Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
stringfield = dildo assraped by mom and now hates families.
The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
And see how these assholes go personal, attacking my home and my mother. I made no attacks on anyone's home life. Such comments are unwarranted and without a shred of truth. I spoke in generalities in relation to the realities of the American home. I was not attacking any specific home just pointing out, they all have problems. If it somehow touched a nerve with you, that was not the intent.
It reminds me of a pivotal point, in the culture war and in my own life. It's one that is hard to explain to the young, because you kind of had to be there. It seems so silly and stupid in retrospect, but it helped to elect Clinton, due to how people like me took it.
Dan Quayle's attack on Murphy Brown's portrayal of single motherhood. I know, go ahead and laugh. But, I took it as a slap in the face and felt it was an attack on me and my family. We were not the Cleavers, but were we so unworthy, that a similar story could not be shown on TV?
To be fair, Quayle was not just bothered by the single mother aspect, but the out of wedlock birth. That was/is the social conservatives defense. I understood his point. He was still wrong. The defense is made in contradiction of the things I had been taught up to that point by my socially conservative mother and family.
I had been raised in the knowledge that God was my father and I needed no other as he was there to protect me. I also knew of the many admonitions against affliction of the widow and the fatherless child. My mother pointed them out to me frequently. And here was this Godless BASTARD attacking me. The social conservatives piled on and defended him. They never stopped. I don’t recall the televangelist ever telling them they were wrong. Robertson never warned them of God’s coming justice for their departure from his words, though he can find endless reasons to hope those plagues afflict others.
It proved them to be nothing but callous and heartless hypocrites. It still does when they attack the homes of children in reference to some dead fantasy of what a good family looks like.
Families will find their own shape. They will work fine. And you will all stfu. No one's going to force you to shut up. You will shut up because no one will be listening.
It reminds me of a pivotal point, in the culture war and in my own life. It's one that is hard to explain to the young, because you kind of had to be there. It seems so silly and stupid in retrospect, but it helped to elect Clinton, due to how people like me took it.
Dan Quayle's attack on Murphy Brown's portrayal of single motherhood. I know, go ahead and laugh. But, I took it as a slap in the face and felt it was an attack on me and my family. We were not the Cleavers, but were we so unworthy, that a similar story could not be shown on TV?
To be fair, Quayle was not just bothered by the single mother aspect, but the out of wedlock birth. That was/is the social conservatives defense. I understood his point. He was still wrong. The defense is made in contradiction of the things I had been taught up to that point by my socially conservative mother and family.
I had been raised in the knowledge that God was my father and I needed no other as he was there to protect me. I also knew of the many admonitions against affliction of the widow and the fatherless child. My mother pointed them out to me frequently. And here was this Godless BASTARD attacking me. The social conservatives piled on and defended him. They never stopped. I don’t recall the televangelist ever telling them they were wrong. Robertson never warned them of God’s coming justice for their departure from his words, though he can find endless reasons to hope those plagues afflict others.
It proved them to be nothing but callous and heartless hypocrites. It still does when they attack the homes of children in reference to some dead fantasy of what a good family looks like.
Families will find their own shape. They will work fine. And you will all stfu. No one's going to force you to shut up. You will shut up because no one will be listening.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yeah. You're so above the fray. You never name call. You = hypocrite.
Because you were from a broken home does not mean all homes are broken. Stop projecting your pain onto the world. You are so hurting inside. You just need a hug; maybe that will quiet your nihilist rage.
Straw man. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE, RETARD!
They are more prone to break up without the oppression of women that we once practiced. The divorce rates are not a departure from God or lack of desire for what had been the American dream. They are the product of making BOTH parties fully equal under the law, to join or dissolve a marriage. They are the result of freeing women. You can pretend otherwise, that it was a conspiracy by the Jews, fluoride in the water or whatever asinine point you think caused them. But you are an idiot, that can't read the facts.
The family dynamic has changed, forever. We are not going back, because to get there we would have to cross back over the liberation of women.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
God is stringield's father. This just proves how the social engineering agenda of monotheistic religion is to replace all males with a theocratic and omnipotent state.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yes you did, mongoloid.
Nobodies talking about divorce, queef. Stop changing the subject.
Nobody's trying to enslave women, family is not about that, despite your idiotic characterizations. The natural reproductive capacity of man and woman will always be something special.
Where did I attack your mother, you pos? Where did I make much of a personal attack on you at all?
I don't consider you calling me a fascist, statist, noahide Jew, neocon, et al., much of a personal attack. They are just silly comments that are easily ignored. If you want to make a comment about me and my character, go ahead.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You've called me plenty of names. We all have seen that.
Those aren't personal attacks, they're accurate descriptions of your worldview.
You're a lying, stupid retard who thinks you're smart for being an internationalist fascist. Really you're just of low character.
I have been talking about divorce from the start. I am not projecting my pain. I have used my story as a narrative to explain the changing social forces that I was awake to and you were not, because you were looking for Jews to jump out of the bushes.
Read the studies. Children of widows don't experience the same pain and do better than any group among those raised in a single family home. I can tell you why. I never missed my father and did not feel his loss. He did not abandon me. It did not raise anger in me. I saw the pain in my peers. My anger was raised when assholes like you attacked us and did so with reference to some fucking fantasy. It helps you live the lie, I guess.
Read the studies. Children of widows don't experience the same pain and do better than any group among those raised in a single family home. I can tell you why. I never missed my father and did not feel his loss. He did not abandon me. It did not raise anger in me. I saw the pain in my peers. My anger was raised when assholes like you attacked us and did so with reference to some fucking fantasy. It helps you live the lie, I guess.
Last edited:
You are an idiot. They are not personal attacks. They are attacks on my views. There is a world of difference between your ignorant comments about my political views and saying I was molested by mother. I don't even care about what you think that says about me.
It's just more indication that you are fucked in the brain and have an inability to form rational concepts, concerning the meaning of words, political views, the nature of the family or anything else.
It's just more indication that you are fucked in the brain and have an inability to form rational concepts, concerning the meaning of words, political views, the nature of the family or anything else.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No you've been shadowboxing with some strawman horror show version of family that you saw on tv one time. And your personal tragedies do not mean no man/woman families have been successful. A high divorce rate doesn't mean families are failing. I think a few stable years during formative years in a childs life can be enough to make them a decent functional person. Just because people get divorced doesn't mean the family is failing. That's just a non-sequitur, typical of you.
Nobody has attacked you. There's no lie here. Get over yourself. You suck at thinking.
Of course, the wisdom of it, the compassion and tolerance those verses were intended to encourage is lost on you. Yet, the supposed Christians will side with you finding common cause in your intolerance.
I came to reject the supernatural because of those hypocrites, but I retain the true meaning. The Bible is filled with pearls of wisdom. It's a shame more people don't look for them and instead search for a reason to hate within its pages.
You found reasons to hate without it. That proves the angry atheist, like Bill Maher, who blame all the problems of the world on religion, are wrong.
Some people are just fucked up and can find reasons to hate on the slightest things.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Your writing is verse now? Ok king james. You're a fucking joke.
it's not intolerance to think families work. I think gays should be allowed to have families. But the naturally reproductive union of man/woman still merits a special word.
So you don't believe in god , but you believe in the authoritrianism of religion? You're the hater.
Im an atheist. The specialness of man/woman union is based on science.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
how strange......you see only adaptation.....you fail to see the deterioration....."women have or are being prepared to be providers".....instead of "women have been abandoned to raise their children on their own"......you want the government to take on the role of the provider?......
first you deem the father unnecessary.....then you deem the child unnecessary......then you deem marriage unnecessary.....what's next?.....
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
As I've asked many times before. How comes you can tell the presence of a right wing partisan by the smell of burning straw.
RS never said that, never drew or inferred that conclusion so your comment is a complete and dishonest misrepresentation of his statements, i.e. a strawman.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Stringfield is just jealous of the possibility of others having two loving parents.
Dumbfuck. I am discussing changes in the basic social structure, the idea of the family unit and it's effects on crime and other social ills. Divorce played a role in that, duh.
It's been a primary force. The changes it has brought in the family structure are fundamental and will define the period. The family IS, as social conservatives argue, the foundation of our society. That was never in doubt, as it is key to our survival as a species and will have more influence over our evolving culture than anything possibly could.
I am not saying no one has a successful marriage. But marriage success is not improving, yet many of the problems caused by its general failure are subsiding. The kids from broken homes and single households contribute to these ills today just as they did in the years I referenced through personal narrative. Yet the numbers are down.
The traditional family structure is not as stable as social conservatives pretend and it probably never was. Look at studies now comparing violence or bickering in the home and it's effects on children. It may be worse than single parenthood, almost certainly in the widow or never married form.
The conservatives told us we had to stem the tide of divorce in some way. But, I think, they were wrong. Freedom in marriage and culture has allowed to adapt for the reasons I mentioned. We don't need to limit divorce.
That is not to say that traditional marriage is not a good way to raise a kid. It's just not the only one.
The social conservatives are still attacking the family, though. Whether they marry or not there are homosexual families.
Most conceived through natural processes, though you argue that is somehow impossible. You guys argue this in a form like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It does not matter, that they can't reproduce through homosexual intercourse. THEY REPRODUCE. They have children who need a family.
The social conservatives are still telling them that theirs is not a REAL family or is worthy of disdain.
Marriage is good because it creates stability in the home which provides for the best means of raising children. The children of homosexuals are as deserving of it as any.
You stand in their way counting the angels. But, it's not gonna last. You are going to lose as you have lost every battle before. If there is a God history proves he loves liberty.
Yes, apple, the mother plays a role in her baby's developement. It also requires her arms, legs, and nurture after it is out of the womb.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
the family is not breaking down. People can get divorced, even after having happy family years.
Homosexual families will be fine united in civil unions.
you seek to hide the reproductive truth, dark ages style. Man and woman are special in their ability to reproduce naturally, together, without outside intervention, so it's fine to have a separate word. It's meaningful.
I surmise your propagate your marriage revisionism deception because you want the state to pick up the tab for providing homosexual unions with children, so they don't feel bad. I'd wager that's your agenda. And you wouldn't mind raising humans in a lab either.
You pig headed dork. The analogy you put forth is sophmoric on its face and wouldn't stand any kind of intellectual test of honesty! Of course the zygote removed from the womb would die! That's the whole focus of the abortion debate. The POINT once again dorkpuss is that the wood is inanimate the zygote animate. The wood left on the pallet will not build itself. The Zygote left alone in the womb will...why? Because it is alive and animate and set in a course for birth; infancy; child; adolecent; adult~~~
As to the infant? Yes it will cry. Yes someone may rescue it....but that was not the analogy. The analogy was "if left alone". This brings up an important secondary argument...infants and young children require care or they die too.
Last edited: