The trick isn’t to save a poor kitten who is stuck in a tree and wants to be saved. The trick is to save a snarling tiger who went up the tree by its own free will, and will try to kill you if you try to save it.
 November 20, 2015 at 4:20pm
But almost none of the stories you hear about are like that. This woman, like most other people who share their experiences, didn’t do it to “capitalize” on those experiences. They share their stories because people urge them to write the stuff down and tell their testimonies.
As this woman said, it wasn’t even her idea to do this. A person gave her a journal, told her to write things down, and then she was urged by others to collect those writings and put them into a book. And then somebody told her she should put that book out for the world to enjoy.
Nowhere along the way did she actually intend to share these events. Other people told her to share them, and she just agreed to do it.
 November 20, 2015 at 3:37pm
Just in case I wasn’t clear, the sound of the stoneware dishes all snapping simultaneously was the noise we thought was a gunshot.
 November 20, 2015 at 3:35pm
Every time me and my brother hear about BLM, we think of “Black Mage” from Final Fantasy, because that’s the abbreviation for it in the game, BLM.
I kind of wanted to dress up as a black mage and go to a Black Lives Matter protest, but I figured the joke would be lost on them.
 November 20, 2015 at 3:31pm
Somebody who doesn’t understand a cell phone would claim the same thing: delusional and auditory hallucinations, it is just plain schizophrenia.
 November 20, 2015 at 3:30pm
My mom used to have these ugly old brown stoneware baking dishes that she cooked everything in. My grandma would come over for supper and to see us grandkids, and my mom would bake something in one of those ugly brown dishes. My grandma would eat the food, but then she’d express her complete disgust with the ugly dishes, and begged my mom to replace them. Grandma offered to give my mom some of her baking dishes, offered to buy her brand new ones, and even bought her some for Christmas one year, which my mom stuck in a cabinet and never used.
Well, when my grandma got sick and her body started to fail, the family started taking shifts at the hospital, just kind of waiting for the end to come. Well, my aunt, cousins, mom, and my siblings were all at our house watching TV, and my uncle and dad called from the hospital and said that Grandma had passed away. While my mom was still on the phone, we heard what we thought was a gunshot in the house. Everybody was in the living room together, so we knew it wasn’t any of us who made the noise. We started looking around the house to see what might have happened.
My mom walked into the kitchen and screamed. We all came running, and every last one of her ugly brown stoneware dishes were cracked or broken. My mom and aunt both were laughing so hard they sat on the floor to catch their breath. All of us kids were stunned and my aunt goes “She always said she’d get you to throw away those ugly dishes if it was the last thing she ever did!”
Just in case I wasn't clear, the sound of the stoneware dishes all snapping simultaneously was the noise we thought was a gunshot.
[-4] November 20, 2015 at 3:12pm
Consensual sex and masturbation hurts no one? Are you sure about that? Because I’m pretty sure it hurts a lot of people.
Think about it. A married man who has sexual consent from his mistress is still hurting his wife and kids. He’s destroying their relationship. A man who masturbates to porn rather than having sex with his wife is destroying his marriage. A mom finds out that her teenage daughter is masturbating or having consensual sex is hurt by that information.
That doesn’t even begin to include the amount of self-harm that is caused by these acts. There is an enormous amount of research that shows teenagers who are sexualized at an early age are almost guaranteed to have self-destructive sex lives later on, and it is also an enormous indicator as to who will end up addicted to drugs as well.
People who do not masturbate or engage in premarital sex are far more successful in academics, sports, the workplace, marriage, and life in general.
By most accounts, fraud and theft are far less damaging to society.
[-3] November 20, 2015 at 3:04pm
Yeah… I think God can give the go-ahead for the apocalypse now. I’m pretty sure we deserve it at this point.
[-4] November 20, 2015 at 3:01pm
You are an idiot if you think I was comparing the two, or saying they were equivalent.
What I said is that if you took an economics class, and the teacher was giving students information about how to commit fraud and theft, you would be upset about it. It’s not the teacher’s job to teach about fraud and theft in economics class. It’s not the teacher’s job to teach about perverted acts in sexual education.
And no, “perverted” is not a values or moral judgment. It’s the literal academic definition of anything that does not fall into the biological act known as sex: which is purely for mating of the sexes and procreation.
Anything outside of procreative sex is, by biological definition, a perversion of the biological sexual function. Anybody who claims otherwise is, in fact, making a morality based argument, saying that non-procreative sex acts are somehow not perversions of sex. That is an argument based out of personal preference, not an argument based on biology or science.
[-1] November 20, 2015 at 2:52pm
Thanks for the clarifications, HappyStretchedThin.
It astonishes me that such clarifications are needed, but I guess that’s the world we live in, where people just randomly inject their prejudiced and predisposed ideas into whatever is being said. I mean, why bother actually researching theology and philosophy on Biblical marriage when one can simply make up random nonsense and declare that nonsense to be true!
My history teacher in college warned me about this. He said you cannot view the past through the lens of the present or the future. You have to look at it through the lens of the past. But we live in a world where nobody has ever even read the works written by people in the past, so how could they possibly know anything about it?
This stems from something I was erroneously taught in college, that there is no such thing as authorial intent. Universities are teaching students that when you read something, it’s up to you to decide what it actually says and means, because meaning is subjective and the author’s intentions don’t matter.
I guess we’re seeing the fruits of that psychopathic ideology. I can write one thing, about one topic, and the people who read it just see whatever delusional crap they want to see, regardless of whether or not it has any relation to the topic, the text I wrote, or reality in general.
[-2] November 20, 2015 at 2:39pm
Mizurax, don’t be an idiot.
Please read the two words immediately after “birth control pills”. If you will notice, the words right afterwards are “and condoms”. Are condoms pills? You took it completely out of context and then went off on some kind of psychotic tirade regarding pills. It has nothing to do with pills. It has to do with birth control, and manipulating biology to remove all the good substantial parts and leave only the pleasure. It’s like junk food but in the form of biology. You have taken all the vitamins and minerals and healthy aspects of food out, and left only the pleasure aspects in. Birth control takes all the substance and meaning out of sex, and replaces it with trans-fats and high fructose corn syrup.
I learned long ago that people like you who take things out of context always do so as a pretext to feel better about their defects. So maybe I hit a nerve with you. Nobody reading what I wrote could have possibly come to the same conclusion that you did, meaning that you are projecting your own fears and insecurities onto what I wrote.
You are more than welcome to do that. This is a free country, after all. And you are free to believe whatever you want. I have seen some very intelligent and objective stuff come from you in the past. However, that intelligence and objectivity seems to have been abandoned in this particular case.
[-3] November 20, 2015 at 2:25pm
You remind me of the Aesthetes, who hit the last insane limits of beautiful lies. They claimed beauty was so important, that they would give anything just to see the beauty of a sunset or sunrise. And yet, contrary to what they claimed was important to them, they couldn’t even stay sober long enough to see the sunset, let alone get up in spite of their hangover and watch the sun rise.
You don’t actually care about sex or sexual consent, because you’re not willing to commit to it or sacrifice anything for it. You CLAIM that it is a huge issue and that you stand firm by that claim, but when it comes to having a hefty helping of self-control and valuing your family’s opinions, you flop over like a piece of wilted lettuce.
You don’t care about consent. You care about yourself, your selfish desires, and what you want.
I didn't see an actual rebuttal except for charges that you didn't back up. Not quite sure what to say to that except "Well, you're wrong. Thanks for playing - there's the door. Please see yourself out." But I do love to write, so...
"You don’t actually care about sex or sexual consent, because you’re not willing to commit to it or sacrifice anything for it."
The fact that you think sex or sexual consent must be a sacrifice is just so... backwards to me. Sex is wonderful, fun, dizzying, amazing, and natural. Sexual consent is loving, respectful, and morally imperative.
Yet you CLAIM that it can be none of those things. Despite the fact that it is to me, and millions or likely billions of other people.
But in a way it makes sense! You believe that marriage is consent to sex, so it only makes sense that you consider it a sacrifice. You're advocating for giving up personal autonomy in order to have sex. Whether someone wants to have sex or not, once married they've already consented - they sacrifice their chance to say no. Sex becomes an obligation, a requirement. It may be fun or loving, but above all it is an obligation.
That just sounds terrible to me. I can understand how you come to the conclusion that you do, but I'm glad to tell you that you're wrong. You're ascribing how you believe I *should* feel to me. But that's not how I feel at all.
To me it seems you are projecting. You've convinced yourself that others must feel as you do. But many do not. Such as me.
 November 20, 2015 at 2:07pm
I’m okay with that.
I would also accept “Blest senpai”.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:39pm
I think people are just irrational and don’t understand math, economics, or philosophy. So when ignorant people talk about these numbers, they don’t understand any of it. They just parrot what they’ve been told.
See, the idea that the “unemployment rate” only applies to people who are actively seeking work is absurd. The unemployment rate SHOULD be the number of people in the population who are capable of some sort of work that enriches the economy, but don’t engage in it. In other words, an 80 year old grandma who can teach people to crochet, but isn’t engaging in that type of work, is unemployed.
People on welfare and non-military government workers should all be considered unemployed, even if they have jobs. Because they are not actually contributing to the economy or creating wealth for the nation. A government job isn’t actually part of the economy, because government workers are paid with tax dollars, which means you are getting paid by stealing a portion of other people’s labor, rather than for your own.
Stay-at-home parents should NOT be considered “employed”. People who live off welfare and have given up on getting a job should NOT be considered “employed”.
These are nonsense statistics and nobody should trust them.
Good point Blest. I'm going to start calling you proffesor Blest.
I'm okay with that.
I would also accept "Blest senpai".
I don't agree with your idea that old people who don't do something they could do are unemployed.
That said, the way the government measures this is stupid. Many people who graduate school don't qualify for the government "unemployment numbers" because they haven't been "employed" in the past year. To me that high school or college grad struggling to find a job is just as unemployed as the 40 year old who lost his decent job and is trying to get one at Home Depot to put food on the table.
There are people like my roommate who just hit minimum retirement age after 7-8 years of unemployment, unable to find a job and forced to retire to have some money coming in. And, my current position has opened several half time positions that hired a half dozen or more people like me who fell off the unemployment rolls months or years before that job. Since we all ceased being counted before gaining employment, that further skews the numbers tremendously.
Basic math and a more basic problem. You delete us from the number of unemployed but my employment decreased the official number of unemployed I was no longer a part of because I had been unemployed so long before finding a job. So, I was added when I became unemployed and deleted after a year because benefits ran out even though I was still looking for employment. When I became employed, I was decreased from the total number of unemployed again like the half dozen or more in my area hired under similar conditions. After 6-7 years of this BECAUSE of the recession causing years of unemployment instead of several months under previous administrations, the unemployment rate no longer holds meaning or truth.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:29pm
Sorry, but you’re wrong. If it required them to “go out of their way”, they wouldn’t do it.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:27pm
I’ve been part of the workforce since I was old enough to push a lawn mower, which I believe was about 7 or 8 years old.
If you give kids jobs and work to do when they get out of school, they don’t have any free time to get into trouble. Not only that, but they earn money and learn actual life skills that schools are apparently incapable of teaching these days.
Not just mow lawns but shovel snow or make the grocery run for a shut in. Lot's of work if you want it but there are too many slugs on welfare.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:23pm
Good luck figuring out how to label my yellow star. I’m a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, Cherokee-cheek boned, German-faced, Spaniard-shouldered, Irish-bearded, Russian-livered, English-toed, Quapaw-hipped, Chickasaw-bellied, all-American man.
Gonna need some kind of really tiny font to fit all that on there, and 20/10 vision to read it.
The whole point of this is for visual identification. If you pull over Shaun King or Rachel Dolezal, and you ask them what race they are, they will say “Black”. But if you visually identify them, you will visually identify them as “White”.
This is offensive to people who identify as something other than their natural born skin color, so now police have to be politically correct and ask the person what race THEY think THEY are.
This should be mocked and ridiculed. I might drive down to Texas and do some speeding JUST so I can tell the officer I’m a martian when he asks for my racial identity. It would be worth the price of the speeding ticket.
 November 20, 2015 at 12:06pm
Actually, this is what they are teaching in universities today. The concept is basically that there is no such thing as authorial intention, and that words are like abstract art: they mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. There is no ACTUAL meaning, it’s all subjective, etc.
I kid you not. This is what they taught me in college a few years ago. There are even really famous writers subscribing to this theory. The English class that taught me this was taught by a lesbian woman, and she assigned a book to us in class on this topic and said we were supposed to read it and write a paper about it.
I read the description of the book, which said that the author was going to prove that there is no such thing as authorial intention. So I didn’t read the book. My entire paper on the book was just a couple of sentences that said something along the lines of “This book claims that there is no such thing as authorial intention. Therefore I didn’t read it, because if the book’s claim is true, there’s no point in reading it. If it is the author’s intention to prove that there is no such thing as authorial intent, then that intention does not actually exist and reading the book is an exercise in futility.”
My teacher was not only stunned by this, but was ANGRY that she had never actually noticed this contradiction herself.