet you routinely lie to us, act arrogantly, and refuse to lift a finger to help those in need. That second passage was written with people like you in mind.

Okay, I have to admit to reading one of SN's posts-- the "lamp oil" thing in responses to it got me curious, for some reason.

But perhaps more mysteriously, SN offers a story (straight from Jesus's very own mouth!) of a man who planned to marry ten women simultaneously, and then backed out on his agreement with five of them (or more likely, his agreement with their parents) when they were delayed for lack of supplies. Are we to follow this example? How closely?

This is actually an interesting little coincidence, for not an hour ago I was discussing with a colleague certain aspects of eschatology. Specifically, the admonition to live every day as if Christ were to return tomorrow - preparing ourselves and our world even in the face of repeated disappointment. The two obvious blunders in this context are to sit back and wait for Magick Jeebus to show up and make everything all better with a wave of His hand, the other being to chivvy Him along through magical activities such as inciting a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and shooting doctors in the back.

Little weasel here seems to think that lies and groundless insults and grotesque misrepresentations of Christian doctrine constitute productive behavior in this regard. To each his own, every man is the guardian of his own soul, but you will notice that I am pointedly not following in his footsteps.

As an aside, what do people suppose little weasel makes of Paul being a self loathing homosexual?

To MI Dawn ##1702:

“@See: No thanks as to the promotion [to monsignor or metropolitan]. I’m an agnostic, so your offer is meaningless to me.”

That’s OK, so is archbishop 0-fer annie, as far as I know from anything she’s said or not said.

I’ll make you monsignor MI Dawn. But you’re on the fast track to metropolitan MI Dawn.

Regarding your other comments on what’s happened since the promotion of contraceptives in the 1960s, my take aways are these:
1)That more men don’t want to marry or stay married is a good thing.
2)That in your mind, “average” = “ALL”.
3)That in your mind, “more” = “not every”.
4)That the plight of women can be dismissed by a feminist with a simple ‘But men have the same plight, so no big deal.’
5)That you think I think Gloria Steinem was wonderful (actually I know you know I don’t).
I don’t know about you but, regarding Gloria, she was a good-looking woman.
I might even say crazy hot, or rather, hot but crazy.
But she’s now gray-haired, childless and husbandless (she finally gave in to marriage at 66, but her husband died three years later.)
Hopefully, she thinks her life turned out as wonderful as yours.

But [Gloria Steinem] now gray-haired, childless and husbandless (she finally gave in to marriage at 66, but her husband died three years later.)

Feminism killed Gloria Steinem's husband? Who knew?

See: what about all the married women who used contraception in the 1930s, 40s and 50s? While you didn't have the oral pill, you still had diaphragms, foam, pessaries. Sure, a lot doctors wouldn't give a single woman a diaphragm, but there were many who would, and the others could be gotten over the counter (or from another source).

Why wouldn't Gloria be happy? Is being childless and husbandless such a horrible thing? And again what's wrong with gray hair?

The world population is rapidly growing to 9 billion. How can someone say that our problem is not enough people having a lot of children? How can the decision to not have children - and therefore not buy a lot of stuff needed to feed, clothe, educate, transport, and entertain a child - be called selfish and materialistic?

For all See Noevo's faults, he's come up with a nearly perfect name for himself: antievolutionists are just like the monkeys who close their eyes and ears to all evidence. If only they covered their mouths equally well.

madder@1707: You've mistaken the words "bridesmaid" and "bride".

To madder #1707:

“Okay, I have to admit to reading one of SN’s posts– the “lamp oil” thing in responses to it got me curious, for some reason.”

So, perhaps you’ve been lurking and reading, and today, for the first time in three weeks, you’ve had a thought.
And it’s a real zinger:
“But perhaps more mysteriously, SN offers a story (straight from Jesus’s very own mouth!) of a man who planned to marry ten women simultaneously, and then backed out on his agreement with five of them (or more likely, his agreement with their parents) when they were delayed for lack of supplies. Are we to follow this example? How closely?”

Archbishop 0-fer annie, would you please clear up madder’s curious questions? You could talk about how polygamy was viewed in Israel by the time of Jesus, what Jesus and his apostles said about marriage, the use of metaphors and the meaning of this one, whatever you’d like.
You could even partially redeem yourself, by getting to 1-for-31.

Come on, annie! You can do it!

Was the marriage feast BYOL (bring your own lamp)?

“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their purses and went to meet the bus.
Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
For when the foolish took their purses, they took no change with them;
but the wise took exact change in their purses.
As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’
Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said to the wise, `Can you break a five, because the bus driver does not take bills nor make change.’
But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to that bodega over there and get some change.’
And while they went to buy, the bus came, and those who were ready went into it; and the door was shut.
Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Driver, driver, open to us.’
But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, wait for the next bus.’
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

5) More gray haired, angry, bitter “Gloria Steinem”s.

I infer that the crucial difference here is that S.N. is bald.

See Noevo the deceiving misanthrope seems to have overlooked some of the other bible passages...

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Proverbs 19:1
Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.

Colossians 3:9
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices

1 Peter 3:10
For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit

Luke 6:31
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Exodus 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

1 Thessalonians 4:11
And to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you,

In response to my own above, See obviously doesn't think that poor women can PLAN ahead- they want less children only AFTER they've got them already according to him.
So then why are there services for family planning in poor areas? Are those skills only restricted to the well-to-do?

Wouldn't there be even a slight chance that at least a few young women might observe relatives or friends or even their own parents having to struggle and then NOT want the same for themselves?

" Truly I say to you, wait for he next bus"
Mephistopheles does it again!

metaphors and the meaning of this one

“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
Five of them were foolish, and five were selfish, and neither of them figured out they could share the light of a lamp.

But can you help me with something, See? If the bridegroom is Jesus, taking the selfish righteous into Heaven, was he in drag or his second coming going to be as a she?

In #1671, I responded to an ann question by saying ‘Yes, I and others can argue Planned Parenthood broke the law, in fact, at least four laws, and that just because PP hasn’t been indicted yet doesn’t mean PP won’t be indicted.
This dark drama isn’t over with yet.
From an article in today’s WSJ:
“Planned Parenthood Federation of America and an antiabortion legal group, Americans United for Life, on Thursday sent congressional leaders dueling analyses of undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing providing fetal tissue for medical research.
… Americans United for Life on Thursday also sent letters to congressional leaders, saying its lawyers had reviewed SEVEN UNEDITED VIDEOS, concluding that they raise PROBABLE CAUSE that Planned Parenthood VIOLATED AT LEAST SIX FEDERAL LAWS.
… Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life, said: “We believe that a close viewing of the FULL VIDEOS provides an EVEN MORE TROUBLING picture than does the edited versions.”
… FOUR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES and SEVERAL STATES are INVESTIGATING Planned Parenthood’s activities.
… federal laws that include the ALTERING ABORTION PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN FETAL TISSUE, getting value in exchange for fetal tissue, performing so-called PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS and KILLING infants who are born alive AFTER an attempted abortion.
The facts also raise probable cause that Planned Parenthood “created an enterprise engaged in the COORDINATED violation of these laws,” according to the Americans United for Life’s letter.
Dr. Yoest, who has a doctorate in politics from the University of Virginia, said Planned Parenthood “conspired to evade the law across multiple affiliates across multiple states” and that it likely engaged in felonies including RACKETEERING.
… Also on Thursday, antiabortion groups and advocates, along with African-American pastors, called on the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., to remove a bust of Margaret Sanger, a birth-control advocate who in the 1920s founded a precursor to Planned Parenthood.”
.....................

The truth will out.
And sometimes, it will even in THIS world.

SN: I still don't see why you think that abortion is terrible, but it is fine to let children die of diseases because the vaccines that protect against those diseases were made in cell lines made from an aborted fetus.

The life of the fetus is precious, but not the life of the child?

(Also, you have 10+ kids, right?)

The truth will out.
And sometimes, it will even in THIS world

So you are considering admitting your lies and deceptions and apologizing?

Well, like the mother Church, if you just repent and confess, all is forgiven, even for a horrid dishonest bigot like you.

(yawns) Wake me when SN's prediction that Planned Parenthood will be indicted comes true. I'll be sleeping over here in the comfy chair.

To Justa Tech #1724:

“SN: I still don’t see why you think that abortion is terrible, but it is fine to let children die of diseases because the vaccines that protect against those diseases were made in cell lines made from an aborted fetus.”

It’s not fine and I never said it was. I addressed this in #1058.
You need to keep up.

From an article in today’s WSJ

I take it that the irony of regurgitating a heavily edited version of an article involving heavily edited videos was entirely lost on S.N.'s poor little, mainly reptilian brain.

The truth will out.

This is a good one, though: I'm suddenly reminded of S.N.'s general conduct and that of Miss Judith Fellowes.

Anyway, for good measure: AUL's Form 990 (PDF) from 2013.

Continuing the #1723 flow...

More smelly PP…

“… for Planned Parenthood and its defenders to fall back on this report as conclusive evidence of “deception” is simply absurd. In reality, the report confirms that Planned Parenthood’s butchers and profiteers are every bit as ghoulish as the videos first led us to believe. The charges of illegality — and, of course, of inhumanity — still stand.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-fusion…

@ Robert Bell

Specifically, the admonition to live every day as if Christ were to return tomorrow –

Hey! Except without the admonition and part about Christ, that's basically Judaism.

@ MI Dawn

(yawns) Wake me when SN’s prediction that Planned Parenthood will be indicted comes true. I’ll be sleeping over here in the comfy chair.

No kidding. All smoke, no fire.

@ gaist

Feminism killed Gloria Steinem’s husband?

If it did, it would be a very cruel irony. Feminism's barely ever been more to her than part of a personal branding strategy.

And anyway, she and Mort Zuckerman were a thing for quite a while. IIRC.

I mean, if it had been me, I would have opted for having been born to blush unseen and waste my fragrance on the desert air before I would have dated that jerk. But he is, after all, a billionaire. By conventional standards, that's usually thought to be a sign that you're doing pretty well.

@ann Well, contrary to the posturing of SOME people, we didn't just make this up out of whole cloth. You will be flabbergasted to learn that I am an ecumenical sort who prefers to focus on what unites us over what divides us.

Continuing the #1723 flow…

More smelly PP…

I really have to thank S.N. here for promptly confirming my immediately preceding diagnosis of the blind "working of its head."

Ah, the National Review. Proudly losing over $25,000,000 since 1955.

They've always been all about rights.

In an April 8, 1969 column called “On Negro Inferiority” Mr. Buckley wrote about the furor caused by Arthur Jensen’s research about race and IQ, calling it “massive, apparently authoritative.” Mr. Buckley even bragged that “Professor Ernest van den Haag, writing in National Review (Dec. 1, 1964) … brilliantly anticipated the findings of Dr. Jensen and brilliantly coped with their implications.”

The late Revilo Oliver, classicist and outspoken racialist, made regular appearances in the early NR. Mr. Buckley thought so highly of him he put his name on the masthead and invited him to his wedding.

And never wrong or mistaken!

(For those whose set of Holocaust Denier trading cards is incomplete, that would be this Revilo Oliver.)

There's also this gem, from the Brown v. The Board of Education era:

The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

^^From an unsigned editorial in 1957. But it has to be Buckley, based on style.

No link, because those quotes both come from a white supremacist site, bemoaning the good old days when the NR was still honest.

But that stuff went on into the '70s. Maybe even later. They're not really in any position to throw stones at Margaret Sanger for what she said in the 1920s. Is what I'm saying.

Here's another fun one about the good ol' reliable National Review.

The number of simple factual errors in the piece, which should have been incredibly easy to avoid, is astonishing, especially because Gelernter went to such lengths to sermonize from on high about the supposedly naïve, “widely believed nonsense” propagated by the academic establishment in America.

(They were denying the coup that overthrew Mossadegh. Which is really crazy. And not any different than Holocaust denial, really. Just more au courant.Anyway. Haters gonna hate. Link.)

Some more thoughts on presidential politics:

1)Hillary, who, like Planned Parenthood, strangely has not yet been indicted for anything,
is becoming increasingly unhinged.
Yesterday she equated the GOP with terrorists.
Today she conflated GOP immigration policies with Nazi genocide (g oogle “boxcars”).
(I’m wondering if some here work for her campaign, maybe even as speech writers.)

2)Trump in a land slide!
I'm thinking now that Donald Trump will win the presidency, and win by a large margin (at least in the popular vote).

Here's a little history of the pro-life movement for anyone interested:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-t…

To ann #1733:

“Ah, the National Review. Proudly losing over $25,000,000 since 1955.”

Ah, the New York Times. Proudly losing $14,000,000 in just the first quarter of 2015.

You, with sarcasm: "They've [The National Review] always been all about rights.
[“In an April 8, 1969 column called “On Negro Inferiority” Mr. Buckley wrote about the furor caused by Arthur Jensen’s research about race and IQ, calling it “massive, apparently authoritative” … The late Revilo Oliver, classicist and outspoken *racialist*, made regular appearances in the early NR. Mr. Buckley thought so highly of him he put his name on the masthead and invited him to his wedding.”]

I don’t recall ever seeing that word - “racialist” – before (it’s meaning is quite different from “racist”), but being for human rights- ALL human rights – doesn’t preclude one from studying possible correlations between race and certain mental or physical abilities.
Haven’t you ever wondered why more Jews aren’t well represented in professional sports but are in certain other professions, or why whites aren’t well represented in the NBA but are in the ranks of the MBAs, or why blacks haven’t contributed as much to man kinds advancements in science, economics, medicine, etc. as their lighter skinned brethren? Why did Larry Summers get fired from the presidency of Harvard for merely offering a topic of discussion among academics, namely, ‘Might women be under-represented in the “hard sciences” (e.g. engineering, math, medicine) because they may have more of a natural deficit or natural disinterest in such things?’

I’m sure Bill Buckley would have been for equal rights for women, blacks, Jews, whites, whoever, regardless of their individual or group abilities.

“There’s also this gem, from the Brown v. The Board of Education era…”

What a shame that in this age of the internet you can’t find a legitimate hyperlink for that alleged editorial quote.
But on the off chance that the quote WAS from NR, a couple observations:

1)It’s interesting that it says the “White community is so entitled because, *for the time being*, it is the advanced race”. In other words, whites aren’t superior by nature but only superior in a temporary sense, superior for now.

2)Isn’t SOME community ALWAYS taking “such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically”?
I mean, just look at you looney liberals.

3)As far as “statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro”, perhaps you, ann, would choose to live in the latter culture, say in Baltimore or Chicago or Compton. Perhaps you think THAT culture is superior (or perhaps, separate but equal?).
Maybe you WOULD say THAT culture is superior.
But if you did, I’d think you were lying.

Shocking news! Ridiculous racist-apologist continues being ridiculous racist-apologist.

Little weasel is in favor of all human rights, in the sense that two plus two equals five for sufficiently well defined values of two.

What a shame that in this age of the internet you can’t find a legitimate hyperlink for that alleged editorial quote.

What a shame it is stupid enough to copy-paste the quote into a search bar and pressing enter. Even I wouldn't have though it that dim, as it's obviously mastered copy-paste already.

But I think ann shouldn't have left out the end of the editorial...

"Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert that the will of minority, in which case it may give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."

’m sure Bill Buckley would have been for equal rights for women, blacks, Jews, whites, whoever, regardless of their individual or group abilities.

No doubt, as long as you could lynch the fear of God the White into them and keep them docile.

What a shame it is stupid enough to be unable to copy-paste the quote into a search bar and pressing enter. Even I wouldn’t have though it that dim, as it’s obviously mastered* copy-paste already.

* If by mastered I mean regurgitating woman-hating racist conservative talking points in haphazard groupings.

Fix'd.

(wakes up, sits up in comfy chair). I see SN hasn't addressed women using birth control before the 1970s that I mentioned. Obviously, it only became important when women got the right to sexual freedom when single. Because women having sex outside marriage is just wrong, don'tcha know, but for men it just shows they are macho.

(curls up, goes back to sleep)

For people who are literally unable to recognize hateful bigotry for what it is:

"Racialism" aka "scientific racism" is a theoretical orientation that arose in the late-19th/early-20th-century.

It used to be called "eugenics."

But that word somehow acquired kinda negative associations in the 1930s. So present-day eugenicists use "racialist."

However, they tend to keep a low profile. So you easily might never see the word being used openly, except in a context like:

"Most of the studies that formed the basis for The Bell Curve originally appeared in the racialist publication, Mankind Quarterly."

Seriously. Those who don't learn from history. It's just horrifying.

Speaking of which, those who are sure that Buckley would have been for equal rights for blacks must not be able even to learn from history they lived through themselves:

Buckley himself had developed two arguments against civil rights, both of which were little more than disguised racism, both of which led the line at National Review. The first emerged early in his career. Since the 1950s, Buckley had argued that civil rights should be opposed not because black people were biologically inferior to white people, but because they were not yet “civilized” enough to take part in democratic government. Or, as Buckley put it in 1959, “There are no scientific grounds for assuming congenital Negro disabilities. The problem is not biological, but cultural and educational"....Of course, no one in Massachusetts was advocating restrictions on voting rights for uneducated white people....

@#1741 --

Yes. I actually didn't look for another link, that possibility struck me as so self-evident.

But if it overtaxes anybody's intelligence to find it themselves, the quote from "On Negro Inferiority" also appears here.

It's the third boxed quote down from the top, if reading the whole column is too burdensome.

You'd miss this one if you did that, though:

As an example, Critchlow points to an unsigned March 1960 editorial that announces, "In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the Whites, retarded" ('unadvanced' the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People might put it)." The magazine used this assertion as justification for why "leadership in the South, then quite properly rests in White hands."

^^He explicitly opposed the Voting Rights Act, if that needs to be spelled out.

It's not ambiguous. He was not for equal rights for blacks.

Can anyone really be so divorced from reality as to think that the Times posting a one-quarter loss approximately a decade after most other legacy broadsheet dailies started going bust is equivalent to the NR never having been anything but a vanity publication for rich conservatives who were too cheap to pay it for themselves?

I mean, the Times is not going to survive if it doesn't succeed in going digital. But that's not because of anything specific to them.

Not that I'm even a fan, particularly. Reality just is what it is.

Hillary, who, like Planned Parenthood, strangely has not yet been indicted for anything,

Someone is as unclear on the law as he is on science and medicine. If the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Indiana thought there was even a shred of evidence, there would already be indictments in the Planned Parenthood case (and if over a dozen -- I've lost count -- Republican-led investigations into the Benghazi incident couldn't dig up anything, you might as well stop wasting my tax dollars}.

Is being childless and husbandless such a horrible thing?

It is an affront to some men that women can exist without them. Plus, it flies in the fact of the natural order of things that a young woman should be fully capable of making a good living without latching on to a meal ticket.

I've never really understood that mentality; surely it's a great compliment to a man to realize that a woman chooses him as her life partner freely and not because she has to in order to ensure a decent standard of living.

WE DEMAND A PREVIEW FUNCTION!

Buckley also opposed the Civil Rights Act and said of the March on Washington:

Mass demonstrations, in a free society, should be reserved for situations about which there is simply no doubting the correct moral course.

The march had been endorsed by the President of the United States, the Catholic Archbishop of New York, and such a wide variety of other religious, political and social-advocacy organizations that practically the only people expressing moral doubt about the correct course were racists.

He obliquely admits as much himself, here, though not in those words.

Yet another account of NR's more recent sleazy dishonesty wrt race is here.

But the links @#1743 do the same job.

This is a very telling statement:

but being for human rights- ALL human rights – doesn’t preclude one from studying possible correlations between race and certain mental or physical abilities.
Haven’t you ever wondered why more Jews aren’t well represented in professional sports but are in certain other professions,

^^He thinks Jews are a race.

When there are big flashing contextual signs pointing to the problems with that -- ie, when the subject is the Nazi belief that Jews are a race -- he probably sees them.

But left to his own devices, he just naturally reverts.

That's what comes of being unable to comprehend words and concepts except at a broad categorical level or as part of a familiar narrative. You don't recognize appeals to fascism.

Denice Walter called it @#1572.

IOW, he doesn't recognize the distinction between figurative usages of the word race -- ie, "the Jewish race," "the race of man," "uplift the race!" -- where it just means "the specified class of people" -- and using it to literally assert that the mental and physical traits of such classes as "black people" and "Jews" are racial/genetic rather than cultural/environmental.

That's not a minor distinction. And not just wrt Jews. But I betcha that he won't get it, even now.

^^ and/or genetic.

Because Buckley ostensibly disowned that part of it. To be fair.

He published other people who asserted that racial characteristics -- such as intelligence -- were apparently biological. But he himself was just saying that black people were racially inferior (due to historical bygones that it was too late to change now) as a way of making it about racial inferiority rather than racism.

To ann #1750:

“^^[See Noevo] thinks Jews are a race. When there are big flashing contextual signs pointing to the problems with that — ie, when the subject is the Nazi belief that Jews are a race…”

Actually, I think there is only one race – the human race.
But I usually go along with the generally accepted use of “race” as a further demographic descriptor, although defining such “race” has its problems (e.g. #1644).

So, as to whether Jews are a “race”, I should correct myself and say “I’m not sure.”

..............
For what it’s worth, I just now g oogled “are Jews a race” and the first hit was from a site called “Forward”. I didn’t read the whole article but the first few paragraphs went like this:

“In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.””

http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/
..................
And now that I think of it, St. Peter MIGHT have thought the Jews were a separate race as well:
“But you are A CHOSEN RACE, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Once you were no people but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy.
Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against your soul.
Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” [1 Peter 2:9-12]

P.S.
In that same paragraph about studying possible correlations between race and certain mental or physical abilities, I also inadvertently mentioned Larry Summer’s conjecture about “women.”
I appreciate that you didn’t write me up (or haven’t yet written me up) for that.

To ann:

You’ve spilled a lot of ink here on non-politician William F. Buckley and the publication he founded.

Did you blog furiously in years past over one of the longest serving Senators in U.S. history -
former Ku Klux Klan official Robert Byrd?

Or how about The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which received more GOP votes (80%) than Democrat votes (64%)?
[And please save me the old ‘Oh, but the Dems back then are what the GOP is today!’ b.s.]

And that Great Society ushered in by LBJ sure has worked wonders for black, hasn’t it? I think even some arch-liberals have admitted it’s been largely a failure. (Bob Beckel comes to mind.)

Fifty years ago, another Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote of the crisis occurring in black culture, in black families. He was probably skewered by many back then for having told the truth.
But the crisis has only gotten much worse since then.

“There’s also this gem, from the Brown v. The Board of Education era…”

What a shame that in this age of the internet you can’t find a legitimate hyperlink [heh] for that alleged editorial [sic] quote.

It looks as though either the BMW is in the shop again or S.N. doesn't know where the Parkway Central Library is. I wonder if it ever figured out how to use a microfilm machine.

All of archbishop ann’s intense, multiple-post focus on the alleged racism of National Review and its founder William F. Buckley is quite remarkable. So, I’ll remark just a bit:

Regardless whether WFB or NR was or is racist or anti-racist, can’t ann just deal with the NR article’s facts and positions WHICH ARE ALSO HELD BY BLACK organizations, as I pointed out in #1636 and #1663 and #1681 (“Well, perhaps you can look now, for here I’ll provide again the NON-National Review link:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html )?

Also, ann, how many terminations of human life, er, sorry, terminations of Unidentified Living Objects, er, sorry again, terminations of pregnancies,
were WFB or NR responsible for among the 55 million (including about 16 million for blacks) since 1973?

Arcanely arguing over which people from the past were more racist or less racist or not racist is of secondary import at best.
It avoids the more important, and more clear, NOW.

And right NOW, ann and all the rest of you would not stop ANY abortion a mother wanted, even at 9 months, even if you could.

And that’s all I need to know NOW.

No matter how many right-wing loons say that Planned Parenthood has a racialist-eugenicist agenda, it's still false and there's still no evidence that it's anything else. As in: Zero, none, not any.

That's still true no matter what color the loons happen to be.

And what "zero, none, not any" means is:

* Clinics are not overwhelmingly in majority black neighborhoods. They're in urban neighborhoods, exactly where you'd expect a business of that kind to be.

* The abortion rate for women of color is higher than it is for white women. It's also higher for Catholics than for Protestants. There are explanations that are unrelated to prejudice for both those things.

* Margaret Sanger was not a genocidal racist, and although she shared the prejudices and worldview of her day and age, she's been dead for decades and she stopped saying bigoted things a long time before William F. Buckley Jr. (But for some reason it's not arcane harping on the past to dwell on it in her case.)

As I've already said, this dog-eared, ancient untrue conspiracy theory has been rattling around for years, being hyped by -- among others -- Clenard Childress of blackgenocide.loon.

It's been debunked repeatedly for years, including when Childress says it, as it was right here in 2009.

It's still false. A lie. A falsehood. Untrue. Complete bullsh*t.

That's why you only see it being repeated by unreliable and/or unscrupulous sources.

o matter what color they are.

Arcanely arguing over which people from the past were more racist or less racist or not racist is of secondary import at best.
It avoids the more important, and more clear, NOW.

Except, naturally, when it suits SN's ego to prat on about Margaret Sanger's alleged racism.

WRT the Jewish race --

I knew he wouldn't get it. That G--gle search was so inevitable.

It's actually kind of convenient how predictable SN is. You can just reply to him in advance.

I'm not really surprised to see that it's all LBJ's fault, either. (Or, implicitly, the fault of black people themselves, plus -- of course -- Planned Parenthood.)

Because nothing is ever SN's fault. Seriously. "We're the real victims. It's never our fault" is practically the conservative's unspoken motto.

The reason so many Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act is easily explicable without reference to Democrats. Conservatives -- ie, Goldwater Republicans and the like -- were still just the farthest right wing of the GOP back in the '60s. Now they're the main show, and it's the super-extreme Birchers and kooks who are in that slot. You'd never get those votes today.

Democrats have also moved to the right, as it happens. But that's because the whole country's been going in that general direction for 35 years. Some people are just bound and determined to be ignorant.

Oh, sorry.

I forgot Robert Byrd.

That's just "we're always the victims, it's never our fault" showing itself in the ever-popular "I'm rubber, you're glue" variation.

can’t ann just deal with the NR article’s facts and positions WHICH ARE ALSO HELD BY BLACK organizations

S.N.'s blathering on this front is every bit as hilarious as AoA's dream that the Nation of Islam is going to hold a ground-breaking march on the CDC with them.

I mentioned Fishtown before for a reason – Philadelphia is heavily segregated, and that neighborhood was the most amazing collection of dumbfυck crackers that I've ever seen in my life, which is saying something. I went to middle school in Arkansas in the late '70s,* and my paternal grandparents lived in Cicero near the Berwyn border.**

Even the faggοts are still racist in Philadelphia.

But this one is a work of art:

3) As far as “statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro”, perhaps you, ann, would choose to live in the latter culture, say in Baltimore or Chicago or Compton. Perhaps you think THAT culture is superior (or perhaps, separate but equal?).
Maybe you WOULD say THAT culture is superior.
But if you did, I’d think you were lying.

Oddly enough, I'm hip-deep in spades where I live, and everything is completely cool. I routinely have to visit bona fide ghetto, and... everything is completely cool. I'd happily aver that the urban black culture here is vastly superior to whatever "culture" holds sway in S.N.'s lonely, weird-ass, nіgger-free, women-free psychological dungeon.

S.N. is rather plainly frightened of and repulsed by urban blacks. G-d knows he'd never try this shіt trip with a real live darkie. It's so much easier to hide in the "man" cave and fancy that he's demonstrating his superiority over white women on the Internet. Thus, the coons become mere props in his psychic drama.

* First lesson in algebra, with a big-ass paddle prominently hanging on the wall: "I had better not hear the word 'jigaboo' in this classroom." (I think there was only one black student, a girl, in grades 6–8.)

** My poor father was still using the term "dothead" 15 years ago. This eventually turned into silently mouthing the phrase and pointing at his forehead, and finally into "I really like this Dr. Prakash," etc.

OK, it looks like the three-link version isn't going to emerge from moderation, so I'll try again with two. The language is there for a reason.

can’t ann just deal with the NR article’s facts and positions WHICH ARE ALSO HELD BY BLACK organizations

S.N.'s blathering on this front is every bit as hilarious as AoA's dream that the Nation of Islam is going to hold a ground-breaking march on the CDC with them.

I mentioned Fishtown before for a reason – Philadelphia is heavily segregated, and that neighborhood was the most amazing collection of dumbfυck crackers that I've ever seen in my life, which is saying something. I went to middle school in Arkansas in the late '70s,* and my paternal grandparents lived in Cicero near the Berwyn border.**

Even the faggοts are still racist in Philadelphia.

But this one is a work of art:

3) As far as “statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negrο”, perhaps you, ann, would choose to live in the latter culture, say in Baltimore or Chicago or Compton. Perhaps you think THAT culture is superior (or perhaps, separate but equal?).
Maybe you WOULD say THAT culture is superior.
But if you did, I’d think you were lying.

Oddly enough, I'm hip-deep in spadеs where I live, and everything is completely cool. I routinely have to visit bona fide ghettο, and... everything is completely cool. I'd happily aver that the urban black culture here is vastly superior to whatever "culture" holds sway in S.N.'s lonely, weird-ass, nіgger-free, women-free psychological dungeon.

S.N. is rather plainly frightened of and repulsed by urban blacks. G-d knows he'd never try this shіt trip with a real live darkіе. It's so much easier to hide in the "man" cave and fancy that he's demonstrating his superiority over white women on the Internet. Thus, the cοοns become mere props in his psychic drama.

* First lesson in algebra, with a big-ass paddle prominently hanging on the wall: "I had better not hear the word 'jigabοο' in this classroom." (I think there was only one black student, a girl, in grades 6–8.)

** My poor father was still using the term "dοthead" 15 years ago. This eventually turned into silently mouthing the phrase and pointing at his forehead, and finally into "I really like this Dr. Prakash," etc.

To ann #1757:

“* Clinics are not overwhelmingly in majority black neighborhoods. They’re in urban neighborhoods, exactly where you’d expect a business of that kind to be.”

Depends on how you define “overwhelmingly”, doesn’t it?

Perhaps by whatever your definition of “overwhelmingly” is, this would not qualify:
Over half of PP facilities being in zip codes where the minority population was at least 125% of the state average, with many 250% to 1800% (based on data from PP and the 2000 U.S. Census).

And what do you mean by “a business of THAT KIND”?
What kind?
Earlier, you, and I think MI Dawn, were arguing that ALL or most businesses locate in urban neighborhoods (e.g. #1691).

“* The abortion rate for women of color is higher than it is for white women.”

Yes, FIVE TIMES HIGHER.

“It’s also higher for Catholics than for Protestants. There are explanations that are unrelated to prejudice for both those things.”

Yes, and the KEY explanation is, as I stated earlier #1681, those “Catholics” aren’t Catholic.
………….
“As I’ve already said, this dog-eared, ancient untrue conspiracy theory has been rattling around for years, being hyped by — among others — Clenard Childress of blackgenocide.LOON.”

You might say Childress the LOON coon!
.......
"It’s still false. A lie. A falsehood. Untrue. Complete bullsh*t.”

Here’s what is undeniably true, and no bullsh*t:

Right NOW, ann, and all the rest of you, would not stop ANY abortion a mother wanted, even at 9 months, even if you could.

And that’s all I need to know NOW.

I love how #1754 goes almost directly from "The GOP was and is so totally not racist that they voted for the Civil Rights Act by a wider margin than Democrats" to "which was a mistake anyway, because things have only gotten worse, so Buckley's not a racist either and neither am I!"

You'd think the disconnect would be noticeable. There's really nothing separating the two statements besides a brief pause to request that nobody mention any changes to the Democratic party in connection with a piece of legislation that's famous for setting the process that led to them in motion. (LBJ to Bill Moyers: "I think I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come," etc.)

And meanwhile, the whole part about equal rights for everyone/ALL human right just blows away like the smoke it always was, leaving nothing besides:

"I have no empathy for anyone except the unborn, whom I obviously don't and never will know except in imagination, so that really means just me.

Also, PS:

Despite that Ivy League MBA, I can't tell the difference between a historically profitable company that still generates enough hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that it can afford to lose $14 million in a single quarter without going under and a perennial sinkhole that's been slowly bleeding cash since 1955.

Plus I don't recognize stuff like eugenics and satire if it flatters my beliefs about myself or appears to confirm my views.

Therefore I win."

I'm sure I left something out. But whatever.

^ Hmph. The "awaiting moderation" version has reappeared. I even went to the store to give it time.

Oh, well, the text is the same.

Depends on how you define “overwhelmingly”, doesn’t it?

^^Which is not one smidgen like "it depends on what the definition of is is."

It's been repeatedly explained that cities have much higher minority populations than the rest of the states they're in.

Planned Parenthood clinics are in cities.

When I said both "a business of that kind" I meant -- and assumed it was obvious that I meant -- "a commercial business that acts as a regional service provider for a wide array of far-flung people, and therefore has to be centrally located and accessible to everyone from all backgrounds and walks of life."

When I said "most businesses" I just meant "businesses with a large customer base, which have to be centrally located and easy to reach."

But, you know. That might not apply to every single business. Ikea has to be possible to reach from the nearest big cities, but they need a lot of space. They're not always right in town.

I'm not going to keep explaining this. Anyone who wasn't blinded by propaganda wouldn't need to be told. Plain logic, common sense, and observation should be enough to do the job unaided.

To ann #1759:

“WRT the Jewish race — I knew he wouldn’t get it. That G–gle search was so inevitable. It’s actually kind of convenient how predictable SN is. You can just reply to him in advance.”

Well, I hope that’s clear to the rest of you out there.
Maybe the rest of you will fill me in.
……………….
“I’m not really surprised to see that it’s all LBJ’s fault, either.”

Well, you SHOULD be surprised,
because I didn’t say it was all LBJ’s fault.

What I said is that LBJ “ushered in” the Great Society.
Certainly LBJ bears part of the blame, but so do the legion of politicians of BOTH parties over the last 50 years who have “nurtured” and expanded that “great” thing.
……………..
“Because nothing is ever SN’s fault. Seriously. “We’re the real victims. It’s never our fault” is practically the conservative’s unspoken motto.”

You have it 180% wrong.
I’m not a victim of anything. (The human targets in the womb, however, are another matter.)
And the Conservative motto, if there is one, would probably include
‘Stop playing the victim and take responsibility for your life.’

Victimhood is the mantra and lifeblood of LIBERALS, not conservatives.
“We’re the real victims. It’s never our fault” is practically the liberals’ unspoken motto.
………..
“The reason so many Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act is easily explicable…”

Apparently, I didn’t make this sufficiently clear in my #1756, so, I’ll make it crystal clear NOW:

I’m NOT going to play HISTORY games with you NOW.

Right NOW, you, and all the rest of you, would not stop ANY abortion a mother wanted, even at 9 months, even if you could.

And that’s all I need to know NOW.

OK. We're back to the default position of rocking back in forth while huddled in the corner, intoning "Right NOW I know what I know because my imaginary voices told me I know it, and that's all I need to know NOW."

Asking for quotes will therefore be futile.

This, too, is impressively unflattering:

And right NOW, ann and all the rest of you would not stop ANY abortion a mother wanted, even at 9 months, even if you could.

And that’s all I need to know NOW.

Leaving aside the fact that this is demonstrably false – that is, a foregone conclusion from the get-go – one might wonder why S.N. "needs" it and why "NOW." After all, it's making a hasty retreat from its last expedition, and the landscape has changed to mere observations of its deplorable stupidity and wholesale lack of character, so what's the time pressure, again?

We get it (tinw), S.N.: you're incredibly starved for attention. You won't understand this, but you're plainly a complete nobody on Disqustink, which is to say, not even the Deadbart commentariat is impressed with you.

The only question is what combination of fear and loathing actually motivates you. The notion that this could be the outcome of something resembling a long-ago midlife crisis is just sad.

Correction: “You have it 180% wrong.”
s/b “You have it 180 degrees wrong.”

To ann #1767:

“OK. We’re back to the default position of rocking back in forth while huddled in the corner, intoning “Right NOW I know what I know because my imaginary voices told me I know it, and that’s all I need to know NOW.” Asking for quotes will therefore be futile.”

I don’t know what you mean. Quotes about what?

This derp, Tlm, sent me this disturbing stuff about 'the scoops being on their way'

... But now, children are literally being passed through the furnace in order to fuel hospitals in the UK -- They are being sacraficed on the alter of 'efficiency' and 'prosperity'...

-- David Knight

...powdered flesh from dead babies, which some people believe can cure disease.

-- generic infobabe

...Pepsico... baby parts ... enjoy the flavor ...

-- Alex Jones

We're gonna get the real solution which is gonna be the combination of 'death panels' and sales taxes

-- Paul Krugman

I'm consistently pro death. I'm for assisted suicide; I'm for regular suicide -- I'm for whatever gets the freeway moving.

-- Bill Maher

Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient...Would it be better not to lay off those ten teachers? And To make that tradeoff in medical costs. That's called the 'death panel' and your not supposed to have that discussion...

-- Bill Gates

They told me to say that they were, uhh, sorry; But that you had become unreliable.

-- some dude named Ben(??)

Is this the kind of society that you want to live in? Any kind of society that would do this to its children will do it to its senior citizens, it will do it to its dissidents.... This is nothing but a suicide cult.

-- David Knight

What is the secret of Soylent Green?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0CK1FH7na4E#t=17

^ Idle linguistic observation: the urban black vernacular in these parts carefully preserves the distinction between "smell" and "stink."

This derp, Tlm, sent me this disturbing stuff about ‘the scoops being on their way’

*plonk*

Correction: “You have it 180% wrong.”
s/b “You have it 180 degrees wrong.”

Could you explicate – in detail – what you consider the difference between the two to be? I've already noted that you have certain, ah, issues when it comes to the Turing test, so this might be an opportunity.

I mean quotes where I said anything remotely like what you're saying you know about me.

For example, anything about not being willing to stop ANY woman from having ANY abortion she wanted, even at nine months even if I could.

Because you know I didn't say that. Or anything the least bit like it.

And I think anybody with two brain cells to rub together realizes that where you'll go from there will be:

"OK. Then tell me: Would YOU, ann, stop ANY woman from having ANY abortion she wanted, even at nine months, even if you could?"

Except you'd probably say "mother" rather than "woman," like a good Luntzian-word-choice zombie.

But you'll be wasting your time and energy. I already told you what my position was.

I already know that you either couldn't find it or -- more likely -- didn't understand it.

And that obviously hasn't stopped you from repeatedly saying you know what it is.

So why should I waste my time and energy telling you again?

And why should I give you more consideration than you gave or earned?

Take some responsibility for yourself and start paying attention to what other people say like everybody else has to, if you're so damn responsible.

If you do, maybe you'll earn a better response eventually.

Or you could just keep doing what you're already doing.

(Countdown to SN again telling me what I think begins now.)

"‘Stop playing the victim and take responsibility for your life,' is of course the conservative mantra except when it comes to women taking responsibility for making decisions on contraception and abortion.

To ann #1776:

As I’ve said, I’m NOT going to play HISTORY games with you NOW.
And that includes what’s been said earlier here – the “history” of the 1700+ comments by you and others here.

Forget the history. Let’s deal with NOW.

OK. Then tell me:
Would YOU, ann, stop ANY woman from having ANY abortion she wanted, even at nine months, even if you could?

If “Yes”, please give the specifics of WHY you would stop the abortion from happening.

@ shay --

Or when it comes to anything else. They're the party of finger-pointing.

Bunch cry-babies.

I CALLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. I got carried away.

Take some damn responsibility for yourself. I'm not playing games. And I'm sure as f*ck not playing yours. They're rigged.

That's what you earn for saying something you know is false again and again without ever admitting it or apologizing.

Earn a better response and you'll get one. But it'll take a while. You've got a lot to pay off.

Little weasel: why would ann want to engage in foolish counterfactuals about strangers and actions they may or may not want to take under conditions that do not involve her in any reasonable way?

You are one with the bizarre obsessions about controlling the lives of other people, and I suggest that you run along and find some nondestructive way of dealing with them.

(For tradition's sake)

And I’m sure as f*ck not playing yours. They’re rigged.

^^Transparently, I might add. Get a new wily power play if that's what you prefer taking responsibility for.

While archbishop ann tries to figure out how she can both save whatever’s left of her face AND not answer a very simple, straightforward question [“Would YOU, ann, stop ANY woman from having ANY abortion she wanted, even at nine months, even if you could? If “Yes”, please give the specifics of WHY you would stop the abortion from happening.”]...

I’ll take a moment to note that Neilsen is telling me
The See Noevo Show is still at the top of the charts!

That seriously could not have been more fun, incidentally.

Virtually all of you out there can skip past this particular post and so save yourself some reading and thinking time,
because this post is only for the one or two people out there who consider themselves Christians.

Here are some verses from today’s Mass [[with my commentary]]:

From 1 Thessalonians 4:
“But concerning love of the brethren you have no need to have any one write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another;
and indeed you do love all the brethren throughout Macedo'nia.
But we exhort you, brethren, to do so more and more,
to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we charged you;
so that you may command the respect of outsiders, and be dependent on nobody.”

[[That last part about working and not being dependent on anyone is interesting, isn’t it? I mean, especially in light of today’s victimhood and entitlement society?

But the part about “aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs”
made wonder if a lot of self-described Christians out there are thinking
“See! That’s EXACTLY what these false Christian pro-lifers like See Noevo are NOT doing! They’re NOT living quietly and NOT minding their OWN affairs. They’re sticking their noses in other peoples’ business and trying to tell other people what to do and what not to do!”

But then, coincidentally, the last reading was as follows.]]

Mark 6:17-29:
“For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Hero'di-as, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her.
For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."
And Hero'di-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not,
for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly.
But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee.
For when Hero'di-as' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it."
And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom."
And she went out, and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the baptizer."
And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter."
And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her.
And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,
and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother.
When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.”

[[And I wondered if a lot of self-described Christians out there are NOW thinking
“Wait a minute! This John the Baptist got his head cutoff EXACTLY because he was NOT living quietly and NOT minding his OWN affairs. The Baptist was sticking his nose in other peoples’ business and trying to tell other people what to do and what not to do!

And what’s worse, Jesus elsewhere says John the Baptist is the greatest among men (cf. Mat 11:11)!!!

What the hell’s going on with Jesus and this book?!?”
…………….
Sure as hell, that’s what I was wondering.]]

Sorry. Cross-posted with #1784.

But newsflash:

When the best you can do is pretend that something you said half an hour earlier and eleven posts earlier is "history" because you're so limited that you have to stick to your one bully maneuver, even though it reveals you're a big fat liar and fake who's been telling big fat lies repeatedly due to his inability to win a single point fairly, you know what doesn't help?

Acting like you're still running the show.

Get a new gimmick.

Virtually all of you out there can skip past this particular post and so save yourself some reading and thinking time,
because this post is only for the one or two people out there who consider themselves Christians.

It's truly a delight to see the imbecilic facade of the "no-call list" finally start overtly crumbling in real time.

Here at The See Noevo Show you can watch and interact live.
But due to its immense popularity, we’ll also show re-runs from time to time.
And I think it’s time for some entertainment re-runs.
Yes, I posted these links before, but I’m posting them again, because I got to thinking they’re great,
and they’d be even better if only with that female's name
you could drop the “J” and the “E” and add an “N” at the end. (You’ll probably figure it out.)

Enjoy…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jEVCX-d4Zk
...............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FdWPeHFAMk

Here at The See Noevo Show you can watch and interact live.

A bold claim from a cowering little shіt who has resorted to clumsily and catastrophically imagining a "no call list," not to mention nauseatingly dropping the same Y—be videos over and over.

(S.N.'s sterile Y–be presence is a riot, BTW.)

^ Yup, I started that with <blockquotee&gt. So it goes.

^ QED.

The See Noevo Freak Show and Dancing Bear Revue is still at the top of the charts!

FTFY! Try the veal! Tip your waitress! I'm here 'til Thursday!

The really hilarious thing is that SN evidently doesn't realize that joke in the SNL skit he links to is on Dan Akroyd's character; we are all laughing at him. In fact, what makes him so pathetically laughable is that he has one single stupid misogynistic "comeback" which he thinks is the ultimate witticism, and just keeps spraying it out over and over again, like a f*cking See 'n Say. It's all so meta.

Back on 8/26, I noted in #1617 that in the two and a half days I had been down the shore and “off the grid” this thread had seen only 12 new posts.
Pathetic volume, as expected in my absence.

In the mere three and a half days since my return,
177 new posts (#1618-#1794), 39 of which were mine.

I’m guessing that all of the 138 new posts of yours were about me or my posts.
But that’s just a SWAG.

I’m like a Catholic version of Rush Limbaugh for ScienceBlogs.

Thank you, Lord.

Cowardly slinking away from what it itself has written. Called it.

It's the archaic language, isn't it? Perhaps a slightly different translation will help:

THE MISCHIEVOUS DOG

There was once a Dog who used to snap at people and bite them without any provocation, and who was a great nuisance to every one who came to his master's house. So his master fastened a bell round his neck to warn people of his presence. The Dog was very proud of the bell, and strutted about tinkling it with immense satisfaction. But an old dog came up to him and said, "The fewer airs you give yourself the better, my friend. You don't think, do you, that your bell was given you as a reward of merit? On the contrary, it is a badge of disgrace."

Notoriety is often mistaken for fame.

But a Catholic Rush Limbaugh, I'd buy that for a dollar. Throw in the Hindenburg and you'd have two flaming Nazi gasbags and a dirigible.

“It’s also higher for Catholics than for Protestants. There are explanations that are unrelated to prejudice for both those things.”

Yes, and the KEY explanation is, as I stated earlier #1681, those “Catholics” aren’t Catholic.

Maybe they weren't real blacks, Like Obama?

I’m like a Catholic version of Rush Limbaugh for ScienceBlogs.

Now, there's the sort of personal indifference to apostasy – and shame, given the derivative "ratings" trip – that one doesn't see blurted out every day.

Hell, it's already copped to not being able to find the stones to run this performance past competent clerical authority, For that matter, it's plain that the RCC is a business enterprise – shocking in its long-standing institutional corruption, but a business all the same.

I really can't imagine a worse advertisement for the RCC than S.N.'s imaginary self-elevation to the clergy.

I’m guessing that all of the 138 new posts of yours were about me or my posts.

Not only demonstrably not true, I'd like an estimate from you, See, on how big a percentage of the new posts were...
a) mocking and ridiculing you, and b) pointing out errors in your feeble, bigoted musings, or c) Both.

I'd estimate it to somewhere in the high 120s.

What the hell’s going on with Jesus and this book?!?”

It's cure that you come here for advice li'l See - and a hopeful sign. It shows that maybe you are indeed making some progress, albeit uncommonly sloooow....

But as I mentioned in passing over a thousand posts ago, before even your cowardly slinking away from daring to reply to my posts, it's a book of allegories/i>. (sl. allegory [al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee])

Do you know what an allegory is, li'l See?

Heh, I overlooked this one:

Back on 8/26, I noted in #1617 that in the two and a half days I had been down the shore....

The glaring question is why a lonely 60-year-old male would be "down the shore." This is fundamentally a White Trash solidarity gesture, but in this case, why?

How many people were sneaked into the motel room? How many "I Drank the Yard" T-shirts were "earned"? Did S.N. venture into the ocean? Shirtless? (I keed, I keed.) Sunscreen?

It's a golden opportunity, but I don't imagine that "S.N." qua "S.N." will have any say in the workings of the repression machinery.

Everything I know about The Shore I learned from Big Lizard in my Back Yard, although I once was lured on a chartered boat south of Sandy Hook whence we caught a great many of these weirdo bat-fish with spines and bones and membranous wingey thingeys in lieu of the promised flounder.

Do the songs have anything to do with reality or were the boys just being smart mouthed punks?

OK. So once again we are at the "No True Christian" stage of the game.

Fun fact: According to Guttmacher Institute, of all U.S. Catholic women who have had sex, 98% of them have used birth control. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/02/15/

I guess there are a lot of "No True Catholics" out there in SN's world. No wonder he's lonely. He's the only true Catholic in the US.

SN: If you can point us to ONE instance where a woman has had an abortion of a LIVING fetus after, say, 30 weeks gestation, I'd love to see it. Most of us have nothing to say about your ridiculous "abortion up to 9 months of pregnancy" comment because it's just not done. Due to maternal or fetal heath issues, labor might be induced very early, but that isn't an abortion. And I want documented proof. Not y**tube lies or lies (like the beating heart from a fetus in a bottle) from your pro-forced-birth sites. I want things published in peer-reviewed literature.

Correction: SN is lonely because he's looking for a "True Catholic" woman. And with 98% of them using birth control, they are very hard to find...

Following up on #1795, at the current comment cascade, this thread just might hit #2000 in the coming week.

God only knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTrvttaDwJM

P.S.
Did you know a beach GAL played bass on this?

A Catholic Rush Limbaugh. What a novel idea. I'm surprised nobody's ever thought of it.

@#1791 --

I was actually going to predict that post-counting would follow the thwarted ambush back in #1776. But I didn't want to make it too complex and detailed for him to grasp.

He really is that predictable, though. It's all about control and power with him. (Probably explains the bond with the voiceless. No backtalk.)

@#1798 --

The curious thing is that more Catholics aren't true Catholics than Protestants are.

@#1802 --

There's nothing wrong with the shore. It's not just for drunken high school seniors who stab transvestites under the boardwalk.
___________________

He's obviously never going to realize he got his clock cleaned.

Let's just cancel the SN show and go fully video link.

Even he enjoys that. It's the most diplomatic solution.

In moderation for links.

Oh, well. As I just said to myself:

He's obviously never going to realize he got his clock cleaned.

Let’s just cancel the SN show and go fully video link.

Even he enjoys that. It’s the most diplomatic solution.

(There was more, but it can wait.)

Those last three lines are just one, single link.

Probably the funniest story I read yesterday.
Well, at least the Pope’s progressive/social(ist) justice entourage hasn’t taken him completely off the rails.
Pope Francis still knows and says that you can’t deal with
the crazies’ climate change or
the wacky’s wealth redistribution or
the insurgents’ immigration invasion…...
if you’re DEAD (i.e. aborted, euthanized).

In more secular terms, LIFE first, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness.

I had to smile at Barack and Nancy’s serpentine spins.
Oh well, just liberals lying.
It’s what they do.
Like you.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/29/ambassador-says-pope…

I was going for the "one single" reference.

But this would have been better. Better song too.

the insurgents’ immigration invasion……

So while linking to an article describing the Pope warning against isolationism and embracing immigration, the dishonest bigoted creep seems to want to emphasize and reconfirm that it thinks murder is morally more acceptable than protecting the environment or accepting immigration.

But it really doesn't need to - everybody knows how bigoted, narrow minded and impotenty angry it is already.

If someone said something, I didn't quite catch it.

(Not you, gaist.)

There already is a Catholic Rush Limbaugh. He's called Bill O'Reilly.

Great idea, though.

@#1806 --

It's a beautiful song.

That whole record is so sad, you almost have to have lived long enough to have known real loss to appreciate it.

Except "Sloop John B." I've never understood what that's doing there.

To MI Dawn #1804:

“OK. So once again we are at the “No True Christian” stage of the game… of all U.S. Catholic women who have had sex, 98% of them have used birth control…”

I heard of a gal who was a Philadelphia Eagles fan, or called herself a Philadelphia Eagles fan.
She not only had an Eagles jersey, she even got into an Eagles Fan Club.
But strangely, she didn’t seem to know much about the Eagles, or about pro football in general.
And when she DID go to Eagles games, she spent most of her time wandering around the concourse and eating hot dogs.
But strangest of all, she sometimes rooted for other teams, even when they were playing against the Eagles!!

And I said “She may be an “Eagles fan”, but she’s not an Eagles fan. You know, like, she’s no TRUE Eagles fan.”

One of the other gals in her fan club heard me, shook her head, and scowled at … ME!
Then she said “Oh, another one of those No True Scotsman, heh?”
She scowled at me again and walked away in a huff.

And I thought: How strange?!

Shorter little weasel:

I AM THE ONLY TRUE SCOTSMAN!!!!111!!!!1!!!!1111!1

To MI Dawn #1804 (continued):

“SN: If you can point us to ONE instance where a woman has had an abortion of a LIVING fetus after, say, 30 weeks gestation, I’d love to see it. Most of us have nothing to say about your ridiculous “abortion up to 9 months of pregnancy” comment because it’s just not done. Due to maternal or fetal heath issues, labor might be induced very early, but that isn’t an abortion. And I want documented proof. Not y**tube lies or lies (like the beating heart from a fetus in a bottle) from your pro-forced-birth sites. I want things published in peer-reviewed literature.”

Whoa! Whoa, girl! Easy does it.
Don’t get your panties in a bunch like poor old gaist.
You can disregard my “even at 9 months”, if you’d like.
That was essentially a throw-away phrase; I was just trying to emphasize the “ANY abortion” idea.

Now, you strike me as someone who might have some guts. So, if I take the “9 months” stuff out, and revise as follows:

*Right NOW, you, MI Dawn, would not stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.*

You would say “Yes” to that, yes?

Still flunking allegories, the pitiable lying people-hater is.

Confidential to MI Dawn:

It's a trap. He just wants to feel like he's manipulating women. Videos only.

^^It's pro-choice, that's why.

This is probably before SN's time. But it's before mine, too, and I learned the steps from a guy my age who grew up in Philadelphia.

And anyway, it's kind of a Philadelphia-area dance-music tradition.

See Noevo: Were you the one that was crucified and was risen? What gives you the right to decide what Christianity is and isn't?

I don't actually see him offering to die for anyone.

Now that you mention it.

I mean, if you got to tell other people what to do just by appointing yourself John the Baptist, everybody would do it, obviously.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

Mark 6 17-29.

And Matthew 11 11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That means I've been divinely instructed to tell people what to do.

So bring me some figgy pudding and bring it right now.

Why? Because I say so, that's why.

(It's that easy!)

@Gray Falcon What I find so amusing our little weasel and his antics is his insistence that "A implies A" is a useful cudgel for beating his enemies into submission. In fact, smirking that "me an my buddies are the only True Christians, so you poopooheads aren't even Christians at all" is the weakest rhetorical device since ever.

@ ann:

If See can link to 'G-d Only Knows'**, should we link to 'Born This Way'?

-btw- figgy pudding is not all it's writ up to be.

** no problem with Mssrs Wilson ( esp the eldest) et al but I somehow doubt that this tune expresses religiosity in the sense our resident evangelist wannabe intends it..

See Noevo@1817

And I thought: How strange?!

*whoosh*

@ Denice W.

It's a gorgeous song, and it definitely sounds sacred. (Because all those baroque harmonies, basically.) And meaning is in the ear of the be-hearer to a considerable extent, that being what pop music is for. Which is fine as long as you don't get all Charles Manson about it.

But I personally would say that the use of the word "G-d" in the title is intended to be more sacrilegious than otherwise. It's a love song. And an ambivalent one, at that. I mean, the first line is "I may not always love you."

That whole record's just very, very sad. It's kind of like he's trying to put off the moment when he has to turn the corner into adulthood and spend the rest of his life feeling like this.

He kind of had some problems with depression.

Here's a riddle: in that last comment was I referring to the sound of something going over See Noevo's head or air blowing through the empty space between his ears?

Like this.

I meant.

SN: No, I'm not going to bother answering your question again. I've already answered it, putting it within the confines of actual medical practice, not your fevered imagination or the lying videos.

ann: I like the Beach Boys. But I read a lot of things into their songs I'm pretty sure they didn't mean. But none of those things were religious...depending on your methods of worship.... ;P

Why all this sadness, annie?

Gee. Summer’s not even over yet.

Smile!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbNwhm2EX8

In fact, as I hear it, the story arc of the Brian Wilson songwriting persona/alter-ego goes like this:

"In My Room"
"When I Grow Up (To Be a Man)"
"Let Him Run Wild"
[Pet Sounds]
"'Til I Die"

Except the last one is actually Brian Wilson.

I base that on nothing. It's just how I hear it.

I'd venture that for a person who was abused by a parent,, experienced depression/ related problems, misused substances and was a victim of abusive therapy/ management/ control,
he's doing well in that he survived and can perform music.

Probably the funniest story I read yesterday.
Well, at least the Pope’s progressive/social(ist) justice entourage hasn’t taken him completely off the rails.
Pope Francis still knows and says that you can’t deal with
the crazies’ climate change or
the wacky’s wealth redistribution or
the insurgents’ immigration invasion……
if you’re DEAD (i.e. aborted, euthanized).

In more secular terms, LIFE first, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness.

Oh, dear, S.N. is still so desperate as to be reusing his already-watery ejaculations from Disqustink.

I know that it happens all the time, but I really don't understand how one can go six decades and somehow finally conclude that poorly disguised revulsion and panic when confronted with a whiff of something that one doesn't understand or can't control is the Meaning of It All.

"Liberty," indeed. S.N. is a pretty depressing version of the Purſuit of Happineſs. (It's also an odd choice, given his obsession with claiming an association between a grab-bag of ideas that cause his hemorrhoids to prolapse and belief in "the Constitution as a 'living document'," but draining those seborrheic Gestalt pustules offers no particular appeal.)

To ann #1822:

“^^It’s pro-choice, that’s why.”

Girl, I almost missed that little insertion!

You’ve got to be kidding me. “Pro-choice”?

I thought a faux intellectual like yourself MIGHT try to avoid using *objectively false* phrases like “pro-choice”.

Alas, not even archbishop annie.

I suppose I’ll need to explain to annie and this audience...

Somebody once said “George Orwell wrote a great essay called ‘Politics In the English Language,’ in which he said you could tell when someone is truly a scoundrel by THE LANGUAGE they use to hide being a scoundrel.”

“Pro-choice” sounds like a good thing.
Having choices is nice.
Who wouldn’t be for “choice”?

“Choice” means the freedom to select from two or more options.

However, *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*, has always possessed and, God willing, will always possess.

The "something" here is the right every woman already has: the right to conceive and give birth.
It’s the status quo, the way it’s always been, the way each of us got here.
It’s a God-given right.

“Pro-choice” advocates CANNOT give anyone, or protect for anyone, something everyone (every woman, that is) already has and always will have.

**“Pro-CHOICEers” are advocating one thing and one thing only: ABORTION (or the right to it).**

Have the guts and the sense to say what you mean, scoundrel.

You’re “Pro-Abortion”.

I've refrained from perpetuating the Beach Boys routine here, because S.N. is too stupid, but it's pretty obvious that he's never listened to the bootlegs, much less on a stiff dose of the Supreme Sacrament.

I doubt that Van Dyke Parks would have much patience with S.N., but that's OK – S.N. is all about imagining ownership when unanchored, delusional control fantasies, themselves born of rejection, fail.

If you think that "Papa Don't Preach" is a pro-abortion song, feel free to say so.

But I think it's pro-choice. So that's what I said.

I do look forward to hearing conservatives start saying that they're against integrated public schools rather than in favor of school choice, though.

SHORTER VERSION: I was talking about the song, doofus.That would make you exactly what Orwell was talking about.

Somebody once said....

Yes, S.N.'s balls checked out so long ago that he's trying to conceal the fact that he's invoking Newty-Newty-Newt-Newt.

To MI Dawn #1834:

Me: “Now, you strike me as someone who MIGHT have some GUTS. So, if I take the “9 months” stuff out, and revise as follows:
*Right NOW, you, MI Dawn, would not stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.*
You would say “Yes” to that, yes?”

You: “SN: No, I’m not going to bother answering your question again. I’ve already answered it, putting it within the confines of actual medical practice, not your fevered imagination or the lying videos.”

I can see I was wrong about your guts. My mistake.

But it’s no mistake for me to say that MI Dawn is pro-abortion.

(Ref. #1839)

@#1840 --

I think one of the greatest things about music is that you don't have to understand it to respond to it.

That's been my experience, at least.

Not to say that how you articulate your response and/or explain it to yourself doesn't matter. I just mean I don't think you actually have to be very smart or self-aware to have the response.

Same for some movies, though not all. Spielberg movies, for example. I generally hate them. But I cry at all the same places everybody else does. I basically just sit there alternately crying and fuming to myself about it.

“Choice” means the freedom to select from two or more options.

However, *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*, has always possessed and, God willing, will always possess.

The “something” here is the right every woman already has: the right to conceive and give birth.
It’s the status quo, the way it’s always been, the way each of us got here.
It’s a God-given right.

“Pro-choice” advocates CANNOT give anyone, or protect for anyone, something everyone (every woman, that is) already has and always will have.

You buy liquor in plastic 1.75 liter containers, don't you?

I mean, it's darling to observe you attempting to "work from first principles," but holy fυck. I'm reminded of an Amtrak stopover I once partly spent* in a bar in Portland, Oregon, when some ancient fellow came in, fell off his barstool, was ordered out, and dropped his pants in the process.

Here, let me edit this spray:

“Choice” means the freedom to select from two or more options.

That's it. Enumerate them.

* Yes, I went to Powell's, but I prefer the original.

@Denice W.

I agree.

The work that SN linked to is actually kind of remarkable in that it demonstrates that Brian Wilson somehow went so far around the bend and off a cliff that his mind was in tiny little fragments without putting so much as a dent in his musicianship.

So I guess genius can have a prophylactic effect sometimes.

Not that I know the guy, obviously.

Oh my god, #1843 is like self-parody.

It's hard to believe he's even fooling himself at this point.

the right every woman already has; the right to conceive and give birth

He conveniently overlooks the roughly 10% of American couples who are infertile, doesn't he? of course, in his world the only childless women are the selfish ones who can't be trusted to make the proper decisions.

@ann:

@#1840 —

I'm unlikely to pick up on purely numerical references (not a stable target to start with), especially with a thread of this length.

@Narad --

It's not very courteous and friendly, either.

I wasn't really thinking. Apologies.

@shay --

Yes. Well. He also overlooks that it's actually not a right and that even rhetorically calling it that barely makes sense. It's like saying tall people have the right to reach things on high shelves.

...

I'm not saying they don't, mind you. It's just the general principle I'm talking about.

The work that SN linked to is actually kind of remarkable in that it demonstrates that Brian Wilson somehow went so far around the bend and off a cliff that his mind was in tiny little fragments without putting so much as a dent in his musicianship.

You might find this off-the-cuff pop-culture characterization to be greeted with extreme prejudice in certain circles.

But anyway, I forgot the ObVid above, with respect to S.N.'s desperate craving for something that he may well have only "known" as a child. The rest of the exercise is left as a triviality for the reader. Except S.N. and his being lost in the woods while all the while being a short stroll from civilization, of course.

He just wants to feel like he’s manipulating women.

I'll say. Too much? There's so much to be mined here that it boggles the imagination.

Hey, S.N., have you ever removed anybody's tampon? Just between us, Chicken Hawk.

Almost forgot....

Hey, S.N., Jesus is totally cool with women not shaving their armpits and legs and similar routines with their cοοlies, right? Like, you wouldn't pitch a fit about failure to adhere to this prepubescent standard, right?

When Pope Francis comes to Philly in September he’ll be hosted by our Archbishop Charles Chaput.
The RCC has some good bishops, and some not good, but Chaput is wonderful, the best bishop I know of.
We in Philly are very blessed to have him.

I’ve attended several masses which the Archbishop has celebrated. But he writes in our parish bulletin this week that for the Papal Mass next month we may have upwards of 1 million in attendance! I plan to be there.

Anyway, the MAIN purpose for this post is that today I read something else (see link) that further endears me to Archbishop Chaput -

a) his affinity for extensive electronic communication,
b) his frequent tendency, in such communication, to be blunt and even harsh,
c) his frequent reception of vitriol for such communication,
d) his refusal to be deterred, regardless.

I can relate to that. That sounds like what I experience on threads like this!

So, the Archbishop and I have even MORE things in common. (I may try e-mailing him myself!)

May God bless Archbishop Charles Chaput.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423251/archbishop-chaput-pope-fra…

Anyway, the MAIN purpose for this post is that today I read something else (see link) that further endears me to Archbishop Chaput –

a) his affinity for extensive electronic communication,
b) his frequent tendency, in such communication, to be blunt and even harsh,
c) his frequent reception of vitriol for such communication,
d) his refusal to be deterred, regardless.

I can relate to that. That sounds like what I experience on threads like this!

I take it, then, that you will be OK (modulo a plebiscite) being referred to as a "pυssy" going forward.

You’ve got to be kidding me. “Pro-choice”?

I thought a faux intellectual like yourself MIGHT try to avoid using *objectively false* phrases like “pro-choice”.

Alas, not even archbishop annie.

I suppose I’ll need to explain to annie and this audience…

Somebody once said “George Orwell wrote a great essay called ‘Politics In the English Language,’ in which he said you could tell when someone is truly a scoundrel by THE LANGUAGE they use to hide being a scoundrel.”

“Pro-choice” sounds like a good thing.
Having choices is nice.
Who wouldn’t be for “choice”?

“Choice” means the freedom to select from two or more options.

However, *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*, has always possessed and, God willing, will always possess.

The “something” here is the right every woman already has: the right to conceive and give birth.
It’s the status quo, the way it’s always been, the way each of us got here.
It’s a God-given right.

“Pro-choice” advocates CANNOT give anyone, or protect for anyone, something everyone (every woman, that is) already has and always will have.

BAHAHAHAHA.HAAAHAHAHAA... Oh dear.

Did you come up with that yourself, See?

Probably not. I mean, it sure is stupid enough and divorced from reality enough to be a See Noevo original, but I still think it's too cowardly to not hide behind a copy-paste. But to be sure, it is a new venture into incompetence for our creepy and ignorant woman-hating bigot.

Just because you dislike one of the (legal) options, doesn't mean it isn't available, silly.

And if fertility is a God-given right, god is an arbitrary asshole.

^ RightRightRight...

Details are crucial when it comes to a Theory of Everything.

Are you circumcised, S.N.?

However, *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*, has always possessed and, God willing, will always possess.

The “something” here is the right every woman already has: the right to conceive and give birth.

You would have us accept that no woman should be allowed to choose whether to exercise that "right" to give birth.

That is entirely consistent with the misogynist forced-birth ideology you would foist off onto the rest of the world, since your ego knows all and sees all.

Hmmm....choice. Pro-choice: the decision to support a pregnant woman with the choice SHE makes about HER body. So..Pregnant.
Choices: 1) Carry to term, deliver, keep baby, HAVE ACCESS TO SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR FOOD, SHELTER AND SUPPLIES Yes, I support that.2) Carry to term, deliver, put baby up for adoption. Yes, I support that, also. 3) Terminate the pregnancy in the early stages (first trimester). Yes, I support that. 4) Terminate the pregnancy after the first trimester, but before fetal viability for the sake of the mother's health or in the instance of a fetus with a life-threatening/fatal anomaly. Yes, I support that, too.

So there you go, SN. I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. I don't think every woman should have one. But I think every woman should be able to choose what happens with her body and life. And, unlike you, I am not pro-forced-birth without social support for afterwards, when the baby doesn't count, only a fetus.

@Narad --

Re: Brian Wilson.

Oh, yes, I know. I just didn't want to keep repeating that I'm only speaking about my own personal highly subjective Brian Wilson experience.

If I was writing an essay about him -- or, you know; if I was writing a serious consideration of him/his work rather than chatting about myself -- I wouldn't have said any of that.

My take on The Silence of the Lambs, on the other hand, is what I really think about The Silence of the Lambs. It's a horror movie about the male gaze.

MI Dawn #1859:

Me: “However, *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*, has always possessed and, God willing, will always possess. The “something” here is the right every woman already has: the right to conceive and give birth.”

You: “Hmmm….choice. Pro-choice: the decision to support a pregnant woman with the choice SHE makes about HER body.”

Wrong from the start.
The entire pro-abortion (a.k.a. “pro-choice”) controversy comes NOT from what a woman does with HER body but rather what a woman does to ANOTHER body.

“Choices: 1) Carry to term, deliver…”

No, not a choice. This is the forever status quo of pregnant women.

“… keep baby…”

Also not a “choice” in this context since adoption has ALWAYS been an ethical and legal action for the mother to take.

“…HAVE ACCESS TO SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR FOOD, SHELTER AND SUPPLIES…”

Not a choice. You either have these things or you don’t.
What IS new, however, is the mentality of
‘SHOW ME THE MONEY AND GOODIES,
OR I KILL THE KID.’

“3) Terminate the pregnancy in the early stages (first trimester) ... 4) Terminate the pregnancy after the first trimester… Yes, I support that, too.”

Oh, gosh, did my elipses leave out some vital words like “viability”, “mother’s health”?
Irrelevant.
Because…
*Right NOW, you, MI Dawn, would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.*

I’ll repeat, *Right NOW, you, MI Dawn, would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.*

So there you go, MI Dawn (and ann and all the rest of you), you are pro-CHOICE, pro-abortion.

@Bill Price --

The whole thing is just completely incoherent. Among other things, one most certainly can choose something one already possesses.

But even leaving that aside --

Women are not born in possession of pregnancy. It's literally not their native state. And human reproduction is not parthenogenetic. So what he's really saying is that men have the born right to impregnate women, who therefore do not have rights.

S.N, if you're gonna continue posting here, please make sense. The notion of choice implies that you have two or more options. In this case, continuing with the pregnancy, or abortion. It's simple really; just two options (which may change as the pregnancy goes along, as MI Dawn pointed out). Can you count? One, two?

And how are viability and the mother's health irrelevant? I suggest you choose another angle of attack cause you're sounding less and less coherent with each passing post.

I’ll repeat, *Right NOW, you,

Can you imagine how unbearable SN must have been to work with?

I wouldn't believe he even had a work history if I didn't know better.

That's it, SN. I am not conversing with you again. When you twist my VERY CLEAR words into how YOU want to read things, you have shown the world that you are a ...

I'm too angry to finish that now. Maybe when I cool down.

Boy...post when you are angry and even without any swearing you go into moderation. Sorry, Orac!

And...my last 2 comments went into moderation because I misspelled my email address. No more comments when angry - my fingers outrace my eyes. Again, apologies, Orac!

To Garou #1863:

“S.N, if you’re gonna continue posting here, please make sense. The notion of choice implies that you have two or more options. In this case, continuing with the pregnancy, or abortion. It’s simple really; just two options (which may change as the pregnancy goes along, as MI Dawn pointed out). Can you count? One, two?”

In retrospect, my statement (““Choice” means the freedom to select from two or more options”)
was imprecise at best, and not basic enough.

Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.
In this context, the option is something OTHER THAN THE GIVEN (the “given” being the natural taking of the pregnancy to birth or miscarriage).

I’m making perfect sense in saying pro-“choice” means pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights.

Well, it’s Monday morning and we’re approaching 1900 comments.
But I’m about to head out for golf and other things, so hitting the #1900 mark will have to wait until late tonight or tomorrow. Activity here does seem to drop to a trickle in my absence. (Maybe someday I’ll get a guest host to keep you busy while I’m gone.)

And 2000 will be coming soon, I suspect.
Until then, you can party to a pretty pathetic song, by a kind of creepy little guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2fRPmEZ6A

Ugh.
But good for you.

Ann @ 1831 1836
Care to explain how the brilliant,fun-loving "The Beach Boys Love You" would fit in here?Definitely the last great album by the BBs as a group.

Brian Wilson has always said he is spiritual but not religious.

See @1854
I read your article about Archbishop Charles Chaput,and I thought back to this article I read a few weeks ago.Different issue than abortion,I know...

Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.
In this context, the option is something OTHER THAN THE GIVEN (the “given” being the natural taking of the pregnancy to birth or miscarriage).

Poor misogynistic deceiver, you're still failing to grasp the simple fact, repeated ad nauseam by the honest people on this thread, is that we are pro-choice. We respect the woman's freedom to choose whether to use contraceptives or not, and if she gets pregnant, her freedom to choose what to do about it.

Nobody, and I repeat because you do seem genuinely challenged in reading comprehension, nobody here is promoting forced or random abortions, let alone compulsory ones, like you seem to think or dishonestly insist.

I’m making perfect sense in saying pro-“choice” means pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights.

And those two are not the same, dishonest creep.

Because you seem to like copy-paste instead of original thought, I'll leave you with a relevant quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall...

""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it""

But I’m about to head out for golf

Do you operate the ball washer yourself, or is there a tip in it for your caddy?

Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.

You can't make this shіt up. It's no surpise that S.N. is suddenly off to polish his woods or something.

Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.

Wow.

Just wow.

That is so ridiculously unintelligent my brain must have just edited it out. when I read it. I even quoted it above and didn't spot it....

Anybody here seen Mad Max: Fury Road? I think that SN sees women as a cross between the 'wives' and Max-as-blood-bag.

Something maybe-human with no agency, just a nutrient source.

Something maybe-human with no agency, just a nutrient source.

It seems to just be a freakishly pronounced, chronic case of "The Fox and the Grapes." It doesn't rise to the complexity of Tantalus; it might be some sort of Freudian regression to a prepubescent mommy/daddy–driven stage, but I can't think of any real-life exemplars with whom to compare.

#1873 polish his woods

So that's what kids are calling it these days - but don't True Catholics abstain, every sperm being sacred and all that?

It’s about 9:15 P.M. and I’m back.

I got to thinking,
your constant and stern denials and protests are just crazy, insanely hilarious.

For it’s as true today for *ann, MI Dawn, and the rest of you* as it was when this thread started on July 27:

1)Not only are you pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights, but

2)You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.

How you can keep saying “No! No!” just doesn’t go-go.

It’s shocking yet so simple and clear and true:
You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.

I got to thinking

Heh.

Hey, S.N., is retrograde ejaculation a sin, or just polite in certain circumstances?

I think one of the male Canadian commenters here may have been caught on tape!
See the second video here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-abortion-protester-endorses-post…

Planned Parenthood takes us inside the anti-abortion video editing shop

Surprise: Anti-Vaxxers Are Leading the Charge Against Planned Parenthood

One of the arguments for indicting Planned Parenthood ...

1)Law:
42 U.S. Code § 289g–1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue
Part b 2 a ii: “no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.”

2)Government guideline:
Department of Health and Human Services’ Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Chapter VI:
“The timing and method of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.”

Vs.
3)Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in her 8/27/15 letter to Congress:

“Our understanding, however, is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations RARELY OCCUR at our few clinics that offer women this service.”
………………………
Well, that's the gist of one of the arguments against PP. It probably won't work, though, because I guess if you break the law but only break it “RARELY”, then you won’t be indicted.

Poor SN. Still hopelessly at sea on the concept of 'evidence.'

(But why would his grasp of this be any better than his ability to understand science, medicine, politics or human sexuality, one wonders).

One of the arguments for indicting Planned Parenthood …

1) Law:
42 U.S. Code § 289g–1 – Research on transplantation of fetal tissue

This is another knee-slapper (it should go without saying that S.N. doesn't know how to make an en dash on its lonesome).

Behold. Now, where does the "indictment" come from, fυckwit?

Do draft your brief* carefully.

* I'll give you a bit of help, though: not "briefs." You don't seem like the commando type.

"See Noevo, proudly upholding the principles of deceit and dishonesty since post 1."

But what! Do my eyes deceive me or did the creepy people-hater have a rare lapse of honest thought?
"Well, that’s the gist of one of the arguments against PP. It probably won’t work, though, " My my, for the creep that is remarkable, even if it fumbles immediately after. Still, it shows that the others here are getting through to See Noevo, despite it's bigoted opposition to learning and cowardly aversion to evidence.

SN quotes and sort of responds to MI Dawn:

You: “Hmmm….choice. Pro-choice: the decision to support a pregnant woman with the choice SHE makes about HER body.”
Wrong from the start.
The entire pro-abortion (a.k.a. “pro-choice”) controversy comes NOT from what a woman does with HER body but rather what a woman does to ANOTHER body.

Thus SN demonstrates the evil of his, and the RCC's, position on termination of pregnancy: "Since you're merely female, your body, your whole life, belongs to me, ME, ME."

2) You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could. [...]
It’s shocking yet so simple and clear and true:
You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.

Why would anyone want to stop a woman from having an abortion, if she needed one? This is the only case that matters, because women are not - as a matter of provable fact - skipping off to have abortions for the sake of tweaking you and your silly religious pretensions. And, yes, the woman gets to decide if she needs one: no, you do not.

#1873 polish his woods

So that’s what kids are calling it these days – but don’t True Catholics abstain, every sperm being sacred and all that?

Stroking the porpoise ~= polish his woods...

Al

Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears that I was wrong.

Less than nine hours to rack up 112 comments and meet the specific prediction. My how time flies! Congratulations to the winners and better luck next time to me.

I think one of the male Canadian commenters here may have been caught on tape!
See the second video here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-abortion-protester-endorses-post…

Nope, too busy taking care of mistresses on Ashley Madison. Btw, how's your wife doing with my kids?

Tell her I'm sending lot of kisses and a bunch of flowers soon :D

Al

Robert,

Given comment #1890, lets see if I have underestimated my target of 3300 by the 23.

Al

Why that argument won't lead to an indictment:

(1) You can't break the laws governing federally funded research on transplantation of fetal tissue if you're not doing federally funded research on transplantation of fetal tissue.

And they're not.

(2) The guideline only prohibits changes to timing and method, not to procedures. And there's not even an out-of-context misrepresented quote to support the allegation that anyone's deviating from it.

(3) Even if the transplantation-research law did apply, it doesn't prohibit minor adjustments that are basically clinical judgment calls, because -- obviously -- it can't. It's fairly clear even from the video that that's all she's talking about.

(4) The Center for Medical Progress was never serious about getting an indictment. That's what they tell the throngs of suckers who are willing to swallow whatever crap they dish out. But in reality, they're just doing political performance art.

That or they're unbelievably incompetent.

But either way, per a forensic analysis, even the "full footage" videos are too heavily riddled with intentional post-production edits to have any evidentiary value.

Furthermore, they're on tape breaking the law themselves (ie -- using fraudulent driver's licenses, etc.)

So I think it's pretty clear that they're not really even trying to get it into court. And I very much doubt they ever intended to.
__________

Why their supporters don't care that they're being lied to is a whole other question. But I can't answer it.

@Roger Kulp - thanks for the interesting articles. Not that I'm surprised. It's all too clear that the PP videos were anti-abortion fantasy videos, and kudos to the PP staff who kept things factual and clinical, even though they were edited to sound evil.

I'm also saddened by SN's link. It's all too obvious, even in the article, that the poor man had no idea what "post-natal" meant. And it's a nasty trick, to talk about time periods before birth, then jump to a medical term. But then, that's about par for the course for the forced-birth crowd. They don't care who they fool, as long as they look right.

Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.

That's really very problematic from a heresy point-of-view**:

ARTICLE 3
MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin.

**That it also doesn't make sense goes without saying.

2) You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could. […]
It’s shocking yet so simple and clear and true:
You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.

No, I will not block the door or do anything else to impede a woman from getting an abortion she wants.

However, I do believe strongly in providing the kinds of social support even the paid for by my tax dollars that make it easier for women to raise their children so they are less likely to be put in a position where abortion is the best of a series of bad options as raising it your self and giving it up have their own sets of burdens and repercussions.

I also believe in making sure she has the support she may need for the issues created by any decision she may make as there is probably going to be something she needs no matter which choice.

I used to believe the nice fairy tales about adoption and how mothers will heal quickly to become healthy and whole after giving their babies up and reunions when the children find you as adults are amazing and create new life long relationships that are emotionally healthy and life-affirming.

Then a friend of mine revealed that the baby she gave up when there was one and only one choice to select from (if your parents didn't send you on a vacation to get a legal abortion) and that was be sent away to a home that ensured you would always sign the paperwork to give up your baby no matter how they had to coerce you into signing it. And I found out the ugly nightmare wrapped up in the pretty fairy tale of how these reunions are supposed to always happen and how rare it is as shown to you by media outlets.

It really kinda jaded me on the whole just give it up for adoption thing. It comes with its own set of nightmares that are rarely acknowledged by those who would force birth on every woman possible.

@ Narad:

" woods"/"retrograde" etc

@ Alain:

" porpoise"/ "Ashley Madison"

You guys are hilarious!

-btw- less hilariously, I should comment on this -

the" You would NOT stop ANY abortion...." recitative:

What would one do ANYWAY-
tie her up and feed her though a tube until she gave birth or
pack her up in a large crate with air holes and ship her directly to the Republic of Ireland where she'd be held hostage by anti-abortion partisans ? Or ot Texas?

What kind of question is that anyway?
What sort of a mind works like that?

What a random person does or chooses has nothing to do whatsoever with what I want or accept-
it has NOTHING to do with me at all- I have no jurisdiction over others.
What imaginary rights does SN think he has over another person to even THINK UP such a scenario?

I sure that confabulation goes alongside this tendency.

SN -- as has already been mentioned -- is a solution in search of a problem.

Glad you liked Denice,

I guess one should be careful not to have the rug swiped under his feet. Now let see if we have a code grey in the courtroom :D

Al

Oh, I forgot; a fundie like SN doesn't believe in divorce either...what about his wife?

Al

I was hoping our long national nightmare was over.

But it might just be off somewhere sulking about this:

Pope Francis: Priests Can Forgive Abortion If Women Are ‘Contrite’

Look at that! 1900. Woo hoo.
Perhaps we can get to 2000 without the wanker.

Or maybe this:

Pope Francis will attend a summit on families being held in the city, and LGBT Catholic groups have asked for an official presence at the gatherings to express their view that gays and lesbians should be more included in the Church.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has said he would allow the presence of openly gay and transgender Catholics at the World Meeting of Families but did not want the groups to lobby for their issues during the event.

That's from several weeks ago, though.

Of course it's barely even a compromise from a rational person's perspective. But moot point.

To ann #1892:

Nevertheless, I think it MIGHT be good for purposes of clearing the air, and satisfying the folks in accordance with the old ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ criteria,
to have Cecile & Co. testify under oath.

For instance, many would like a fuller explanation from Cecile of her own statement that
“Our understanding, however, is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations RARELY OCCUR at our few clinics that offer women this service.”
1)On what basis can you assure us YOUR understanding is accurate?
2)If you believe there is nothing wrong legally or otherwise with the adjustments PP is making to facilitate fetal tissue donations, why did you make the point that you believe such adjustments “RARELY OCCUR”?

And, for instance, just because Planned Parenthood’s video forensics expert, Fusion GPS, says that even the full videos are edited and have no evidentiary value, doesn’t mean they’re right.
Wouldn’t the people be better served to get a *second opinion* – an *opposing* viewpoint from Forensic Video Solutions, Inc., “a well-known digital forensics expert who consults with the FBI and law enforcement agencies nationally and internationally”?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-fusion…

__________
“Why their supporters don’t care that they’re being lied to is a whole other question. But I can’t answer it.”

That's pretty close to what I sometimes think about PP supporters.
But then I remember a couple things about PP supporters:
1)They’re not interested in the truth about abortion, and
2)They’re very loose in the use of “lies” and “lying”. For example, ann has accused me of “lying” at least once that I can recall. Yet, I know, and God knows, she was wrong in doing so.

To MI Dawn #1893:

“I’m also saddened by SN’s link. It’s all too obvious, even in the article, that the poor man had no idea what “post-natal” meant. And it’s a nasty trick, to talk about time periods before birth, then jump to a medical term. But then, that’s about par for the course for the forced-birth crowd. They don’t care who they fool, as long as they look right.”

That video must have been edited, heavily and misleadingly edited.
Better get Fusion GPS on the case.
Meanwhile, you can take another look and listen for the snips in that second video:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-abortion-protester-endorses-post…

I think the video victim might be our Garou.

@Denice W.

I'm sure confabulation goes alongside this tendency.

OK. There's insight. And then there's prescience.

How are you doing that?

To ann #1894:

Me: “Better to say: “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option.”

You: “That’s really very problematic from a heresy point-of-view**…
**That it also doesn’t make sense goes without saying.”

No. Of course it makes sense.
Assume a forever, natural status quo “P”.
Then, someone introduces a “NOT-P” for your possible selection.
The NOT-P is the choice, the one and only choice.
In this context, “P” is Pregnancy, it is THE GIVEN - the natural taking of the Pregnancy to birth or miscarriage.

The CHOICE = “NOT- P” = terminating the Pregnancy = ABORTION.
……………..
As to your Catechism quotes, I don’t see what your issue is, archbishop annie.

But you best not read too much more from the CCC, or your designs will be dashed.

To ann #1894 (addendum):

That “Pro-Choice” can mean anything other than “Pro-Abortion Rights”
doesn’t make sense, and should go without saying.

Nevertheless, I think it MIGHT be good for purposes of clearing the air, and satisfying the folks in accordance with the old ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ criteria,
to have Cecile & Co. testify under oath.

Poor SN. As if he has even an iota of a scintilla of a hint of a say in the matter.

I remember the ACORN dirty tricks campaign very well. It's gratifying to see that this attempt is whimpering its way to well-deserved obscurity.

Here’s what might be considered an off-the-wall, off-topic question:

Who out there likes pro football?

I am sittng down. I could continue to sit or I could stand up. In my opinion I have two alternatives from which to choose: continue sitting, or stand. By See Noevo's -- ah -- reasoning, for want of a better term, I have only one choice available: to stand.

See Noevo seems unfamiliar with human thought.

Way back on #1808 ann seemed to be bidding me good bye.

Why do you post “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye” for me, annie?

Your actions belie your goodbyes. You’re responding to me as much as ever.
You’re not going anywhere, Nowhere Girl.

So don’t say goodbye, annie. Be like me and say hello!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1MxxVMZUg

@ ann:

I am not sure what I am doing but it seems to work.

Good news, See.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/01/3697333/pope-francis-abortio…

Being a deceitful woman hating bigot without cognitive capabilities, it also seems to ignore that contraception is yet another choice.

It loses again, pitiable See Noevo does.

@DGR 1913 - I must admit, I saw that in the news this morning and thought of this endless thread...

To KayMarie #1895:

Me: “It’s shocking yet so simple and clear and true:
You would NOT stop ANY abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.”

You: “No, I will not block the door or do anything else to impede a woman from getting an abortion she wants.”

There.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
But thank you anyway, for confirming the obvious.

KayMarie, any thoughts on why others, like ann, won’t do the same?

Maybe she’s like one of those Congress people who don’t vote, or just vote “present”, on bills that might come back to bite them?
…………….
“I used to believe the nice fairy tales about adoption … Then a friend of mine revealed that…And I found out the ugly nightmare wrapped up in the pretty fairy tale..."

Ahh.
A variant of the
‘Show me the money and goodies, or I kill the kid.’
This time playing out as
‘The adoption may not turn out the way I like,
so I’ll kill the adopt-ee.’

Well done, caring Kay.

@Denice W --

Talent is funny that way.

@SN --

For the crowd-chant connotations. I guess I don't really think of it as sport-specific. But it feels more classically baseball than football to me.

To DGR #1913:

“Good news, See.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/01/3697333/pope-francis-abortio…”

Not really news, deacon DGR.
Maybe archbishop annie will explain to you why.

Re: #1918…

To paraphrase St. Augustine:
'God promises His forgiveness for our repentance.
But He doesn’t promise tomorrow for our procrastination.'

Which brings to mind something archbishop ann said about “Til I Die” being one of her favorite BB songs.

What does ann thinks will happen when she dies?
(I sense a no-vote, “present” vote coming.)

You could be dead by nightfall.
Better catch the wave while you can.
Surf’s up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyOYQ8qfFng

@ ann:

I appreciate your kind words.
Many are loathe to admit my excellence but usually intelligent people come around quickly.

Not taking anything away from our esteemed Domina Denice, but are she prescient or is he just utterly predictable?

I wonder what became of JGC, the self-described observant Jew?

I still marvel at his admission in #974 that he would take an innocent life even while he admits it COULD be a human being.

In a fantasy world, where not all things work the way they do in our world…

I can imagine JGC, with his Jewish accomplice ann, out hunting for what will become venison, kosher venison, that is.

JGC detects something moving in the brush, but he can’t discern whether it’s a whitetail or something else.

But JGC is hungry for the kill, so he shoots.
And ann, hearing something thud to the ground, squeals “Good shot!”

After some amount of time passes, JGC and ann look behind the brush, and are surprised to find not Bambi the deer, but rather Boone the Daniel.

And some time after that, a Judgment of JGC and ann was held.

You: “No, I will not block the door or do anything else to impede a woman from getting an abortion she wants.”

There.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
But thank you anyway, for confirming the obvious.

Ironically, neither will S.N., who is too busy playing putt-putt to chain himself to the doors of any abortion clinics.

Nothing like being a blowhard chickenshіt.

SN, so Jesus like, ignoring all the pain and suffering of the real world to stand all righteous and sure of his purity and that everyone's life is easy and free from all care and no one ever really has hard choices to make or could suffer in anyway.

I actually wrote a serious response to #1919 and was about to hit "Submit Comment" when luckily, my eye happened to fall on #1923.

Back to presidential politics and such…

Nice to see that CNN has reversed its version of a war on woman by allowing Carly into the next debate.
I think Carly is super sharp and would convincingly win any debate against just about anybody, with the possible exception of fellow GOPer Cruz and maybe even the softer-spoken but solid Carson.

Meanwhile, with all that’s falling apart in this country and elsewhere, our commander-in-chief, the most “pro-choice” president in history, is "out of town" in Alaska, to
1)Appear in a reality survivalist TV show, and
2)Speak out against global warming. (Ironically, while he’s there, Alaska may be getting some early snows. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/summer-snow-to-greet-obama-on-alask…)

But while Mr. Cool, Barack, is chilling, things are “heating up” elsewhere...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/01/isis-video-shows-…

Me in #1919: “What does ann think will happen when she dies?”

ann: “I actually wrote a serious response to #1919 and was about to hit “Submit Comment” when luckily, my eye happened to fall on #1923.”

As I said, I sensed a no-vote, “present” vote coming.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is like that.

If it's not fulfilling enough for you, work for a better answer..

Found this Onion Article that someone accidentally posted to NaturalNews. Didn't bother reading it but the title is worth a laugh and it's related to this thread because it's about Planned Parenthood and it's incredibly stupid. AI technology to eventually streamline the type of genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by Planned Parenthood, experts warn

Never forget, See Noevo is only one of many idiots in the world.

Found this Onion Article that someone accidentally posted to NaturalNews.

Well, the letter is real, but NN's invocation of Silent Running is almost certainly inadvertent:

"Experiments have also been conducted on AI robots capable of planting, watering, and caring for plants without human intervention."

My one IJCAI experience was astonishingly dull, BTW, but I have to wonder why now? Cripes, my stipend was paid by the Office of Naval Research way back when. The automated delivery-truck algorithm was really about a different payload, gang.

Back to presidential politics and such…

Hey, S.N., when was the last time anyone, including yourself, actually saw your balls? Ultrasound techs don't count.

To KayMarie # 1925:

“SN, so Jesus like, ignoring all the pain and suffering of the real world to stand all righteous and sure of his purity and that everyone’s life is easy and free from all care and no one ever really has hard choices to make or could suffer in anyway.”

You couldn't be more wrong.
I don’t recall what your religious bent is, if you have one at all, but apparently you don’t understand or abide by the Christian world-view, especially regarding suffering.

I’ll try to be brief:
We live in a fallen world in which suffering and death rule. Although Christ commanded we love others and try to relieve their suffering, He himself - even with His miracles and crucifixion and resurrection - did NOT put an end to suffering in THIS world.
(However, His death and resurrection DID open the way to a suffering-free, joyful eternity in the NEXT world.)

He essentially assured us that in THIS world suffering would continue (e.g. “For YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE POOR WITH YOU, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.”).

More importantly, He said that suffering, properly viewed, was REQUIRED to be His disciple (e.g. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and TAKE UP HIS CROSS DAILY and FOLLOW ME.”).

Of course, we’re not called to SEEK suffering like some masochist, and certainly not to cause it.

But we ARE called to SEE suffering realistically. (A poor secular analogy: ‘No pain, no gain.’)

We will find His peace in this world DESPITE, and usually through, the suffering offered up for Him.

The peace and joy we can experience, in the midst of suffering in following Him in this world, will be perfected in the NEXT world.

Here are some related words from the aforementioned Archbishop Charles Chaput:

[[The virtue that Christians call hope is not a warm feeling, or a sunny mood, or a habit of optimism. Optimism, as
the great Catholic novelist Georges Bernanos once wrote, has nothing to do with hope. Optimism is often foolish and naive — a preference to see good where the evidence is undeniably bad. In fact, Bernanos distrusted optimism as a “sly form of selfishness, a method of isolating oneself from the unhappiness of others.”

Hope is a very different creature. It’s a choice; a self-imposed
discipline to trust in God while examining ourselves and the
world around us with unblinkered, unsentimental clarity. In effect, it’s a form of self-mastery inspired and reinforced by God’s grace.

“The highest form of hope,” Georges Bernanos said, “is despair, overcome.” Jesus Christ was born in a simple stable and died on a cross NOT TO MAKE A GOOD WORLD EVEN BETTER; but to save a sinful and broken world from itself at the cost of His own blood.

Such is the real world; our daily world; the world of Christian hope — the world that Pope Benedict speaks to when he writes in his encyclical that “all serious and upright human conduct is hope in action” and “THE TRUE MEASURE OF HUMANITY IS [determined by our] RELATIONSHIP TO SUFFERING AND TO THE SUFFERER”.

In the words of Benedict: “To suffer with the other and for others; to suffer for the sake of truth and justice; TO SUFFER OUT OF LOVE, and in order to become a person who truly loves — these are fundamental elements of humanity, and to abandon them would destroy man himself”.]]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/advent/bishops-previous-adv…

Well, that all seems pretty orthodox. Nothing that would be out of place over kaffe og kringler after communion - which, as Pastor Teresa reminds us, is not a Catholic table or a Methodist table or a Lutheran table or an Episcopal table but is God's table and is open to all.

And of course it has no direct bearing on medicine, or contraception, or abortion, which I know through my direction connection to God as understood within the Evangelical movement (a concept that is more widely misunderstood even than Transubstantiation). I find it interesting that SN is denied this connection by the doctrines of the RCC, no matter what his perceived degree of mystic union, for the hierarchy holds that an ordained priestly caste is essential to intercede between him and The Holy. Thus mariolotry and the various cults of the various saints and all that foolishness.

Yet when the rubber hits the road I would never presume to deny SN his place within the Body of Christ on Earth. I don't pretend to like him, I think he is wrong in malicious and harmful ways, but his status in the eyes of God is up to him and to God.

SN may be eager to denounce me as No True Christian, and that is his right and I am free to ignore him up to the day his buddies seize control of the government, but that actually places him in the company of the truest of true leftists who denounce me as a crypto-Republican plant (or what ever their particular shibboleth happens to be that week) just because my preferred vision of the socialist paradise does not match theirs on every single trivial point.

So it's true what they say, all the weirdo extremes converge at the vanishing point.

We I live in a fallen world in which suffering and death rule.

FTFY, but explicitly noting your enthusiastic embrace of your inherent depravity is superfluous in the extreme at this point, Dorf.

I agree with His Excellency.

You folks just need some soul, man.
Soul for some downs…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkzy5clEjxs

Soul for some ups…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4H_pWQaa2I

Welcome to the Superlative* See Noevo's Nerve-rending Never-ending Magical Mystery Tour!
("It just goes on and on" say the reviewers, and more!)
(* in the grammatical sense only)

"Pick a card, any card" says See Noevo.
"But there's only one..." says member of the audience.
"Yes I know!" says See Noevo. "Plenty of options, am I right! All the options you need."
"What?" asks the member of the audience.
"Just pick a card or you're a coward!" hisses See Noevo.

(crickets)

After repeated proddings by See Noevo, the member of the audience takes the offered card.
"Your card is...." See Noevo rubs it's temples in avid concentration. "...Jack of Spades!" it proclaims theatrically.
"No it isn't," says the member of the audience. "It's Three of clubs. One card and you got it wrong!"
"I did no such thing, you're zero for on-, twent-, gazillion, buster, so shut up. Black is black, no difference." Says See Noevo, snatching the card from the hand of the member of the audience. "Except with Obama, am I right, huh, am I right?"

(crickets)

"That was a crappy trick." says another member of the audience.
"No it wasn't. It was excellent. Superb, in fact. If we just repeat it eight to ten times, like so, you'll see my awesomeness." says See, repeating it eight to ten times. "Now, Notice how I awesomely foretold every single card-"
"No you didn't!" interrupts the audience.
"I did, shut up, and I'm going to put you on the do not call list and ignore you." says See, before turning to the rest of the audience. "Like you saw, every card was black, like I foreto-"
"Mine was King of Hearts" proclaims yet another member of the audience.
"Hearts, Smarts, who needs them." See Noevo spats. "I sure don't. I got the Jesus."
"See, don't lie. I have the card right here!" says the yet another member of the audience, waving the King of hearts.
"Bah." See Noevo waves its hand in dismissal. "Women, only good for making babies, am I right am I right?"

(crickets)

"This show sucks," mutters a member of the audience. "Yeah, other magicians do every trick better than it does." agrees another.
See Noevo drops the monkey it was holding for its next trick. Points at the audience wildly. "You're just mad because I'm better than any other magician there is""
"What? No you're not."
"I am. They're not real magicians, even if they perform magic. They're not. They're just calling themselves such."
"But that doesn't even make sense"
"Does too!" See Noevo insists, stomping on the boards in a tantrum. "I bet you're a jew."

(shocked silence)

"That's racist!"
"The nerve!"
"Bigot!"
"Asshole!"
"Anti-semite!" Shouts the audience in unison.
"I'm not racist. In fact, I believe there is only one race, so there!" erupts See Noevo. When the outcry does not abate, he adds "And Rush Limbaugh talks of jews, so I can't be racist, now can I?"
"Yes"
"Shut up, I wasn't asking. You too go on the no fly telemarketing list."
Booing continues for a long time, but finally the audience quiets down. Only a scattering of people remain, the rest having stormed out in disgust.
"All you racists and feminists and leftist idiots need to just calm down, like me!" See says, still fuming, and kicks the monkey. "See what you did now!" See shouts at the audience, spraying spittle. "You're all going to Hell!"
See closes its eyes and pantomimes golf swings until it manages to compose itself and calm down.

"Did the Jew leave or are you still here?" See asks.

1000 internets for gaist @1938 (it was a very good year..my mom was 1, my dad was 8)! That was fabulous, and all too accurate. Thanks for the morning laugh.

gaist @1938 - Looks like I dropped back in at just the right time. Spot on!

Ellie, the lurker and probable Protestant, has returned!

It’s only about 9:30 A.M. here, a little early for your lurking accompaniment of popcorn and soft drink, you think?

Have you stepped on the scale today?

Did you know your fizzy drinks may make your heart fizzle?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/buying-fizzy-dr…

See, you are aware that by going completely off-topic, you've basically conceded your argument. Then again, when you were on-topic, you tried to justify the pregnancy of a child. You monster.

Who pissed into your cereal this morning?

That's
too
funny

To Gray Falcon #1942:

“See, you are aware that by going completely off-topic, you’ve basically conceded your argument. Then again, when you were on-topic, you tried to justify the pregnancy of a child. You monster.”

Gray one, the main reason you’re not on the “No fly/Do not call” list is that I find your posts funny.
You’re like a ScienceBlogs version of Joe Biden.

“You monster.”
Heavens, Gray!
I heard there may be a “See Noevo” scary costume available for the upcoming All Hallows Eve.
……………..
Gray, how does your flock feel about your stance that you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could?
I’d bet they’re OK with that.
………………
And speaking of my going off-topic, you didn’t answer my question:
Who out there likes pro football?

I’d bet you don’t. (And ann’s already said she doesn’t.)

I’m not sure my question about pro football is completely off-topic, though.
Because some impressions of you guys and gals are running round my head, impressions which MIGHT INDIRECTLY relate to the main topics (i.e. abortion and the supposed denial of women’s rights on abortion and other things):

1)A hate of, or at least aversion to, men. Or at least to a certain KIND of man – the traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y kind.
2)An affinity instead to the feminized man and the increasingly feminized culture.
3)An aversion to intense competition.
4)An aversion even to playing by the rules.

In fact, I’m going to add “pro football” to my off-topic list, the list that started way back on
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut…

So, I’ll edit as follows:
[[I’d bet an increasing acceptance of evolution is positively correlated with more than just an increasing acceptance of (Anthropogenic Global Warming) environmental regulations. I’d bet the increasing acceptance of evolution is also positively correlated with the increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of,

– ABORTION,
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– socialistic government programs
– *aversion to pro football*]]

There. That's a little better.

Gaist, you're a genius. You and GF (SN sure spends a lot of time replying to his no-fly list, doesn't he?) have driven him back on trying vainly to provoke Ellie and strutting his alleged manhood in the face of all those limp-wristed football-hating evolutionists out there.

Every time SN goes off-topic, an angel loses its wings.

A hate of, or at least aversion to, men. Or at least to a certain KIND of man – the traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y kind.

It's an impressive display of wholesale lack of self-awareness that S.N. is now revealing that his interest in pro football stems from his attraction to all the delicious male bodies. (How this qualifies as a "traditional" physique is anybody's guess.)

It's too bad that britishmusclebear.com has been reduced from its former glory to a mere dating site. Check out Luke Mills, though, S.N. Now, that seems like your kind of man.

See Noevo drops the monkey it was holding for its next trick.

I'm guessing the next trick involved placing the monkey in a magic box from which a human would emerge.

Of course, only the monkey would emerge and SN would triumphantly shout "See Noevo".

See: "Gray, how does your flock feel about your stance that you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could?"

Where did I say anything like that? Do you really think you can get away with lying.

And yes, you are a monster. A child got pregnant, and you didn't fucking care. In fact, you're more upset about my using the word fuck that about the pregnant child.

Every time SN goes off-topic, an angel loses its wings.

Having to resort to regurgitating an incredibly stupid entry from a different thread is a pretty good sign that S.N. has turned into a really low-rent version of Hirō Onoda.

Ah, well, I don't bother following his Y—be links, which he's too stupid to mark up with titles (G-d forbid he should figure out blockquote rather than resorting to some sort of weird internal-speech bracketing trip), but the irony of "Backfield in Motion" is almost too much to bear.

And no, he's not going to get it.

I am struggling mightily against the temptation to insert a wide stance joke here.

I don't hate football of any time - American, Aussie Rules, college. I find American and College football boring to watch most of the time, but have been known to root for either my own alma mater or my daughter's 2 alma maters on occasion (kinda - oh the game's on. Go XXX).

If you're interested in men with good testosterone levels, I'm gonna drool over baseball players...

A child got pregnant, and you didn’t fυcking care.

Recall that S.N. has putridly cowered when presented with the question how he would handle things if she were his daughter, much less whether he were the father, having been appropriately forgiven of his sin while sitting in a magic box.

Admittedly, this is probably a tough one for an effective eunuch.

If you’re interested in men with good testosterone levels, I’m gonna drool over baseball players…

Something something Steve Stone Playgirl something.

To Gray Falcon #1949:

Me: “Gray, how does your flock feel about your STANCE that you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could? I’d bet they’re OK with that.”

You: “Where did I SAY anything like that? Do you really think you can get away with lying.”

Now, Gray. I know and God knows, and I think even you know, I’m not lying about this.
I did NOT say that you SAID that ‘you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.’
I merely said YOUR STANCE is that ‘you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.’

Which I believe to be true.
And I’ll continue to believe it’s true until such time you tell me where you would stop a woman, if you could, from having an abortion she wanted.

You’re just attempting the ancient archbishop ann tactic of ‘I never SAID that. Show me where I said that!’
[I imagine Charles Manson never SAID he orchestrated those killings, too.]

Actually, Gray, YOU are the one who appears to be lying (and detracting) when YOU say
“A child got pregnant, and you didn’t fucking care. In fact, you’re more upset about my using the word fuck that about the pregnant child.”

Not only did I not say those things, I don’t believe those things.
Those things are not my STANCE.

It would do you good, Gray, to confess your sins of lying (and detraction).

I'll forgive you, and I know God will, too.

My comment is “Awaiting moderation”. The only reason I can think of is that I quoted Gray’s words back to him, including HIS F-words.

I’ll re-post with strategically placed asterisks:

To Gray Falcon #1949:

Me: “Gray, how does your flock feel about your STANCE that you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could? I’d bet they’re OK with that.”

You: “Where did I SAY anything like that? Do you really think you can get away with lying.”

Now, Gray. I know and God knows, and I think even you know, I’m not lying about this.

I did NOT say that you SAID that ‘you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.’

I merely said YOUR STANCE is that ‘you would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if you could.’

Which I believe to be true.
And I’ll continue to believe it’s true until such time you tell me where you would stop a woman, if you could, from having an abortion she wanted.

You’re just attempting the ancient archbishop ann tactic of ‘I never SAID that. Show me where I said that!’
[I imagine Charles Manson never SAID he orchestrated those killings, too.]

Actually, Gray, YOU are the one who appears to be lying (and detracting) when YOU say
“A child got pregnant, and you didn’t f***ing care. In fact, you’re more upset about my using the word f*** that about the pregnant child.”

Not only did I not say those things, I don’t believe those things.
Those things are not my STANCE.

It would do you good, Gray, to confess your sins of lying (and detraction).

I’ll forgive you, and I know God will, too.

For what it's worth, I've been known to watch what is locally known as "American football", although I do prefer rugby for its greater emphasis on player skill and on-the-ground team play.

But I suppose, for men of certain tastes, there's something to watching muscular men doing stripper dance moves after every touchdown.

I too deeply share See Noevo's dismay and trepidation about how much the human population has declined since Darwin's time.

To MI Dawn #1952:

“I don’t hate football of any time – American, Aussie Rules, college…”

Firstly, I didn’t ask if you HATED (pro) football.
I asked “Who out there LIKES pro football?” And you don't.

Secondly, based on your #1865, I thought you were finished responding to me. My mistake. I took you at your word.

See, you didn't react to any of my statements about pregnant children, but you did react to my profanity. My statement stands.

SN, ‘what became of JGC’ is that I simply lost interest conversing with someone as incompetent, dishonest and offensive as you have shown yourself to be in your posts.

Now, Gray. I know and God knows

Gnostic heresy, check.

See Noevo walks to up to the footlights. "For this next trick I'm going to need volunteers." it says, scanning the audience.

(crickets)

"Anybody? It's going to be really great, it's one of my best."

(crickets)

"It's one of the best in the world, actually...."

(crickets)

"So, if that's the way you want to play it, in my noble generosity I'm going to lift the do not call-ban of ignored by the ignorant, but only for the duration of this trick, mind you, so somebody volunteer now."

A long, weighty silence, while See Noevo stares expectantly at the audience, sweating in the glaring light, desperation in its beady eyes. Somebody coughs in the back, but the noise is quickly stifled. Silence. Flecks of dust frolic in the beams of lights above. "...please...", See whispers. It is as if the whole building, nay, the whole universe is holding its breath along with See Noevo, sweat dripping into its eyes
Finally a member of the audience raises his hand. "Fine, I'll do it."
"No volunteers? It is a marvelous sight, that magic trick, truly wondrous."
"I said I'll do it."
"Well, that's too bad. I really hoped I could have performed this-"
"I volunteered! What are you, blind?" the member of the audience waves his hand above his head. See Noevo clears its throat and starts again. "Alas, we had no volunteers, so now you'll never witness the unbelievable ingenuity and majesty of my trick, but you can console yourself with the fact that it would have been unbelievably ingenious and majestic.

(crickets)

"Well", See Noevo says bitterly. "I expected at least applause for such a wonderful magic trick, you ingrates."

(crickets)

"You wouldn't be here if I wasn't awesome! And I am, awesome, even if I say so myself." See Noevo says, a smug smile on its face. "Right?" it adds, when there is no response. "Right?", this time a little more tentatively.
"We're playing fundie-bingo back here, so keep on doing whatever it is you're doing up there."
"I think this is absolutely fascinating. Like a chatbot impersonating Andy Kaufman impersonating a religious fundamentalist."
"My boss thinks I'm working" says I. "And bring back the monkey!"
"I'm halfway through recounting the cracks in the ceiling. " shouts another. "And besides, these seats are comfy and there's air condit-"
"I'm relevant!" See Noevo cries out, its voice breaking mid-utterance.

(stunned silence)

"Since the last intermission all you've done is play old music from youtube!" a voice from the pews points out.
"I still matter more than you." See Noevo barks, sudden vitriol oozing out from its pores. "I've been relevant and important and, uh, relevant for ages! Like, my opinion on manly sports and my rational views on hateful Godless gays or abominable evolution from months ago. Months! And that global warming bullshit! You never even asked what I thought about it!" It takes a deep breath, and charges back into its tirade. "You're bullies because my views are better than yours! You're nothing! I don't care for your opinion! It's me who's on stage here, me! You didn't even laugh at my joke about that faggot aborting football..."
"Because it wasn't funny, bigot." answers the audience.
"Can I get my money back?" a voice asks.
"No. You've enjoyed the show."
"Have not."
"You lie!" shrieks See Noevo, so loud it wakes up the concussed monkey, who yelps in fear and hugs itself, eyes wide in panic. "You all lie! You are all wrong! Wicked! I know what is right! I'm in the right, me, I'm the awesome performer you've all come to see and revere!" See Noevo breathes heavy, his fury inflated. "Revere me, please." it begs.
"But you're not even doing magic tricks anymore." points out another voice in the audience. "You're not performing."
(Someone snickers "That's what she said" and makes a rimshot noise).
"But its your fault!" See Noevo shouts loudly. "Just a couple of intermissions ago I tried to chat you up by bringing up pro football, and you ignored it, just kept on whining about how I should let the monkey out of the barrel before it drowns."
"Aren't you supposed to do magic?"
"Bah, liberals, hating honest and manly Christian sport like pro football." See Noevo sneers.
"Don't they play on the Lord's day?" asks someone in the audience.
"What are you, a godless Muslim fundamentalist hating America?"

(The audience inhales audibly, preparing to interject)

See Noevo sighs, gesturing with his hands for people to calm down. "Look, " it adds, trying to muster an air of reasonableness. "I'm not racist, I did blackface and everything, I can't be racist. It can't be racist pointing out they're inferior, or stupider than us, because I'm doing it to protect them from themselves."
The audience boos in unison.
"No racist, or I would have joked about the faggot footballer being a not only faggot but a nig-"
See Noevo's voice is drowned out by a torrent of derision.
"Why can't you just stop calling me racist?" See pleads, once its voice can be heard over the continuing tumult.
"Why can't you just stop being a racist?" responds the audience, once the paroxysms of ridicule have quieted.
"That's the problem! You make as much sense as Hillary Clinton in this right-wing article I read!" See says, pointing at its smart phone. While the audience looks at him silently with a mix of pity and resignation on their faces, it does a little victory jig. "Told ya all!"
"I'm sorry, but what-" says someone from the audience.
"Ha!" exclaims See. "That's guilty talk! Apologizing like that! I was right all along. You're mere bullies! If you keep being mean I tell my good friend the Pope and then you'll see! And you in the back, ease up on the popcorn and fizzy drinks, I like mine skinny and docile."

After mentally imagining a few calming golf swings until the booing finally dies down, See Noevo turns to the audience, wearing his most affecting smile.

"In retrospect, let bygones be bygones, who cares what was said by whom..." See Noevo waves its hand, as if to casually toss such notions aside. It clears its throat. "...Remember the trick where I magically knew every card was a jack of spades? Just like it, this next youtu-"
"No they weren't!" Shouts someone from the audience.
"I still have my king of hearts" shouts another.
"Oh come on!" shouts a third.
"See what I'm up against," laments See Noevo to nobody in particular, "they get stuck on details when I'm talking about universal truths" it wails, head tilted back, its eyes up to the fly loft.
"You're being ridiculous." calls someone from the audience.
"I'm doing this for the little children, you monsters, can't you see that?" See screams, face the color of beetroot.
"No, I can't."
"Then you're stupid!" See yells. "Stupid, stupid, stupid. Why can't you just behave?"
"You're not helping kids, you're just lying. You don't need to lie or be dishonest if all you wanted was to help children."
"I didn't ask for your opinion" See Noevo hisses, making air quotes around the word opinion. "But it's the cross I must bear!" See Noevo sighs, picking up the still concussed monkey by the tail and lifting it up.

Those things are not my STANCE.

Still struggling not to insert wide stance joke here.

To JGC #1959:

“SN, ‘what became of JGC’ is that I simply lost interest conversing with someone as incompetent, dishonest and offensive as you have shown yourself to be in your posts.”

But you haven’t lost interest in watching what I’ve been saying for the 13 days since your last post.

While you're here, what do you think the judgment on JGC would be, you know, for the dead Boone the Daniel?

I see that SN is also a fan of modern-day gladiatorial combat, where young men are promised an education or lots of money (or both) and then engage in constant head injury for the entertainment of others.

(I waffle on pro football, but i do not approve of the current college football system at all.)

To JustaTech #1964:

Well, a number of people - including you, ann, MI Dawn – have responded but, so far, no one here has said they like pro football.
This is as I expected (ref. #1945).

Can you think of any other items, besides pro football, that I could add to my #1945 list?

Recall that S.N. has putridly cowered when presented with the question how he would handle things if she were his daughter, much less whether he were the father, having been appropriately forgiven of his sin while sitting in a magic box.

But at least he still has to endure the inconvenience (agony, suffering, what have you) involved in getting to the magic box to be reissued the holy trinity stamp of approval..

It seems the protestant fundies have it down to a quick "forgive me Jesus" the moment they hop off the hooker, after which all is good once again.

Strikes me as being a bit too easy but, whom am I to question Jesus?

but, so far, no one here has said they like pro football.

Still a dishonest whiny creep, I see.

Dude, SN, you're a piece of work. I'll refrain from speculating on what other people think about football.

As for your silly list from the last endless thread, you might recall that I disproved that with nuns. (Perpetual singlehood = nuns. There were many more nuns (by absolute number and proportionally) when no one had thought up AGW or evolution yet.)

So, once again, you are wrong.

It seems the protestant fundies have it down to a quick “forgive me Jesus” the moment they hop off the hooker, after which all is good once again.

I'm quite convinced that Roman Catholic theology is too complicated for S.N. He seems to venerate the Catechism, which is sort of within his intellectual grasp (viz., ctrl-F), but that's it.

He's not honest or brave enough to seek genuine pastoral review of, and guidance regarding, his conduct. Does anyone really doubt that this asshοle thinks that he's better than his parish priest? (G-d forbid that the poor bastard is "feminized.")

Straight-up Protestant cracker fundamentalism would suit his personality better (and give him a chance of getting laid, if by someone as generally distasteful as he is), but then he'd lose something to look down on.

^ Blockquote fail on the first paragraph.

"Straight up Protestant cracker fundamentalism would suit his personality better"
Yeah, I'd go with that.

To JustaTech #1968:

“Dude, SN, you’re a piece of work…As for your silly list from the last endless thread, you might recall that I disproved that with nuns. (Perpetual singlehood = nuns. There were many more nuns (by absolute number and proportionally) when no one had thought up AGW or evolution yet.)”

Dude, from your screen name, and most especially from the quality of your comments, I have to think you never made it to college.
But your lacking a bachelors, in and of itself, is not a total loss.
Far from it. Far too many go to college these days and that’s a tragedy in more ways than one.
There’s nothing wrong and much right in being a plumber, mechanic, etc., and many are *smart* and successful.

But there’s much wrong and nothing right about a *dumb* plumber posing as a deep philosopher.

I’d advise you keep your day job and avoid the night blogging.

One funny thing about this sudden NFL fixation – and it should be obvious that S.N.'s interest is wholly voyeuristic, given that the sport involves utterly primitive, reactive tactics and "strategies" (plus maybe some hot dong shots in the locker room after the 15 "interesting" minutes of the spectacle have elapsed – is that S.N.'s only other avowed "sport" interest is... golf.

I have to wonder what weight ball he rolls. I'll take the under at 8 lb.

Dude, from your screen name, and most especially from the quality of your comments, I have to think you never made it to college.

G-d, you could cut the projection with a knife.

"Hi, I'm S.N., and I have no idea how to use utterly primitive markup."

Please, please tell everyone about your postsecondary education, rejected 60-year-old gasbag. It will be fung, mang.

Time for another break, sort of, for presidential politics.
I say “sort of” because there’s still a tie in to some of the current topics (e.g. abortion, Planned Parenthood, liberalism, lying.).

Broom Hilda Hillary, who’s done enough to jeopardize babies in the womb to win Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, has also taken steps to jeopardize our national security.

Hillary’s a Yale-educated lawyer and so may be familiar with at least one of the multiple statutes** she’s broken:
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
(f)
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of HIS trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to HIS superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
………………..
I can imagine Hillary’s defense now: But see, the statute says “HIS”, not “her”!

But, as with Planned Parenthood, Hillary has yet to be pestered by the Attorney General or a special prosecutor or a grand jury or whatever else high profile law-breaking liars are normally subjected to.

Maybe that’s because this country is largely run by liberals and other law-breaking liars.
………………
** http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/18/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-sho…

1) A hate of, or at least aversion to, men. Or at least to a certain KIND of man – the traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y kind.
2) An affinity instead to the feminized man and the increasingly feminized culture.
3) An aversion to intense competition.
4) An aversion even to playing by the rules.

Bwahahaha!

Where I'm from, men* kill, eviscerate, and butcher various animals for fun and groceries. This is both considerably manlier and much more useful than football.

I don't see what's so "masculine" about prancing around a field in tights and throwing balls back and forth to each other. I've never really followed it much, mainly just because I don't know the rules, since my dad, despite being a lumberjack, thought it was more interesting to do things outside (fishing, hunting, hiking, etc.) or read a freaking book (often out loud to us kids), or maybe play some chess or checkers, buy, fix up, and resell old tractors and trucks (he liked giving things a second lease on life) or watch the news, educate himself about political issues, etc., rather than sit around and watch a bunch of grown men play a game and get paid obscene amounts of money for it.

I love hockey, though. Playing and watching.

And I'm actually going to my first football game in a few weeks. One of my former students with whom I pall around (nice kid, rocket scientist) wants to take me to see a home game because I admitted that I've been here for five years and never seen a football game.

*And some women.

^Oh, and speaking of "competition," a lot of the regulars around here have made it pretty GD far through a, uh, competitive educational system. Still wondering about SN's actual achievements in life, educational experience, etc. I mean, since he's such a competitive guy and all, I'm sure he'd love to let us know.

See Noevo@1973

Dude, from your screen name, and most especially from the quality of your comments, I have to think you never made it to college.

From your condescension I have to think you have some sort of degree and from your immunity to reason I have to think it didn't serve you very well.

There’s nothing wrong and much right in being a plumber, mechanic, etc., and many are *smart* and successful.

Why are they only *smart* and not smart? Honestly, I've found that skilled tradespeople tend to be very intelligent in general and in particular in their field. I'd hazard that the average licensed plumber is more of an expert in his/her field than the average bachelor's degree holder is in his/her major.

But there’s much wrong and nothing right about a *dumb* plumber posing as a deep philosopher.

Because that list of yours in #1945 os the pinnacle of deep thought? Don't kid yourself buddy.

I’d advise you keep your day job and avoid the night blogging.

As Narad said in #1975, L2html.

One last note, I'm almost certain JustaTech is a patient care tech, not an automotive tech. Before we start denigrating professions and questioning other's intelligence, let's try to at least get the profession correct first, yeah?

It is sort of sad in its predictability how the deceitful creep has reduced to flinging clumsy insults at random...

...although, I confess to some level of morbid curiosity about people in extremis insanus, like it.

Can you think of any other items, besides pro football, that I could add to my #1945 list?

personal freedom
Equal rights
Democratic societies
Literacy
Education for all
Universal suffrage
Scientific progress
Professional sports
Internet

Should I keep going?

Morbid curiosity, that pretty much sums it up: where might this go next? What will be the form of the next hanging curve to be smacked out of the park?

See Noevo@1945

1) A hate of, or at least aversion to, men. Or at least to a certain KIND of man – the traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y kind.

I grew up learning that the so called "traditional man" respected women, was intellectual, and was confident enough not to have to constantly prove how tough he is. You seem to be thinking of a frat boy and there's a reason we don't call them frat men.

JP@1977

I don’t see what’s so “masculine” about prancing around a field in tights and throwing balls back and forth to each other.

Despite the example set by some pro athletes there's also absolutely nothing masculine about violence against women.

...since my dad, despite being a lumberjack...

He obviously wasn't a true lumberjack.

I love hockey, though. Playing and watching.

Same here (though I haven't played since high school). Being half Canadian everyone in my family played, including my mom and sister.

To JP #1977:

Your dad sounds like a good guy. And it’s too bad more kids aren’t exposed to the kind of outdoors-y, manual, self-reliant upbringing you apparently had.

Pro football certainly isn’t all-important. I just brought it up as it’s somewhat emblematic, I think, of *some* of the things I think *most* liberals detest.

Maybe I’ll add “aversion to hunting/fishing” to my #1945 list.

where might this go next?

I'm going with "he gets busted for something."

Maybe I’ll add “aversion to hunting/fishing” to my #1945 list.

Avid hiking fisherman (hand-line or rod, or spear if I'm in the tropics) calling in to let the creep know its only digging itself deeper.

I just brought it up as it’s somewhat emblematic, I think, of *some* of the things I think *most* liberals detest.

It's a curious explanation for someone asking who likes pro football, and then going into a petty tirade about someone saying they don't hate it.

Dishonest creep is dishonest. Who knew.

Your dad sounds like a good guy. And it’s too bad more kids aren’t exposed to the kind of outdoors-y, manual, self-reliant upbringing you apparently had.

He was, and he was a good sight more impressive of a man than you are, based on the impression you've given over the past months.

He was pretty much a born feminist, in the sense that he respected women as human beings first and foremost; he was always emphatic that a woman's worth is not based on her looks, he never treated my brother and I any differently - he always brought me along on any "guy" activities that I expressed interest in, like fishing - and he did his fair share around the house, although more of the outdoor stuff than the indoor stuff. He never was much of a cook, though.

I don't know what his position on abortion was, since it never came up in conversation, but he pretty consistently voted pretty much straight-ticket Democrat, because he was smart enough to realize that the Republican party is not the party of the working man. And he and my mom definitely used birth control; two kids was enough.

He was never religious; he thought it was all a bunch of "hocus pocus," although he never called himself an atheist, either. For that reason alone, and for one other major reason, people like you somehow believe that he is now surely burning in hell, which I find an utterly repugnant, disgusting, barbaric belief. In general.

Same here (though I haven’t played since high school). Being half Canadian everyone in my family played, including my mom and sister.

Yeah, I haven't played in years myself. Given where I live, though, I should be able to find some folks to play with; maybe I'll look into it this year. It'd be fun and good exercise once the winter starts cramping my biking-and-long-aimless-walks style.

I'm finding SN's views of people based on sports amusing. . But I guess the fact I find pro football boring as heck makes me lacking in some way.

And...it's pretty insulting what he said about JustaTech. I'd rather read what he posts over SN's lies and misrepresentations any day.

@gaist: How many internets do you want for the next show?

The only thing I've said about football on this thread was in response to SN's question about why I posted "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye." And it was this:

For the crowd-chant connotations. I guess I don’t really think of it as sport-specific. But it feels more classically baseball than football to me.

I'm not sure whether he was misstating that in order to provoke a response or whether his reading comprehension is really that poor. There are precedents for both.

But happily, I don't actually care. I mean, it seems like his main aim at this point is just hanging on until the post count hits 2000 and then taking credit for it, anyway. And that's harmless, if pathetic.

Even still, though. I guess I'm adding football to the list of things I refuse to answer questions from SN about on the grounds that he's just going to tell me what I think about them anyway, no matter what I say.

Just on general principle.

I'm amused by SN portraying liberal men as both promiscuous womanizers, perversely fornicating while simultaneously being feminized and not "traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y" men. I would pay good money would love to witness SN telling some of the liberal men I know that they are feminized wimps (that goes for some of the gay men I know too).

Personally I am quite capable of killing, cleaning, cooking and eating animals (rabbits and pheasants mostly) and I spent much of my youth fornicating and hanging out in biker bars (sometimes simultaneously) where liberal values reigned and feminized wimps didn't last very long.

In any case, how does that limp-wristed womanizer thing work? It reminds me of the abuse I used to have shouted at me when I had long hair (and plenty of female attention), which I always suspected often came from gay men in denial. I suspect SN is envious of all the perverse sex with multiple partners liberals enjoy and tired of tying himself down to one sexual partner for life (that's assuming he has one, which seems unlikely). I also suspect pornography use is far more common among those who torture themselves into repressing their natural sexuality through fear of a vicious sky fairy than among those who enjoy sex without guilt.

Sport? I always preferred playing rugby to any other sport, even those as macho as golf; I used to get great satisfaction from tackling and bringing down guys much bigger then me. I enjoyed playing soccer too, but don't much enjoy watching it though my wife, unaccountably, has gotten into it. Oh, and all that protective gear in American Football (I assume that's what he is referring to) looks a bit wimpish to me. Sorry. Now Australian Rules* Football, there's a macho sport.

God wants you to suffer so you can reap the rewards of eternal life after you are dead? Are you sure that isn't a line fed by the ruling classes to gullible people to persuade them to keep working, shut up and stop complaining? That kind of idiocy leads to phenomena like Mother Teresa who said, "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.". Monstrous.

* Ironic since it doesn't appear to have many rules to speak.

@Krebiozen (1992): I love to watch Aussie Rules (?) Football. That's one sport - along with Rugby - that I find fun to watch when I can get it (since I don't pay for any cable sports channels and rarely bother to navigate the free ones). I also have an inexplicable enjoyment of cricket...

Yeah, Mother Teresa is a fine example. Tell the poor that suffering is good for them. Run off for the best and most expensive care for herself when ill...Typical Catholic, in my mind. Suffering is fine for others but I deserve better.

See has an out dated set of stereotypes of masculinity, doesn't he?
OBVIOUSLY he's never run into bears in the woods near the Russian River.

Closer to home, my father was not an outdoorsy fellow- he loved cities, worked in offices and couldn't fix plumbing or autos. He was average height, enjoyed fashion and museums as well as opera. His brother - who was gay and out 50 years ago- was the tall, strapping guy pursued by men and women alike- HE was the one with the cabin in the woods 100 miles away. But he did like the opera as well.

The old way of thinking supposed that sexual orientation and tastes or interests aligned because 'HORMONES did it!'
instead of admitting that to outsiders all gay people are the same based on that viewer's ignorance.

Even closer to home: the young gay men who hang out next door smoking on the balcony look pretty masculine to me.

’m not sure whether he was misstating that in order to provoke a response or whether his reading comprehension is really that poor.

No, he's pulling his usual re-write of facts to make them comply with how he thinks things should be.

Shay, I think in See's universe women like you, me and JP shouldn't even exist.
Or else, we're just the bad examples for the good girls to shirk.

Oh lookie!
We're within stretching distance of 2000!

To JP #1988:

Again, lots of good stuff about your dad.
You were fortunate to have him.
...............
“I don’t know what his position on abortion was, since it never came up in conversation…”

I can understand. Abortion wasn’t much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, prior to about 1973.

“… but he pretty consistently voted pretty much straight-ticket Democrat…”

Well, nobody’s perfect. Not even your dad.

“He was never religious; he thought it was all a bunch of “hocus pocus,” although he never called himself an atheist, either. For that reason alone, and for one other major reason, people like you somehow believe that he is now surely burning in hell, which I find an utterly repugnant, disgusting, barbaric belief.”

I would probably find it utterly repugnant, disgusting, barbaric, too.
I’d never say someone is surely burning in hell, and I can’t imagine any other true Catholic would either.
We don’t know.
Sure as hell, the RCC hasn’t even declared Judas Iscariot is in hell. Although I don’t like his chances.

Might as well get this over with…
And a one a and a two a…

Well, the historic moment has arrived – 2000 comments!

To which about all I can say is “You’re welcome.”

I couldn’t have done it alone, of course.
I was responsible for perhaps 20% of that total, and about 80% of the other 80% was about me or my posts.
And you invariably were trying to poop on me.

So have a party, party poopers.