Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL

[brewmama]

In a nutshell: Infidelity isn't a death penalty crime or sin. It wasn't at the time of Christ either.

Really? Why do you say that? Are you talking about Roman law or Jewish law?

 

[Crucible]

In a nutshell: Infidelity isn't a death penalty crime or sin. It wasn't at the time of Christ either.

I'll have to check to make sure, but wasn't the woman that Jesus rescued an adulteress about to be stoned to death?


Perhaps going by these:

Deuteronomy 22:22
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

 

[ok doser]

Really? Why do you say that? Are you talking about Roman law or Jewish law?

i'm curious too - the crowd who brought the woman taken in adultery apparently believed she was worthy of stoning

 

[Tambora]

Let's not forget the terminology used in those rape threads that women choose to be raped, that they asked for it and that they deserved it.

And, share the blame.

 

[ok doser]

if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you


if it does, quit whining

 

[Lon]

Really? Why do you say that? Are you talking about Roman law or Jewish law?

Nor to be taken in our own hands. Even they would have to have brought it before the elders. I was thinking of Jesus talking to the women who had been married 5 times and not married to the man she was currently living with. "Let him without sin, cast the first stone," and "go and sin no more."

I'll have to check to make sure, but wasn't the woman that Jesus rescued an adulteress about to be stoned to death?


Perhaps going by these:

Deuteronomy 22:22
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

I 'think' from commentary, that Rome didn't allow that. It seems they were setting Jesus up, one way or the other. I'd suggest they not only didn't do it because they had sin, but also because they knew they'd be in trouble with Rome taking the law in their own hands, because that was one law they were no longer allowed to impose. Remember when Jesus was on trial? They couldn't do it themselves. I've seen others counter this but I 'think' this is how it was happening at the time of Jesus and that infidelity was no longer allowed to be a death-penalty offense. Again, open to debate and I invite further research. To the best of mine, this is my understanding.

 

[brewmama]

Nor to be taken in our own hands. Even they would have to have brought it before the elders. I was thinking of Jesus talking to the women who had been married 5 times and not married to the man she was currently living with. "Let him without sin, cast the first stone," and "go and sin no more."

OK, Jesus said that, which is why we don't do it, but it was the norm back then. And yes, not to be taken in our own hands.

And the woman married 5 times was a different woman. She was a Samaritan.

 

[annabenedetti]

As far as Asperger's/autism, there should be greater understanding. Though you are very high functioning, this is not out of character with the symptom with my limited exposure (had a few students, was coached how to address the need). From what I understand, "this is not appropriate" is the response to the one with the condition and "try to understand the condition" to others who are unfamiliar with it. Still, it is a bit of a shock to see, but I have heard similar from others with your condition. I think the problem with the condition is that you are isolated to right/wrong in your condition. It isn't as socially conscious, if at all. This particular malady doesn't understand social expectation and interaction. It is hard to say what is true for one with this condition is true of all with the condition though.

As far as the thread, I'd remind people to try to understand this condition rather than making it a spiritual problem, however. I've no idea how to actually address the need in this light, but it is important for all of us to remember your condition and balance our response appropriately. I'd suggest you are doing rather well with it, and even able to integrate socially but I've no idea how much you are under the influence of the condition. The ones I've had in class were severe.

I have a relative with Asperger's, I'm familiar with it.

Asperger's is no excuse for what Trad said.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes I'm very aware of men who beat women because of insecurities. It started with my father then my stepfather who beat my mother so much that she lost three unborn babies. Then there are two brother in-laws who beat my sisters. One of them threatened me with a screwdriver when I was sitting in my car with my sister and then he spat in her face while calling her every name in the book. We had brought the kids for visitation. ...I have no tolerance for men who beat women.

That's terrible. I'm so sorry for what your mother (and her children, both born and unborn) went through.

That's the reality that Crucible is so blasé about. It puts the light of reality on his words, and on Trad's words. So easy for them to say that crap here, so easy to pretend to justify by their online trolling what happens in real life.

 

[Lon]

I have a relative with Asperger's, I'm familiar with it.

Asperger's is no excuse for what Trad said.

I think they have problems. Inappropriate? Yes. I have no idea from one case to the next, they don't 'seem' to all be the same. One kid I had for a year, said something like this every day. Inappropriate? Yes. Did I stop him or correct him every day? Yes. I'd not say you shouldn't, just to keep in mind what may or may not be part of his condition. Should we constantly remind him it is incredibly inappropriate? Yes we should.

I'm not sure if that leaves us on the same page concerning him or not :idunno: I just try to remember that mental issues are part of the discussion to whatever degree and I try to be sensitive to those conditions. The kid in my class was scary. His parents had to institutionalize him because they woke to him standing over them with a knife hovering over them.

 

[Crucible]

Nor to be taken in our own hands. Even they would have to have brought it before the elders. I was thinking of Jesus talking to the women who had been married 5 times and not married to the man she was currently living with. "Let him without sin, cast the first stone," and "go and sin no more."


I 'think' from commentary, that Rome didn't allow that. It seems they were setting Jesus up, one way or the other. I'd suggest they not only didn't do it because they had sin, but also because they knew they'd be in trouble with Rome taking the law in their own hands, because that was one law they were no longer allowed to impose. Remember when Jesus was on trial? They couldn't do it themselves. I've seen others counter this but I 'think' this is how it was happening at the time of Jesus and that infidelity was no longer allowed to be a death-penalty offense. Again, open to debate and I invite further research. To the best of mine, this is my understanding.

I never thought about that as far as the adulteress :think:
Rome allowed them to enforce their less severe justices, but in more serious matters, had to go to the Roman procurator. That was the whole reason they had to put Jesus in front of Pilate.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think they have problems. Inappropriate? Yes. I have no idea from one case to the next, they don't 'seem' to all be the same. One kid I had for a year, said something like this every day. Inappropriate? Yes. Did I stop him or correct him every day? Yes. I'd not say you shouldn't, just to keep in mind what may or may not be part of his condition. Should we constantly remind him it is incredibly inappropriate? Yes we should.

I'm not sure if that leaves us on the same page concerning him or not :idunno: I just try to remember that mental issues are part of the discussion to whatever degree and I try to be sensitive to those conditions. The kid in my class was scary. His parents had to institutionalize him because they woke to him standing over them with a knife hovering over them.

I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not comfortable discussing Trad's Asperger's. That's a place I don't want to go. If he wants to (and he has before) that's for him to do. All I'll say to you is that it's not an excuse for saying the stuff he says, and posting the stuff he posts.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Keep your story straight...

Just so that you can keep your story straight:

Why did you defend the known baby murderer/racist/eugenicist Margaret Sanger in this thread, the same Margaret Sanger who had direct ties to the KKK and Adolf Hitler?

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/...rgaret-sanger-was-part-of-euthanasia-society/

Sanger is talking about infant mortality rates and the miserable standards of living faced by children born into poor families, she's not telling anyone to kill babies.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3762757&postcount=177

 

[Lon]

I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not comfortable discussing Trad's Asperger's. That's a place I don't want to go. If he wants to (and he has before) that's for him to do. All I'll say to you is that it's not an excuse for saying the stuff he says, and posting the stuff he posts.

I agree and hope I've been general in my Asperger commentary. No personal offense or even personal discussion at all is intended, but only that we all not overlook it, if such plays a part at all.

 

[annabenedetti]

Just so that you can keep your story straight:

Why did you defend the known baby murderer/racist/eugenicist Margaret Sanger in this thread, the same Margaret Sanger who had direct ties to the KKK and Adolf Hitler?

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/...rgaret-sanger-was-part-of-euthanasia-society/



http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3762757&postcount=177

Oh, is that from your thread that has a fake photo of Margaret Sanger on the first page which you never took down, even though you were told it was fake?

Anyway, not very smart of you to not post the whole quote of mine, especially when the post has me saying "that quote was totally taken out of context." :chuckle:

So here's what you conveniently left out, and that's all I have to say to you, you're off topic.

That quote is totally taken out of context. Here it is, in context:

This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members.
The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.


Sanger is talking about infant mortality rates and the miserable standards of living faced by children born into poor families, she's not telling anyone to kill babies. Context is everything.


Having said that - no, I'm not an apologist for Margaret Sanger and I don't share her belief in the wickedness of large families, her willingness to talk to the KKK, her interest in eugenics... these are well know facts. All of these things don't change your dishonesty in calling Martin Luther King Jr. a baby-killer because he was given an award named after a woman who didn't support abortion, seven years before abortion became legal in this country.

 

[patrick jane]

I agree and hope I've been general in my Asperger commentary. No personal offense or even personal discussion at all is intended, but only that we all not overlook it, if such plays a part at all.

Actually I can't see how Asperger's and typing go together. Sudden uncontrollable outbursts don't jive with typing and posting it.

 

[Lon]

Actually I can't see how Asperger's and typing go together. Sudden uncontrollable outbursts don't jive with typing and posting it.

I'd only encourage a bit of research at this point. It is probably wise not to overtly discuss the matter in thread, as Anna has encouraged. As I've said, I've had to do some work on understanding this. I'm no expert, just had to go through some of it prior and I'll leave it with an encouragement to do a bit of research for oneself. -Lon

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Just so that you can keep your story straight:

Why did you defend the known baby murderer/racist/eugenicist Margaret Sanger in this thread, the same Margaret Sanger who had direct ties to the KKK and Adolf Hitler?

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/j...nasia-society/

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=177

Oh, is that from your thread that has a fake photo of Margaret Sanger on the first page which you never took down, even though you were told it was fake?

Yes! That very same thread! (Note how the racist isn't concerned that her beloved Margaret Sanger spoke to the racist/murdering Ku Klux Klan and received a dozen or more invitations afterwards from like minded groups, but is concerned that a photoshop of the Sanger's speech was done).

Anyway, not very smart of you to not post the whole quote of mine, especially when the post has me saying "that quote was totally taken out of context."

So here's what you conveniently left out, and that's all I have to say to you, you're off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti

That quote is totally taken out of context. Here it is, in context:...

Poor Margie Sanger, yet just another misunderstood baby murdering-racist-eugenicist.

Your little 'disclaimer' doesn't cut it here or anywhere else anna.

Why do you continue to defend Sanger even after all of the evidence has been presented, is your HATRED of the black race that strong that you'll turn a blind eye to all of the evidence presented?

 

[annabenedetti]

Okay, the photo I'll talk about, as it relates to your propensity to post from white supremacy sites, and your reference to "JBs."

(BTW, it's pretty humorous that your photo source is snopes. :chuckle

The original, real, authentic photo:

So what's in the center of that photo, aCW?

A cross.

Your KKK were Protestant Christians. Go figure.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Okay, the photo I'll talk about, as it relates to your propensity to post from white supremacy sites, and your reference to "JBs."

You're the one defending Margaret Sanger, the same Margaret Sanger who spoke to the Klu Klux Klan (and received a dozen or more invitations afterwards from like minded groups) and had direct ties to Adolf Hitler, not me.

(BTW, it's pretty humorous that your photo source is snopes. :chuckle

(Liberals just love their fellow liberals at Snopes.com, because amongst other things, they cover up the truth about Martin Luther King Jr. : http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp )

The original, real, authentic photo:

So what's in the center of that photo, aCW?

A cross.

Your KKK were Protestant Christians. Go figure.

My my, it finally comes out: annateddenni's HATRED of blacks is only surpassed by her HATRED of Christianity (why else do you think anna hates me like she does, it's because I defend God's design for human sexuality).

Note: Yet another post where annab refused to denounce the racist-eugenic-Nazi ties of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Racists of feather flock together...

Black Genocide: the Democrats Institutionalized Racism