Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori 67: Stop reading - it'll give you ideas


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, hollyfeller said:

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2019/05/24/the-world-of-the-handmaids-tale-not-completely-bad/

If Lori and/or Ken read here, I would truly love to see what they have to say about this.

Especially this...

  Reveal hidden contents

What is Biblical About the Practices of the Republic of Gilead?

What follows are several things that are in fact Biblical about the Republic of Gilead:

...

4) Gilead’s practice of considering women to be the property of men is a Biblical concept. The Bible list’s a man’s wife as one of his possessions in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17). In the Scriptures adultery and pre-marital sex were not just considered sexual sins, but also a property crime against either the father of the virgin woman or the husband of the betrothed woman or wife (Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:20-22).  The problem in Gilead though is that they treated unmarried women as the property of the state which is a violation of the God given right of ownership of the father over his daughter.

 

The article, the comments...what in God's holy name have I just read? :shock:

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, hollyfeller said:

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2019/05/24/the-world-of-the-handmaids-tale-not-completely-bad/

If Lori and/or Ken read here, I would truly love to see what they have to say about this.

Especially this...

  Hide contents

What is Biblical About the Practices of the Republic of Gilead?

What follows are several things that are in fact Biblical about the Republic of Gilead:

...

4) Gilead’s practice of considering women to be the property of men is a Biblical concept. The Bible list’s a man’s wife as one of his possessions in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17). In the Scriptures adultery and pre-marital sex were not just considered sexual sins, but also a property crime against either the father of the virgin woman or the husband of the betrothed woman or wife (Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:20-22).  The problem in Gilead though is that they treated unmarried women as the property of the state which is a violation of the God given right of ownership of the father over his daughter.

 

I swear this man is psycho....

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered how long it would take before one of them decided HMT was cool. 

He brings up one pertinent point tho.... and man I hate even entertaining anything this crazy bastard has to say buuutt:  the fewer children middle ground & left leaning people have, the harder it will be to fight the crazy in the future.  The rest of us have to hope that enough of the children from the mega-families turn & run from extremism.  

These people scare the living hell out of me. 

  • Upvote 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiot thinks it's "biblical". He quotes OT scriptures which are NOT binding to NT believers. Again, these idiots wouldn't know Christ if he stood in front of them. 

  • Upvote 16
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, feministxtian said:

The idiot thinks it's "biblical". He quotes OT scriptures which are NOT binding to NT believers. Again, these idiots wouldn't know Christ if he stood in front of them. 

Yeah, right?  That adjective "biblical" is very problematic because it's understood to mean "godly" or "Christian".  Biblical to me just means that it's in the Bible.  Genocide is biblical, polygamy is biblical, slavery is biblical, killing your children is biblical, chopping off foreskins and taking them as trophies is biblical, stoning adulterous people is biblical, giving your daughter away as a prize is biblical, etc... 

So "biblical gender roles" says absolutely nothing to me.  Jesus spoke with women, women followed him and helped finance his ministry. Jesus blessed the children and told those who wanted to shove them away that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.  Jesus ate with anyone who would share the table with him, and eating with someone back then was quite the statement.  Jesus often elevated the faith of women. 

Yep, BGR guy, Lori, Dave, Trey, all those so-called "christians" who love to congregate around Lori would probably call Jesus a heretic.

7 hours ago, Loveday said:

he article, the comments...what in God's holy name have I just read? :shock:

I won't even go over there and read it. I know it will send my blood pressure soaring.

9 hours ago, Liza said:

My father was agnostic and  my mother really believed in Jesus and in practicing his teachings  (that is true Christianity to me) .

Yes, that's true Christianity to me too. Jesus calls us to receive his grace and follow Him. 

 

9 hours ago, Liza said:

I believe that if we try to follow the two greatest commandments .. love God, love self and love others as we do the self, to the best of our ability, that pretty much encompasses everything.  Do no harm ... love ... give ... be generous in all it's senses. 

Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we all lived like that? But no, those who thirst for power ignore the words of Jesus and use the parts of the Bible that suit them to control everyone they perceive to be below them.  

 

9 hours ago, Liza said:

She mouths off about false teachers all the time, but it is she who is the false teacher.  Isn't that always the case? 

I agree. Lori is a teacher of law that leads to death.  She really needs to encounter grace and start preaching that for a change. 

  • Upvote 10
  • Love 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Loveday said:

The article, the comments...what in God's holy name have I just read? :shock:

A declaration of war on women. As far as I'm concerned, challenge accepted. 

It seems that he edited his original statements.  Originally he said: 

"We must take away the rights America has granted to women since the mid-1800s. This means taking away women’s right to own property and limiting the ability of women to work and earn money. It means placing restrictions on how many women may enter higher education. In other words, it means making women completely dependent on men for their economic provision. And it absolutely means taking away women’s right to vote." 

I don't see that there anymore, but I do see this: 

"The removal of the ability of women to own property and placing them back under the ownership of men is the only way we will restore the mutual dependency that God designed there to be between men and women.  Also, the removal of no-fault divorce laws and once again making divorce very difficult would help to re-secure the institution of marriage.  These changes along with the reinstating and enforcing of the fornication laws America once had would bring men back to the marriage table in droves. And America’s families and fertility rates could once again be restored."  

  • Upvote 4
  • WTF 10
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hollyfeller said:

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2019/05/24/the-world-of-the-handmaids-tale-not-completely-bad/

If Lori and/or Ken read here, I would truly love to see what they have to say about this.

Especially this...

  Hide contents

What is Biblical About the Practices of the Republic of Gilead?

What follows are several things that are in fact Biblical about the Republic of Gilead:

...

4) Gilead’s practice of considering women to be the property of men is a Biblical concept. The Bible list’s a man’s wife as one of his possessions in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17). In the Scriptures adultery and pre-marital sex were not just considered sexual sins, but also a property crime against either the father of the virgin woman or the husband of the betrothed woman or wife (Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:20-22).  The problem in Gilead though is that they treated unmarried women as the property of the state which is a violation of the God given right of ownership of the father over his daughter.

 

The guy also states that it is biblical to marry off a 12-year-old and that consent is not a biblical concept ?

"So, God’s allowable age for marriage to a woman is when she shows the signs of puberty, development of her breasts, growth of pubic hair and she has had a period.  At that point it is perfectly moral for her to be married."

Spoiler

And in the New Testament the Apostle Paul gives us another qualification for when a girl becomes a woman and is ready to be married:

“36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

I Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)

The phrase “if she pass the flower of her age” refers to if she has had a period.

So, God’s allowable age for marriage to a woman is when she shows the signs of puberty, development of her breasts, growth of pubic hair and she has had a period.  At that point it is perfectly moral for her to be married.

And her “consent” is not required by God.  And God does not grant her the “agency” that we believe women have today. It is her father’s decision (Exodus 22:16-17).  And there is absolutely nothing unbiblical about arranged marriages (Jeremiah 29:6).  Also, it is not immoral for men much older to marry younger women.

And just for a little historical context on marriage which is sorely lacking in today’s world listen to what Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated about the Jewish view of early marriage:

 “As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.”

5

 

Edited by squiddysquid
  • Angry 2
  • Disgust 15
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, delphinium65 said:

A declaration of war on women. As far as I'm concerned, challenge accepted. 

It seems that he edited his original statements.  Originally he said: 

"We must take away the rights America has granted to women since the mid-1800s. This means taking away women’s right to own property and limiting the ability of women to work and earn money. It means placing restrictions on how many women may enter higher education. In other words, it means making women completely dependent on men for their economic provision. And it absolutely means taking away women’s right to vote." 

I don't see that there anymore, but I do see this: 

"The removal of the ability of women to own property and placing them back under the ownership of men is the only way we will restore the mutual dependency that God designed there to be between men and women.  Also, the removal of no-fault divorce laws and once again making divorce very difficult would help to re-secure the institution of marriage.  These changes along with the reinstating and enforcing of the fornication laws America once had would bring men back to the marriage table in droves. And America’s families and fertility rates could once again be restored."  

This is the most frightening, and the most infuriating, thing I've read since I joined FJ. 

  • I Agree 18
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, squiddysquid said:

The guy also states that it is biblical to marry off a 12-year-old and that consent is not a biblical concept ?

"So, God’s allowable age for marriage to a woman is when she shows the signs of puberty, development of her breasts, growth of pubic hair and she has had a period.  At that point it is perfectly moral for her to be married."

  Reveal hidden contents

And in the New Testament the Apostle Paul gives us another qualification for when a girl becomes a woman and is ready to be married:

“36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

I Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)

The phrase “if she pass the flower of her age” refers to if she has had a period.

So, God’s allowable age for marriage to a woman is when she shows the signs of puberty, development of her breasts, growth of pubic hair and she has had a period.  At that point it is perfectly moral for her to be married.

And her “consent” is not required by God.  And God does not grant her the “agency” that we believe women have today. It is her father’s decision (Exodus 22:16-17).  And there is absolutely nothing unbiblical about arranged marriages (Jeremiah 29:6).  Also, it is not immoral for men much older to marry younger women.

And just for a little historical context on marriage which is sorely lacking in today’s world listen to what Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated about the Jewish view of early marriage:

 “As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.”

5

 

So what is the "biblically" moral age for a male to get married? These child molesters want to rape girls, and are much older than the children they seek to dominate. I would prefer two twelve year old children marrying each other  (not that this is a good idea either)  rather that a twelve year old girl and a thirty year old man. Nasty fucks hiding their pedophile predilections behind the bible.  Nope. Ugh.

Just now, Loveday said:

This is the most frightening, and the most infuriating, thing I've read since I joined FJ. 

I have to hope that this is an extremist fringe belief, and that Gilead will not ever be real in the US.  That's a sick bastard who wrote that shit. 

I will never be owned by any damn man. As a black person, the very though of being owned by anybody is repellent to the core of my soul. I would rather be dead.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Nasty fucks hiding their pedophile predilections behind the bible.  Nope. Ugh.

Pedophiles for Jesus!  

Incest is common! 

Starvation isn't a bad way to die!  

If your kids are in need and you can't provide because the man is gone  - stand outside  and God will rain manna and money upon you!

There is no such thing as marital rape and it isn't really abuse unless you die - and that's a good thing.  God loves a martyr who stuck by her man!  Even though He secretly knows you provoked and deserved it, because female.  

Oh, Ken and Lori, your gifts,  they keep on giving.  

Edited by SweetLaurel
adding
  • Upvote 9
  • Sad 4
  • WTF 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

So what is the "biblically" moral age for a male to get married? These child molesters want to rape girls, and are much older than the children they seek to dominate. I would prefer two twelve year old children marrying each other  (not that this is a good idea either)  rather that a twelve year old girl and a thirty year old man. Nasty fucks hiding their pedophile predilections behind the bible.  Nope. Ugh. 

12 according to him and some perv Reverend he quotes ?

(there aren't enough puke emojis in the world to cover this)

Spoiler

And just for a little historical context on marriage which is sorely lacking in today’s world listen to what Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated about the Jewish view of early marriage:

 “As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.”

1

Though the government is ok with forcing an 11-year old rape victim to give birth, not that far from Gilead.

Edited by squiddysquid
Though the government is ok with forcing a 11-year old rape victim to give birth, not that far from Gilead.
  • Upvote 2
  • Sad 5
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, squiddysquid said:

12 according to him and some perv Reverend he quotes ?

(there aren't enough puke emojis in the world to cover this)

  Hide contents

And just for a little historical context on marriage which is sorely lacking in today’s world listen to what Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated about the Jewish view of early marriage:

 “As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.”

1

Though the government is ok with forcing an 11-year old rape victim to give birth, not that far from Gilead.

I don't see here where it says that 12 is OK for males to be married.  Some states in the US (not the  federal government) are OK with forced birth, others like mine, are not. Here in Illinois abortion laws were just liberalized.  States are pushing boundaries with the hope of overturning Roe V Wade, but there is little chance of their draconian proposals becoming effective.  And Gilead was much more than forced birth. Women must continue to participate in government and must vote, vote, vote. Gilead will never happen without violence, which is a risk as long as that thing is president. The tide will turn when he is out. 

  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, delphinium65 said:

"We must take away the rights America has granted to women since the mid-1800s. This means taking away women’s right to own property and limiting the ability of women to work and earn money. It means placing restrictions on how many women may enter higher education. In other words, it means making women completely dependent on men for their economic provision. And it absolutely means taking away women’s right to vote." 

And Jesus said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31) 

And he also said: " A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." (Luke 6:45)

And the apostle Paul said:   "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 7:39-40)

Goodness!!! the apostle Paul actually thought about the happiness of women!!!! BGR! open your Bible and read!

And let's not forget about the infamous Proverbs 31 woman, or Lydia, the seller of purple who lived in Thyatira. There's no mention of a man and no talk about Paul turning down her offer to host him and his companions.  

Most importantly, Jesus accepted the gifts from women, not asking whether they had their husbands' permission. Jesus' most loyal followers were women. I wonder why? Could it be that he actually treated them like they were precious and just as valuable and worthy of his time as the men? 

BGR might read the Bible but he belongs to those who use it against people. Reading the Bible and using it as a weapon against people does not a Christian make. 

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my period at 10. He’s saying I should have been eligible for marriage then. It’s sick.

  • Upvote 7
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, onemama said:

Reading the Bible and using it as a weapon against people does not a Christian make. 

Yeah, I hate weaponizing the bible. So abusive.

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken was over on Dale Partridge yesterday responding to the topic of to train up a child. He deleted this post twice and then posted it a third time because he didn't like that there were people calling him out on his bullshit. Here is one thread.

Edited to add he has now deleted his OP three times and it's on its fourth posting. LMAO

Spoiler

1815539924_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_26_25PM.png.0a13b61affbb01a7002db482aa49b64e.png

Spoiler

548035393_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_27_29PM.png.2ae682d06dcd983f28918fc52e8841b7.png

Spoiler

850087442_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_01PM.png.fc99a7fdb5698dfb2b00bb707edd46d7.png

Spoiler

1596033086_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_24PM.png.78d9b0693d64dab9d9d4a3636a98a88f.png

Spoiler

1414132264_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_53PM.png.45733e71ba96237c704dab8dd8eed215.png

Spoiler

305396862_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_13PM.png.9549f6e72df2575dacb90532c7ec8f98.png

Spoiler

625342581_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_34PM.png.c518214f9af36f274b6e72b8fae973dc.png

Spoiler

630906291_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_51PM.png.9e15ee6667d1cc411bd219c6d6d9fe4c.png

Spoiler

1106351059_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_30_09PM.png.d201aa658e28bc0202ead5a41b19e3fe.png

Spoiler

1523716438_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_30_33PM.png.f92aedf42955a78e678ae0698bcab35a.png

Spoiler

1309794388_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_31_00PM.png.7df50e1fdb4ce282f9d31fd119725178.png

Spoiler

1246239611_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_31_18PM.png.49908364a6f9e8a94c54b67d73097874.png

Spoiler

1734192176_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_56_55PM.png.1aa96bd386b0be20dcb95ac88cc48132.png

Spoiler

1601438484_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_57_08PM.png.4c46d4b347193497c73c24ef47340942.png

 

Edited by livinglongerthanyou
update
  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 13
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, livinglongerthanyou said:

Ken was over on Dale Partridge yesterday responding to the topic of to train up a child. He deleted this post twice and then posted it a third time because he didn't like that there were people calling him out on his bullshit. Here is one thread.

Edited to add he has now deleted his OP three times and it's on its fourth posting. LMAO

  Hide contents

1815539924_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_26_25PM.png.0a13b61affbb01a7002db482aa49b64e.png

  Hide contents

548035393_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_27_29PM.png.2ae682d06dcd983f28918fc52e8841b7.png

  Hide contents

850087442_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_01PM.png.fc99a7fdb5698dfb2b00bb707edd46d7.png

  Hide contents

1596033086_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_24PM.png.78d9b0693d64dab9d9d4a3636a98a88f.png

  Hide contents

1414132264_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_28_53PM.png.45733e71ba96237c704dab8dd8eed215.png

  Hide contents

305396862_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_13PM.png.9549f6e72df2575dacb90532c7ec8f98.png

  Hide contents

625342581_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_34PM.png.c518214f9af36f274b6e72b8fae973dc.png

  Hide contents

630906291_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_29_51PM.png.9e15ee6667d1cc411bd219c6d6d9fe4c.png

  Hide contents

1106351059_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_30_09PM.png.d201aa658e28bc0202ead5a41b19e3fe.png

  Hide contents

1523716438_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_30_33PM.png.f92aedf42955a78e678ae0698bcab35a.png

  Hide contents

1309794388_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_31_00PM.png.7df50e1fdb4ce282f9d31fd119725178.png

  Hide contents

1246239611_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_31_18PM.png.49908364a6f9e8a94c54b67d73097874.png

  Hide contents

1734192176_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_56_55PM.png.1aa96bd386b0be20dcb95ac88cc48132.png

  Hide contents

1601438484_Screenshot2019-06-01at3_57_08PM.png.4c46d4b347193497c73c24ef47340942.png

 

I commented a few times yesterday, but he just kept deleting and reposting his comment.  Jerk.

  • Upvote 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hollyfeller said:

I commented a few times yesterday, but he just kept deleting and reposting his comment.  Jerk.

Yup, that's how he rolls because he can't delete and ban on other people's pages. I could see he was getting pretty frustrated and maybe even angry. How dare women stand up to his bullshit right?

  • Upvote 9
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping back to Suzanne Venker for a moment. I have posted a couple of times arguing against her posts, and I’ve been verbally assaulted by this lady. This comment takes the cake. I sent it to Suzanne to ask if this sort of thing was allowed on her page. We’ll see if she responds!

Spoiler

6F667006-2560-460E-B999-FA1952F1D0F6.jpeg.5b7c81b0d45eab67d57911734e3bf394.jpeg

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Angry 1
  • Disgust 2
  • Sad 1
  • WTF 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ken what you and Lori did to your kids was not spanking. I know because what my parents did was spanking. It was a few swats over clothes or underwear. No beating kids for hours at a time. I have read the pearls book and it is filled with nothing but abuse. I don’t have children so maybe I don’t get a say but spanking of any kind is wrong. I watched it fail over and over again with my older brother who was stubborn and strong willed. Spanking is easy though. It requires no real thought or conversation. It also doesn’t apply to the real world. If I mess up at work I don’t get spanked or hit, I get talked to or written up. If I forget to pay a bill I get a fine not a beating. 

There is nothing you can say to justify beating your baby for hours because of spilled raisins. Not a thing. Even if he or she was the devil himself. That’s a child, a toddler no less. Sure they may not understand everything but you can help them. I have a puppy, not even 18 months, never hit him once. He gets told no and gets time outs or things taken away from him. He doesn’t understand the why. Hitting him would only make him fear me. I don’t want that. So why would I want that from a baby?

  • Upvote 12
  • Love 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of watching a horror movie today but now I don't need to with all these guys. I got my period in fifth grade. I was a child. Those men are sick. Lori is sick, they're all sick. 

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just turned 11 when I first got mine. Sure I could have had a baby but just because you can physically have one doesn’t mean you are ready for one. 

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are 2 questions for LoriKen: 

Would you have been perfectly fine with Alyssa or Cassie marrying at 12 a man of 26-30 and having a baby at 13? 

Would you have been perfectly fine with Ryan or Stephen at 26-30 marrying a girl of 12 and becoming a father when she was 13?

Because this is what you are advocating by agreeing with your vile commenters who push child marriages.  Or do you two only advocate that for your leghumper fangilrs and have different standards for your own children?

  • Upvote 22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Trending Content

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/finally-engineers-have-a-clue-that-could-help-them-save-voyager-1/
      GO SCIENCE.
      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      I love baseball but I'm dreading the new season because the White Sox ownership is THE FUCKING WORST. I watched Dominican League Baseball (Lidom!) over the winter and fell in love with their joy, spirit, and exuberance. The broadcasts were in Spanish and my Spanish is pretty weak but I loved catching phrases and repeating them. Bombe! I'm sad about MLB and Commissioner Idiota's busywork rules. But I love baseball, always and forever.
      I guess I don't have a point. Just bitching. Te amo mucho, Lidom!
      · 0 replies
    • WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      Happy International Women's Day!

      Humanity may have some work to do, to improve gender equality, but I was glad to hear that France has taken an important step to protect healthcare for women (and people of other genders who can get pregnant). 
      (The links are just to a UN page and the AP News.)
      Anyhow, love to y'all!
      · 0 replies
    • Giraffe

      Giraffe

      Feeling ragey this morning. I have a doctor's appointment this afternoon in the hope of getting help for an ongoing injury. I went to a (different!!) doctor late last year who completely blew me off. He wouldn't do diagnostic testin, he refused to send me to a specialist, and he just told me to "take it easy" and "take ibuprofen." I'm hopeful for today's appointment but I'm also feeling a SEVERE amount of rage at that doctor from last year! 
      · 6 replies
    • BlackberryGirl

      BlackberryGirl

      Well, the rash is back with a vengeance. It never completely cleared up. I saw the derm yesterday and they did another swab and yup, raging infection again, still? It is definitely strep skin infection. I am getting so damn tired and run down from this. Who the f would immagine being hospitalized freaking TWICE for a rash? 
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      So angry right now.  If I could return to Luxembourg tomorrow and renounce my citizenship in this stinking shitpile of a country I would.
      · 0 replies
    • PennySycamore

      PennySycamore

      My niece is going to be a seat filler at this year's Academy Awards.  Seat fillers are asked to wear tuxedos regardless of sex/gender.  If you see a pretty young woman with very curly hair, it could be my niece. 
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Yeah, that's me.  Though to be fair I am trying to learn Italian and Spanish.

      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      IT'S BASEBALL SEASON!!!!!
      ⚾❣️
      · 5 replies
    • mango_fandango

      mango_fandango

      It’s not supposed to be mosquito season right now but I still appear to have been bitten twice on the side of my foot. Bastards. I know I shouldn’t scratch but it’s so tempting… 😑
      · 0 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.